Utopia Talk / Politics / CEO's fear obama

habebe Member	Wed Oct 15 05:18:06 Job Creators Prefer McCain 4-To-1 Over Obama Last update: 12:06 p.m. EDT Oct. 8, 2008 NEW YORK, Oct 08, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Over 70 percent of CEOs fear an Obama presidency will be a disaster Chief Executive magazine's most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive's most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country. "The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they've ever been in recent memory," said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. "We've been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There's no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain's policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama's." For several months during this presidential election year, Chief Executive has conducted specialized polling of CEOs' attitudes on issues affecting national policy and the economy. During this period CEOs were first asked what policies and approaches would work best for business, energy policy and job creation. Subsequently, they were asked which presidential candidate's policies were best aligned with these prescriptions for growth. Even though CEOs rated McCain's policies over Obama's in the most recent polling, their support came with reservations, as can be witnessed by the B- grade given to McCain's overall policies. McCain received strong marks for defense and foreign policy but only a C+ on energy, environment and education. Conversely, Barack Obama's overall plan received a barely passing C- with four out of eight policy areas receiving D grades. Neither candidate received an A. "I'm not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I'm sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy," said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama. In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that "some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented." In fact, the poll highlights that Obama's tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs. "Overall, many CEOs are concerned about the future of the U.S. economy and its ability to compete in the global market, but they look to John McCain and hope that this self-described political maverick may yet shake up established thinking and not give into to the tired policies of the past," concluded Kopko. For additional information on the polling and to read the full story, go to: http://www.chiefexecutive.net/sept-oct-08/ About Chief Executive Magazine Chief Executive is a controlled circulation magazine that has been published since 1977. It reaches 42,000 chief executive officers and their peers, reaches a total readership of 228,000. Chief Executive Group facilitates "Chief Executive of the Year," a prestigious honor bestowed upon an outstanding corporate leader, nominated and selected by a group of his or her peers. Anne Mulcahy, Robert Ulrich, A. G. Lafley, George David, Fred Smith, Bill Gates, John Chambers, Michael Dell and Sandy Weill are just some of the leaders who have been honored during the award's 23-year history. Chief Executive also organizes roundtable meetings and conferences to foster opportunities for top corporate officers to discuss key subjects and share their experiences within a community of peers. Visit www.chiefexecutive.net for more information. For more info on Chief Executive magazine and its various polls, go to: http://www.chiefexecutive.net. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/job-creators-prefer-mccain-4-to-1/story.aspx?guid=%7BC1DD1C9D-629C-4813-8AF4-BE4A7EB61D16%7D&dist=hppr The more informed people are about economics the less they like Obamunism.
Master Bates Member	Wed Oct 15 05:19:48 CEO's should fear lampposts and rope for the next few years.
roland Member	Wed Oct 15 05:21:12 Like those are lining up for handout?
habebe Member	Wed Oct 15 05:22:05 "Like those are lining up for handout? " Yep, mainly due to government policies.
Master Bates Member	Wed Oct 15 05:24:53 The governmental policies of allowing them to set as huge golden parachutes as they want from the stocks?
eds Member	Wed Oct 15 05:28:02 More like they're concerned that Obama is going to maintain government revenues while giving 95% of Americans a tax cut by jacking their personal income tax. Every CEO is affected by that.
