soflarick

iTrader: (8)

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009 | Judicial Watch

I just read a news brief where the POTUS now says not to watch CNN. I guess CNN's more recent criticism of the administration has them in the same penalty box as Fox.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

edit: nevermind, found the blurb:

from:
'Now what?' Obama told some fellow Democrats | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

CNN and Fox.

and MSNBC.

and the blogs.

and the whole TV.

I think he also mentions miataturbo.net specifically.

JasonC SBB

Bernanke has arguably more power than Obama.
He presides over the most powerful cartel in the world, the central bank of the largest economy on earth. Having said that, he's really just a front man, same as Obama is. He works for the people behind him.

"Independence" = secrecy.

Central banking is the biggest anti-democratic institution today, where they make excuses to protect it from a nation's own legislature.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Which is why Jackson fought the National Bank till he killed it (the first version). Banks hold the real power.

JasonC SBB

Jackson killed the 2nd attempt too.

3rd time's a charm. A major reason the 3rd attempt succeeded is that the 1890s saw the rise of the powerful politically connected robber barons, and 2 of them, JP Morgan and Rockefeller, who owned the largest banking chains, joined forces (with the Warburgs or Europe), to write the Federal Reserve Act and begin the propaganda to convince the public and Congress to pass it.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

That's because everyone is criticizing him now and he doesnt want his fellow demoncrats to fear their constituents and continue to pass shitty *** bills. But then again, he didn't like those Town Hall meetings either when they did go back and just listen to them... what a conundrum.

soflarick

iTrader: (8)

People complained about the previous administration diluting our freedoms, but this new administration is moving like a freight train to take away our freedoms and private assets. Jason's right about it getting a foothold in the late 19th century, though.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

where here's the problem:

The Gov't started forcing banks to make bad loans. These loans were not based on a wise sound investment, but because it was the right thing to do; the fair thing to do.

Now, because the banks were now forced to stop being EVIL HORRIBLE DISGUSTING GREEDY institutions, they were there for you and me, to give us money at will. We didn't need collateral, we needed the need. How was I to have collateral when I had not the means in the first place. We were entitled to these loans that the banks were previously not handing out.

So because of these lax lending standards and the liberal use of adjustable rate mortgages put huge debt obligations in the hands of people unable to repay it, but they were entitled. But of course, the enlightened ones could not handle responsibility and defaulted left and right.

The problem here is, mortgage loans are purchased from banks, mortgage companies, and other originators. Then, these loans are assembled into pools. This is done by government agencies, government-sponsored enterprises, and private entities, which may offer features to mitigate the risk of default associated with these mortgages. Mortgage-backed securities represent claims on the principal and payments on the loans in the pool, through a process known as Securitization. These securities are usually sold as bonds, but financial innovation has created a variety of securities that derive their ultimate value from mortgage pools.

In the relatively low-return bond market environment of 2006 and 2007, optimistic investors snapped up mortgage-backed securities of lower and lower quality, encouraged by high yields and the imprimatur of the rating agencies. These investors were the first to be stung as the bad news trickled out.

:Crash Boom:

Now the greedy lenders had to raise collateral requirements to prevent profit losses of this scale again. I don't get it, cause our savior, Obama, gave them plenty of money to loan against to to keep them in business.

So in comes the ganster laywer economist Obama who thinks it's a good idea now to fix the current economic climate with telling banks like Citigroup and Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sac's to loans more! They are getting in the way of progress again! I mean, he rescued the banking industry signal handily after the evils republicans, under the Bush administration, did nothing to stop the God-sent democrats previous forced lending policies. How are business supposed to operate if they can't get loans. It's not fair I tell you. It isn't the right thing. These business didn't have a chance, they are entitled to these risky loans.

Sparetire

^Yes.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

hustler

iTrader: (6)

You forgot the part where this loan type because the industry standard and it was shoved-up consumer asses. It was somewhat impossible to get a fixed rate loan, and certainly impossible to get a fixed rate student loan.

You forgot the part where the x-CEO of Goldman Sac's Henry Paulison decided to let his old company's biggest competitor, "Lehman Bros" fail, then offered/forced the bail out program.

JasonC SBB

..which ex Goldman "Turbo Tim" Geithner carrying on. So the past 3 Treasury secs, under Clinton, Reagan, and Obama, are all ex Goldman Sachs. Nice, huh?

Oh and hustler, it wasn't impossible to get a fixed rate loan, it was just higher interest.


Remember that what happened was the reaction of the free market to the massive creation of money by the FED (creating it out of nothing), plus the manipulation of interest rates down by the FED, and the laws that gave incentives to loan companies to make zero-down loans (oringinally to "help the poor"). All distortions of the free market. They all have unintended consequences.

If the FED did not have government-licensed monopoly powers,
(a) it would wither and die just like the 1st and 2nd central banks under Andrew Jackson, and
(b) competition between government/FED fiat money and other currencies (e.g. gold or silver backed or non-debt-based fiat), would have limited the expansion of the money supply; banks would have run low on money to lend, interest rates would have risen, and there would HAVE BEEN NO BUBBLE to begin with.

The FED (controlled by the banking cartel), and the govenrment have a symbiotic relationship. The governments of the world ceded their authority to regulate the money supply to the banksters. In exchange, they get a BLANK CHECK funded by a money printing press, whose perpetual interest payments come from the income tax on wages. It is no coincidence that the income tax and the creation of the FED BOTH happened in 1913, because gov't needed a new income stream to fund this new central bank. The "right" like this system because it funds warfare. (e.g. Iraq war would not have been possible without the FED's virtual money printing press) The "left" like this system because if funds welfare. The FED/federal gov't alliance are both PARASITES on the productive.

Printing money does not create wealth, which comes from productivity. Printing money enriches those that control the press, and merely dilutes the money already in circulation.

Here's a good 20-ish page summary of how the recession happened from the point of view of free market economics:
The House That Uncle Sam Built | Foundation for Economic Education

Remember BIG BUSINESS HATES FREE MARKET COMPETITION. Wouldn't Tire Rack love to require expensive government wheel testing to kill the little guy like 949 Racing. Big Business LOVES regulation because they can bribe lawmakers to put in provisions that kill smaller competitros.

Screaming "Obama is wrong!" or "Obama is right!" does NOTHING to address the real issues. The partisan screaming just diverts attention away from the fact that both parties destroy the economy and enrich the fat cats. If you want to strike at the root, spend some time understanding how the monetary system works and how free market economics really works.