werewolf dictator Member	Wed Oct 15 05:31:15 http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/?mod=WSJBlog The Rich Support McCain, the Super-Rich Support Obama In Richistan, I wrote about a new political divide emerging among the wealthy. While most Lower Richistani’s ($1 million to $10 million in net worth) were voting Republican, most Middle-and Upper Richistanis (those worth $10 million plus and $100 million plus) were voting Democrat. Lower Richistanis tended to vote almost exclusively based on taxes. But Upper Richistanis placed a higher priority on longer-term societal issues like health care, the environment and education, which are traditional Democrat issues. Some say Upper Richistanis can afford to minimize taxes, since they have plenty of money even after the government takes its share. Others say the ultra-rich have better tax attorneys so they don’t care as much about tax rates. Yet a new survey shows that the Richistan split is not only alive and well, but it may even be growing. According to a new survey by Prince & Associates, voters worth $1 million to $10 million are favoring Sen. John McCain, while voters worth $30 million or more are favoring Sen. Barack Obama. The survey of 493 families showed: More than three quarters of those worth $1 million to $10 million plan to vote for Sen. McCain. Only 15% plan to vote for Sen. Obama (the rest are undecided). Of those worth more than $30 million, two-thirds support Sen. Obama, while one third support Sen. McCain. The reason? Taxes. Among Lower Richistani’s, 88% cited tax policies as being “important” in making their decision. Only 11% cited the environment, 22% cited health care and 45% cited social issues. Among the Upper Richistani’s supporting Sen. Obama, tax policies ranked last, with only 16% citing them as important. “Social issues” ranked first, with “policies dealing with wars” ranking second (67%) and Supreme Court nominations and health-care issues ranking next. Of course, in today’s populist politics, the only thing worse than being the candidate of the wealthy is being the candidate of the superwealthy. You can bet this is one poll that neither candidate will repeat on the campaign trail. But the survey offers an important insight into the effect of wealth on personal politics. Perhaps the old saying should be changed to: If you’re ultrawealthy and conservative you have no heart; if you’re wealthy and liberal, you have no brain.
habebe Member	Wed Oct 15 05:36:44 "More like they're concerned that Obama is going to maintain government revenues while giving 95% of Americans a tax cut by jacking their personal income tax. Every CEO is affected by that. " It is impossible to give 95% of people tax cuts in the US. Thats like giving people discounts on buying ice cream, who are not buying it, it's welfare. The super rich tend to be "guilty" of making ridiculous amounts of money. That is simple psychology, similar to many actors and such.
werewolf dictator Member	Wed Oct 15 05:41:41 yes, caring about humans in your society and over world is all about guilt trip more general, 135 iq people are like cloud strife (ron paul supporter i know). dukhats live in 115 iq area.
SStrickland Member	Wed Oct 15 05:41:55 Of course they are fucking afraid of Obama. Obama is going to make it harder for them to fuck us in the ass after years of asspounding. God damn cocksuckers dont even have the common courtesy to spit on it first OR give us a reacharound after. Pieces of shit.
habebe Member	Wed Oct 15 05:53:12 The last person that CEOs feared this much AFAIK was FDR, and we all know how wonderfull the grat depression was.
Master Bates Member	Wed Oct 15 05:54:45 For habebe: http://gra.../14/opinion/14opchart.full.jpg
werewolf dictator Member	Wed Oct 15 06:06:49 u mean fdr, the president who has 8.4% annual gdp growth average? yes he was terrible according to meth heads, he oppose hitler.
Master Bates Member	Wed Oct 15 06:09:41 habebe? You still there?
MurdeR Moderator	Wed Oct 15 06:20:21 "Yep, mainly due to government policies." habebe: What a load of crap. The government didn't force lenders to stick the poor with ballooning ARMs, nor did they force banks to leverage themselves to hell, nor did they force anyone to invest in mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps. The "free market" accomplished all that on its own.
werewolf dictator Member	Wed Oct 15 06:23:33 http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls GDP percent change based on chained 2000 dollars 1933 -1.3 1934 10.8 1935 8.9 1936 13.0 1937 5.1 1938 -3.4 1939 8.1 1940 8.8 1941 17.1 1942 18.5 1943 16.4 1944 8.1 1945 -1.1 average 8.4% 2001 0.8 2002 1.6 2003 2.5 2004 3.6 2005 2.9 2006 2.8 2007 2.0 average 2.3% i cant understand why americans kept reelecting fdr???
habebe Member	Wed Oct 15 07:19:09 MB, No i was off for a bit, I'm leaving thursday for PA so I have to finsish up some things. But as to your post, that is pure correlation, what specific policies have evidence to back up that it was such policies implemented by them to change the economy? "yes he was terrible according to meth heads, he oppose hitler. " Really? You mean Adolf Hitler? who in less than a decade as the unquestioned dictator took the worlds POOREST nation on earth, and turned it into the SOLE SUPERPOWER?I'm not calling for Hitler's policies, but merley showing that he just like FDR raised the GDP and appeared beneficial to the economy. WD, "i cant understand why americans kept reelecting fdr??? " GDP does not exactly even represent sound economic policy, if that was so then the great depression by your standards was a great economic paradise, right? I should also note that after he left, both Democrats and republicans largley supported limiting the amount of times you can be elected.
habebe Member	Wed Oct 15 07:24:21 "habebe: What a load of crap. The government didn't force lenders to stick the poor with ballooning ARMs, nor did they force banks to leverage themselves to hell, nor did they force anyone to invest in mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps. The "free market" accomplished all that on its own. " Yeah, right, like thos great free market institutions of fannie mae and Freddie mac.... The government by no means pushed for people to lend money to people who couldn't afford it in order get more minorites and people in general in more houses. Clinton pushed for it, Bush pushed for it, this is not a partisan issue in that sense, bothhad flawed ideas about it.
MurdeR Moderator	Wed Oct 15 07:33:03 "You mean Adolf Hitler? who in less than a decade as the unquestioned dictator took the worlds POOREST nation on earth, and turned it into the SOLE SUPERPOWER?" WTF??? SCOREBOARD!!! In case you missed it, the US fought wars across 2 oceans ... and laid the smackdown on both sides. If you think Germany could have pulled that off, you need to lay off the crack.
MurdeR Moderator	Wed Oct 15 07:37:52 "Yeah, right, like thos great free market institutions of fannie mae and Freddie mac...." WTF do Fannie and Freddie have to do with private institutions??? "The government by no means pushed for people to lend money to people who couldn't afford it ..." What the hell do you mean who couldn't afford it??? YOU couldn't afford it at those rates. The government did NOT mandate ballooning ARMs, and no matter how many times you try to ignore that fact, the fact does not change. Lenders got soaked because they tried to soak the poor. Those "people who couldn't afford it" manage to make their rent payments on time every month, often paying more than you do on your mortgage. Given reasonable rates, the overwhelming majority of them sure as hell could afford it.
habebe Member	Wed Oct 15 08:27:34 "WTF??? SCOREBOARD!!! In case you missed it, the US fought wars across 2 oceans ... and laid the smackdown on both sides. If you think Germany could have pulled that off, you need to lay off the crack. " What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? again, I'm not supporting his short sighted unsound economic policy, but in the short term it seemd good, the problem was it was usustainable growth that ended up pushing them intowar as the best way to keep up such growth was to steal the wealth of others. "WTF do Fannie and Freddie have to do with private institutions??? " Very little, and yet they flopped just as hard as the free market banks. What is worse is this bailout fueled by over printing money which will lead to inflation because they are incresing the growth rate of our currency unproportionatley to the amount of economic output, in the short term again, it looks good (the dow is up 900 some points) but thats because inflation m(price inflation, not monetary inflation) is not instant, but when it hit, it will be worse, these are the mistakes of the Weimar Republik. A great man once said "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme". As for the rest. "For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42 percent of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area; the target increased to 50 percent in 2000 and 52 percent in 2005. For 1996, HUD required that 12 percent of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60 percent of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20 percent in 2000 and 22 percent in 2005; the 2008 goal was to be 28 percent. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10 percent down." The banks are not 100% off the hook, but the Government had ALOT to do with it if not most. "Many believe that wild greed and market failure led us into this sorry mess. According to that narrative, investors in search of higher yields bought novel securities that bundled loans made to high-risk borrowers. Banks issued these loans because they could sell them to hungry investors. It was a giant Ponzi scheme that only worked as long as housing prices were on the rise. But housing prices were the result of a speculative mania. Once the bubble burst, too many borrowers had negative equity, and the system collapsed. David KleinPart of this story is true. The fall in housing prices did lead to a sudden increase in defaults that reduced the value of mortgage-backed securities. What's missing is the role politicians and policy makers played in creating artificially high housing prices, and artificially reducing the danger of extremely risky assets. Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down. Hear No Evil What some Congresspeople said about Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie also purchased hundreds of billions of subprime securities for their own portfolios to make money and to help satisfy HUD affordable housing goals. Fannie and Freddie were important contributors to the demand for subprime securities. Congress designed Fannie and Freddie to serve both their investors and the political class. Demanding that Fannie and Freddie do more to increase home ownership among poor people allowed Congress and the White House to subsidize low-income housing outside of the budget, at least in the short run. It was a political free lunch. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) did the same thing with traditional banks. It encouraged banks to serve two masters -- their bottom line and the so-called common good. First passed in 1977, the CRA was "strengthened" in 1995, causing an increase of 80% in the number of bank loans going to low- and moderate-income families. Fannie and Freddie were part of the CRA story, too. In 1997, Bear Stearns did the first securitization of CRA loans, a $384 million offering guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Over the next 10 months, Bear Stearns issued $1.9 billion of CRA mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie. Between 2000 and 2002 Fannie Mae securitized $394 billion in CRA loans with $20 billion going to securitized mortgages. By pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country, politicians could push for increases in home ownership and urban development without having to commit budgetary dollars. Another political free lunch. Fannie and Freddie and the banks opposed these policy changes at first through both lobbying and intransigence. But when they found out that following these policies could be profitable -- which they were as long as rising housing prices kept default rates unusually low -- their complaints disappeared. Maybe they could serve two masters. They turned out to be wrong. And when Fannie and Freddie went into conservatorship, politicians found out that budgetary dollars were on the line after all. While Fannie and Freddie and the CRA were pushing up the demand for relatively low-priced property, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 increased the demand for higher valued property by expanding the availability and size of the capital-gains exclusion to $500,000 from $125,000. It also made it easier to exclude capital gains from rental property, further pushing up the demand for housing. The Fed did its part, too. In 2003, the federal-funds rate hit 40-year lows of 1.25%. That pushed the rates on adjustable loans to historic lows as well, helping to fuel the housing boom. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and low interest rates -- along with the regulatory push for more low-income homeowners -- dramatically increased the demand for housing. Between 1997 and 2005, the average price of a house in the U.S. more than doubled. It wasn't simply a speculative bubble. Much of the rise in housing prices was the result of public policies that increased the demand for housing. Without the surge in housing prices, the subprime market would have never taken off. Fannie and Freddie played a significant role in the explosion of subprime mortgages and subprime mortgage-backed securities. Without Fannie and Freddie's implicit guarantee of government support (which turned out to be all too real), would the mortgage-backed securities market and the subprime part of it have expanded the way they did? Perhaps. But before we conclude that markets failed, we need a careful analysis of public policy's role in creating this mess. Greedy investors obviously played a part, but investors have always been greedy, and some inevitably overreach and destroy themselves. Why did they take so many down with them this time? Part of the answer is a political class greedy to push home-ownership rates to historic highs -- from 64% in 1994 to 69% in 2004. This was mostly the result of loans to low-income, higher-risk borrowers. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, abetted by Congress, trumpeted that rise as it occurred. The consequence? On top of putting the entire financial system at risk, the hidden cost has been hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the housing market instead of more productive assets. Beware of trying to do good with other people's money. Unfortunately, that strategy remains at the heart of the political process, and of proposed solutions to this crisis. Mr. Roberts is a professor of economics at George Mason University and a scholar at the Mercatus Center. His latest book is a novel on how markets work, "The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity" (Princeton University Press, 2008)." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html
Y2A Member	Wed Oct 15 08:31:13 "CEO's fear obama" good
MurdeR Moderator	Wed Oct 15 09:21:58 "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? again, I'm not supporting his short sighted unsound economic policy, but in the short term it seemd good, the problem was it was usustainable growth that ended up pushing them intowar as the best way to keep up such growth was to steal the wealth of others." You claimed that Germany was "the sole superpower" ... which is a joke. "Very little, and yet they flopped just as hard as the free market banks." Because they were obligated to back the loans given by private lenders as a result of lobbying by the banks.
MurdeR Moderator	Wed Oct 15 09:23:13 And none of what you posted addresses the balloon ARMs the low income borrowers got nailed with.
habebe Member	Wed Oct 15 09:29:24 "You claimed that Germany was "the sole superpower" ... which is a joke. " Of the time AFAIK, it was. The US didn't come into the Super power role until post WWII, the same goes for the USSR. "Because they were obligated to back the loans given by private lenders as a result of lobbying by the banks. " Once again. "For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42 percent of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area; the target increased to 50 percent in 2000 and 52 percent in 2005. For 1996, HUD required that 12 percent of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60 percent of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20 percent in 2000 and 22 percent in 2005; the 2008 goal was to be 28 percent. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10 percent down." These policies were not the result of banking lobbyists, but of domestic social policy that had a side effect effecting the economy. The banks still acted stupidly, but to blame them for most of this crisis seems to indicate ignorance of such policies of the gvenment.
MurdeR Moderator	Wed Oct 15 09:37:19 "Of the time AFAIK, it was. The US didn't come into the Super power role until post WWII, the same goes for the USSR." Again ... we fought massive wars across 2 oceans. No other nation on earth could've come close to pulling that off.
crownroyal Member	Wed Oct 15 09:37:36 "These policies were not the result of banking lobbyists, but of domestic social policy that had a side effect effecting the economy." Of course. "Posted on Sun, Oct. 12, 2008 Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers last updated: October 12, 2008 10:13:10 PM WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems. Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006. Federal Reserve Board data show that: More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday. Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages. "I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News. Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more. This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares. But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data. In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages. Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market. About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve. Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods. Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity." Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market. What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans. These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans. In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems. "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business." McClatchy Newspapers 2008 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/53802.html
MurdeR Moderator	Wed Oct 15 09:38:53 "Once again." You ignore the balloon ARMs. Show me the legislation that mandated that low income borrowers had to be screwed by the lenders.
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 05:25:43 You people that want to hang the CEO's to the nearest lamppost. You do realize don't you that not every CEO runs an oil company or a major financial institution don't you? A CEO is someone who is in charge of the company whether it is a company with 100 employees that makes plastic bottles or the guy who owns a used book store over at the strip mall or the guy that fixes your car when something goes wrong. So yeah, let's hang all of the CEO'S so that you people can go back to living in caves where you belong. As for CEO's with their hands out, ask Joe The Plumber how much he expects to get from this bailout or from Hussein's great and altruistic plan for "SPREADING THE WEALTH." Ever look beyond your nose at any subject? Thought not.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 16 05:26:56 "ask Joe The Plumber" LMFAO
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 05:29:05 BTW, where you work at has a CEO. Does he/she deserve to be hung from a lamppost? If so, grow some balls and tell them so.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 16 05:32:17 You're truly a robotic parrot. Most people grew sick of that line 10 mins into the debate, lol
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 05:42:06 You know why don't you? Because of what Obama responded to him, that he believes in "spreading the wealth around." That is not The American Way. You don't say that to a man that has worked hard all of his life to provide a good living for his family. You say that to a second hander that wants his hands in your pockets.
MurdeR Moderator	Thu Oct 16 06:00:51 "A CEO is someone who is in charge of the company whether it is a company with 100 employees that makes plastic bottles or the guy who owns a used book store over at the strip mall or the guy that fixes your car when something goes wrong." Small businesses don't have CEOs.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 16 06:03:02 "or the guy who owns a used book store over at the strip mall or the guy that fixes your car when something goes wrong" Lol, these people are not generally known as CEO's.
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 06:05:12 LOL, so no one makes decisions for small business'? What do you think a 'Chief Executive' does? No matter how big or small a company or corporation is they all have an executive that makes the decisions. Sometimes known as the owner.
Goreth Member	Thu Oct 16 06:09:25 "CEO's fear obama" Did anyone else see the video on CNN (same title) Somehow it felt like those guys saying: 'Vote for Obama, we're greedy pricks and we are afraid of him.' If they really wanted to make Obama look dangerous to society at large they did a horrible job. Especially the Karl Marx line was pretty ridiculous. "That is not The American Way." Looking at your actual policies: Yes it is. Why are farmers getting subsidies for example? Or Big Oil for that matter? "You don't say that to a man that has worked hard all of his life to provide a good living for his family. You say that to a second hander that wants his hands in your pockets." The wealth should be spread around and if the CEOs lack the moral fibre to give the people who actually create their wealth a fair share, the state has to jump in. Also, leaving people with no income on their own isn't a good idea, as desperate people are likely to resort to crime, or at least be a pest.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 16 06:10:11 HR...lol...the guy who was a small used books store on the corner generally doesnt have a need to report to a board of directors, or a Chairman or a chief administrator, or a President or a vice-president or a Chief Operating Officer or a deputy. And even if he does, he is not what anyone is referring to in the current dismay with high rolling CEO's with massive golden parachutes...
Goreth Member	Thu Oct 16 06:15:20 "What do you think a 'Chief Executive' does? No matter how big or small a company or corporation is they all have an executive that makes the decisions. Sometimes known as the owner." CEO refers to the boss of Large cooperation and he is ususally not the owner. And if they did a survey with "751 CEOs", they probably didn't ask small business owners, otherwise they would have said so.
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 06:19:13 LOL, so you want to bribe them to be good at someone else's expense. Why not just build more prisons. That whole line of reasoning is BS. I grew up poor, but I never ended up in prison. People make their own choices, they need to suffer the consequences when they make a wrong choice. Why should society send them a welfare check to support them for doing nothing? There are plenty of private charities to help those who *really* need it. Check the stats, I think you will find American Business' among the most generous in the world.
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 06:28:13 http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/6/629/62909.gif
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 16 06:31:35 Lol, I'm not going to click that link if it pertains to your adolescent nonsense gibberish about me wanting more prisons and bribes and zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 06:35:13 Lack of curiosity is precisely the reason why you are so ignorant.
Goreth Member	Thu Oct 16 06:58:09 "LOL, so you want to bribe them to be good at someone else's expense. Why not just build more prisons." Because prisons are expensive HR. And I might add that homeless people are known for commiting crimes with the intent to get into prison, since there they have food, medical care and a place to stay. "That whole line of reasoning is BS. I grew up poor, but I never ended up in prison. People make their own choices, they need to suffer the consequences when they make a wrong choice." I'm not talking about mere poverty HR. I'm talking about not having the bare minimum to survive. "Why should society send them a welfare check to support them for doing nothing? There are plenty of private charities to help those who *really* need it." Because I very much doubt the abiltiy and will of charities to help everyone who *really* needs it. "Check the stats, I think you will find American Business' among the most generous in the world." While that is certainly true, giving money to random poor sods in your country is not nearly as popular as saving some endangered critters or 3rd world children.
Goreth Member	Thu Oct 16 06:59:53 "Lack of curiosity is precisely the reason why you are so ignorant." Says Mr "I'm not going to read that liberal rag". LOL.
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 07:21:42 Spoken like a true socialist. Not reading what you know in advance what will be said, I've been around a good many years and am fully aware of the liberal spiel, is very different from avoiding something that you have no idea what it is.
Goreth Member	Thu Oct 16 07:49:10 "Spoken like a true socialist." So what? Pure communism fails, pure capitalism fails. What's left? The middle ground: Socialism (usually called social democracy because neo-commies call themselves socialist to not be associated with the soviets and because most americans can't tell the difference either.) "Not reading what you know in advance what will be said, I've been around a good many years and am fully aware of the liberal spiel, is very different from avoiding something that you have no idea what it is." Actually both come down to the same. Ignorance is ignorance. Believing to know it all anyway is just arrogance on top of ignorance. "http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/6/629/62909.gif" Ah, Hägar the horrible at his best. Nice joke, but not an argument...
habebe Member	Thu Oct 16 07:57:47 "Again ... we fought massive wars across 2 oceans. No other nation on earth could've come close to pulling that off. " Which may be why just after that the US became* a super power. As for the balloon arms, your going to have to elaborate more as why they are responsible for the the bank failures? WW, "Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. " "More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. " In one specific year? what about all of the other years? "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. " Which one, and please define "directly" and I suppose "indirectly" "Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. " So they apply pressure on these private institutions (which you just claimed make the majority of the loans) to meet their quotas? correct me if I'm wrong. "Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market. " So they got banks to take on shity loans out of the goodness of their hearts? How benevolent It's also very interesting that it's is 2006, the very year which the first list of statistics showing how few loans Fannie and freddie were a part of, if they lost share in 2006, then they must have had more than that previously.
Hot Rod Moderator	Thu Oct 16 08:02:31 "Pure communism fails, pure capitalism fails." Neither has ever existed in it's pure form. "Nice joke, but not an argument..." That's all it was intended to be. :)
habebe Member	Thu Oct 16 08:17:17 "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. " I want to go back to this one, and again point out that it is only using info from 2006, the very year that fannie/freddie supposedly were overhauled, whatabout the rest of the years?
Goreth Member	Thu Oct 16 09:01:13 "Neither has ever existed in it's pure form." Yes, because it's impossible. But the closest approximations that ever existed failed.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 16 09:30:25 "Yes, because it's impossible. But the closest approximations that ever existed failed. " Communism, yes. But what was the closest to pure capitalism? and when did it fail? I'm not argueing that it is a good idea or anything, I just don't know what the example(s) are.
Master Bates Member	Thu Oct 16 10:02:34 Th closest thing to pure capitalism can be observed in the bazaars and market places in the ME.
Goreth Member	Thu Oct 16 10:05:56 "But what was the closest to pure capitalism? and when did it fail?" This year. Don't you read the news? American Laissez faire capitalism is a very pure form of capitalism. And of course the early years of captialism, which were the reason Karl Marx came up with communism in the first place. Not to forget big cooporations operating in 3rd world shitholes. They recklessly exploit their already ridiculously cheap workers and ravage the ecology for that tiny bit of extra profit. Actually there are tons of examples. Capitalism is very efficient, but it tends to benefit the rich a lot more, if not outright exploiting the poor and is usually focused on short-term solutions (Which is why the capitalists ignore environmental issues unless forced to). Because of that, a goverment needs to counteract. You need to strike a balance somewhere. Actually this should be obvious if you don't believe the fairy tale of the invisible hand of the market.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 16 10:21:03 "This year. Don't you read the news? American Laissez faire capitalism is a very pure form of capitalism. " ROFLMAO, how was this the markets failiure?I should remind you that LF capitalism not only does not offer 100% prosperity, but it says there will be down times, it's called bussiness cycles, the government intervention is what will make this catostrophic. I agree that LF was prominent in 19th century England and some other Euro nations. But when did those systems "fail", they merley changed/evolved, nothing to do with failing
Goreth Member	Thu Oct 16 10:41:43 "ROFLMAO, how was this the markets failiure?" It was a bubble that popped. And several economist warned that it would. How could that be anyone elses failure? "I should remind you that LF capitalism not only does not offer 100% prosperity, but it says there will be down times, it's called bussiness cycles," I'm aware of that. The problem with LF capitalism however is, that it attempts to prolong the economic boom as long as possible with pretty shady measures, which leads to an even worse downtime. "the government intervention is what will make this catostrophic." And what other than conservative 'wisdom' leads you to believe that? "I agree that LF was prominent in 19th century England and some other Euro nations. But when did those systems "fail", they merley changed/evolved, nothing to do with failing" I'm not going to argue on the definition of failure, but some argue that communism in China didn't fail, but evolve... Capitalism 'evolved' because the pressure of the workforce got to great, which can partly be attributed to Karl Marx, the approved arch-enemy of capitalism.
habebe Member	Thu Oct 16 11:01:56 "And what other than conservative 'wisdom' leads you to believe that? " The great depression. Look into a book called "The monetary history of the united states. Not to mention the theory of Buerocratic displacement ( by Dr. Gammon) "I'm not going to argue on the definition of failure, but some argue that communism in China didn't fail, but evolve" Well, this is true to a point, they are more socialist now then communist (IMHO) The difference though (again IMO) is the reasoning behind why. For example the transition from private to public schools in the west were due to special interests (most notably teachers) not the consumers (parents) unlike Chinese communism. "I'm aware of that. The problem with LF capitalism however is, that it attempts to prolong the economic boom as long as possible with pretty shady measures, which leads to an even worse downtime. " What is it? the market? It's not the market who controls federal interest rates.
Daemon Member	Fri Oct 17 02:56:04 "You mean Adolf Hitler? who in less than a decade as the unquestioned dictator took the worlds POOREST nation on earth, and turned it into the SOLE SUPERPOWER?I'm not calling for Hitler's policies, but merley showing that he just like FDR raised the GDP and appeared beneficial to the economy. " Will that bullshit never end? You posted that stuff years ago on the old boards, now you do it again. How was germany the poorest nation on earth? Poorer than every african and asian nation of that time? Germany had no educated population before Hilter came to power, no industry, no rails and road network, no electricity? There was a big recession and many nations suffered, not only Germany. All this bullshit about Hitler. I give you a few hints: -much of the Versailles treaty (like paying reparations) was suspended before Hitler came to power -the economy of Hitler was based on debt. Massive debt, the debt piled up quicker than under any previous german government ->and that directly led to the war economy, it was build on plundering the other nations. Hitler would have failed without war, too, Germany would have gone bankrupt sometimes in the 40s anyway. -most nations were recovering in the 30s from the economic crisis, some even faster than Germany
Goreth Member	Fri Oct 17 03:32:37 "The great depression." I'm not arguing that the govt didn't screw up back then. But I think governments learned from the great depression. The market obviously didn't. If you disagree, you can point out to me how government are reacting exactly like during the great depression and how the market acts differently. Admittedly tho, most governments were ignoring the signs of the coming downturn too long. But so was the market. "The difference though (again IMO) is the reasoning behind why. For example the transition from private to public schools in the west were due to special interests (most notably teachers) not the consumers (parents) unlike Chinese communism." I think you're being a bit monocausal there, but I agree that teachers have too many rights. Protecting people against the consequences of their own incompetence is generally a bad idea. "What is it? the market? It's not the market who controls federal interest rates." No, but it's the market who has the habit to hand out excessive loans in times of low interest rates. "much of the Versailles treaty (like paying reparations) was suspended before Hitler came to power" Still it played havok with the german economy for a good while and turned the germans into angry jingoists. Without that treaty, it's unlikely Hitler would have come to power.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: