I previously posted:
"Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers."
In today's CNBC article, "According to the Congressional Budget Office, the losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, some experts caution, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion."
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Financially Reformed, Maybe
This Wall Street Journal article is reporting that Congress has managed to, apparently, reconcile House and Senate versions of the Financial Regulatory reform bills that previously passed.
Accordingly, this new bill will "prohibit banks from making risky bets with their own funds" however allowing "financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds." This bill would also "limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives," however, it "would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk."
Party ideology is summed up as "Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit."
However, the major point of contention I have, is that what caused the financial meltdown in late 2008 was the fact that subprime borrowers spurred the collapse by purchasing homes they could neither afford and lied on their applications to get, and in which case, banks repackaged these loans and sold them off as collatoralized debt obligations. Democrats have managed to regulate this, we'll see how effectively in the future, but have failed to curb loose lending practices to the types of borrowers that fueled this.
As the article states, "Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal." Fannie and Freddie matter because they're the two organizations which buy up subprime mortgages and other smaller mortgages. What does that say about Fannie and Freddie? One could easily speculate that they'll suffer similar collapses as the banks that loaned to these same people. What does that mean? As succinctly as the article said, they'll "remain a multibillion dollar drain on the US Treasury."
Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers.
We'll never see the type of reform needed for Fannie and Freddie so long as Democrats exists. Their sole purpose in life is to take money from the have mores and give it to the have lesses. Any attempt by financially prudent Republicans will be lambasted as an attack against the poor and hyperbole such as "kicking the poor out of their homes" will be tossed around. Based on Federal Govt tax collections, 53% of us paid Federal Income taxes last year, there's enough have lesses to make sure Democrats have enough power to prevent the necessary regulation of Fannie and Freddie from ever coming about. So much for reform.
Accordingly, this new bill will "prohibit banks from making risky bets with their own funds" however allowing "financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds." This bill would also "limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives," however, it "would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk."
Party ideology is summed up as "Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit."
However, the major point of contention I have, is that what caused the financial meltdown in late 2008 was the fact that subprime borrowers spurred the collapse by purchasing homes they could neither afford and lied on their applications to get, and in which case, banks repackaged these loans and sold them off as collatoralized debt obligations. Democrats have managed to regulate this, we'll see how effectively in the future, but have failed to curb loose lending practices to the types of borrowers that fueled this.
As the article states, "Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal." Fannie and Freddie matter because they're the two organizations which buy up subprime mortgages and other smaller mortgages. What does that say about Fannie and Freddie? One could easily speculate that they'll suffer similar collapses as the banks that loaned to these same people. What does that mean? As succinctly as the article said, they'll "remain a multibillion dollar drain on the US Treasury."
Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers.
We'll never see the type of reform needed for Fannie and Freddie so long as Democrats exists. Their sole purpose in life is to take money from the have mores and give it to the have lesses. Any attempt by financially prudent Republicans will be lambasted as an attack against the poor and hyperbole such as "kicking the poor out of their homes" will be tossed around. Based on Federal Govt tax collections, 53% of us paid Federal Income taxes last year, there's enough have lesses to make sure Democrats have enough power to prevent the necessary regulation of Fannie and Freddie from ever coming about. So much for reform.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
My God is Obama stupid?!
Fox News is reporting that drug cartels have lookout posts throughout southern Arizona and Breitbart is reporting that drug cartels have snipers on the border ready to target American ICE agents. This is ridiculous!
The Federal Govt. has abdicated its responsibility to enforce our sovereignty and is going to make every attempt to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing its sovereignty. When our duly elected officials fail to carry out the laws of our Nation, dereliction of duty, the responsibility to carry out said laws fall on the people of this Nation. If the Federal Govt. won't adhere to the contract we have with it, Constitution, then there is no reason for us to subjugate ourselves to it and therefore enforcing our laws becomes our responsibility. We need to enforce our border and if this means shooting armed drug cartel henchmen violating our sovereignty and poisoning our Citizenry with their drugs, then so be it. The Revolutionary War was fought over taxation without representation; we now have egregious taxation with dimwit representation and abdication when it comes to protecting our Nation!
This website is reporting that if Obama cannot get Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" that he will, via Executive Order, grant "amnesty" to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Eight Republican Senators wrote Obama a letter which contained the following:
“While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”
Jon Voight is also warning of a new "Civil War" in his open letter to President Obama in the Washington Times re: not only Obama's politics towards illegal immigration but also his politics towards the State of Israel. Is Obama the Man of Lawlessness we were warned about nearly 2,000 years ago? Does he really believe in rewarding illegal behavior by bestowing the blessings of American Citizenship solely because economic forces drove illegal immigrants to violate our sovereignty in order to look for work in the US? Is he really so sick as to abandon the State of Israel to the ruthless Islamists who want nothing better but to "wipe Israel off the map"?
The Federal Govt. has abdicated its responsibility to enforce our sovereignty and is going to make every attempt to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing its sovereignty. When our duly elected officials fail to carry out the laws of our Nation, dereliction of duty, the responsibility to carry out said laws fall on the people of this Nation. If the Federal Govt. won't adhere to the contract we have with it, Constitution, then there is no reason for us to subjugate ourselves to it and therefore enforcing our laws becomes our responsibility. We need to enforce our border and if this means shooting armed drug cartel henchmen violating our sovereignty and poisoning our Citizenry with their drugs, then so be it. The Revolutionary War was fought over taxation without representation; we now have egregious taxation with dimwit representation and abdication when it comes to protecting our Nation!
This website is reporting that if Obama cannot get Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" that he will, via Executive Order, grant "amnesty" to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Eight Republican Senators wrote Obama a letter which contained the following:
“While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”
Jon Voight is also warning of a new "Civil War" in his open letter to President Obama in the Washington Times re: not only Obama's politics towards illegal immigration but also his politics towards the State of Israel. Is Obama the Man of Lawlessness we were warned about nearly 2,000 years ago? Does he really believe in rewarding illegal behavior by bestowing the blessings of American Citizenship solely because economic forces drove illegal immigrants to violate our sovereignty in order to look for work in the US? Is he really so sick as to abandon the State of Israel to the ruthless Islamists who want nothing better but to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
When stupid people judge
Yahoo has an article about a town in New York, 25 miles northeast of NYC, in which a Federal judge recently ruled to force the town to have cumulative voting. Essentially all voters in the town receive six votes to delegate how they wish. What's disturbing is the intention, which is that the town is comprised of nearly half Hispanics and has never had a Hispanic village trustee. So the Federal judge believed this violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This requires some history.
The VRA was signed into law in 1965 by President Johnson, which ended the Southern practice of discriminating against blacks by having literacy tests, poll taxes and other such devices to try to the best of their ability to preclude as many blacks as possible from voting. For my own amusement, 94% of Republicans voted for this in the Senate vs. 73% of Democrats; and 82% of Republicans voted for this in the House vs. 78% of Democrats. So when Democrats try to misconstrue (aka lie about) history and tell you that the Republican Party is the Party of Racism, cite them these facts (beside the fact that the Republican Party was founded on the basis of abolishing slavery).
So back to this Federal judge, he believed that this town violated the VRA simply because they never elected a Hispanic village trustee. What irks me even more than this bonehead judge trying to get a specific outcome, is the waste of money that was put into "educating" voters in this town. "The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row..." In order to get naturalized, one has to have a command of the English language, this eliminates the necessity of having a bilingual ballot. If people want to partake in the voting process, LEARN ENGLISH. What irks me even more is this dumb broad, "I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."
If she can't speak English, she's probably an illegal immigrant, and should thus be deported. But I digress, why is she expecting special treatment from a Hispanic village trustee solely because she's Hispanic? Imagine the justified outrage if a Candidate ran on the basis of representing only white people? Morons would jump to their feet and call out racism/bigotry/etc. Perhaps we've come to a point in our Nation's history where we should only worry about our own race, and make sure that our own race gets special treatment and make sure that other races don't infringe on our so called rights. Perhaps whites should, while they still comprise a majority in this country, rise up and vote in politicians that will deport the 12-20 million illegal immigrants before they're naturalized and given voting rights. Perhaps these new found voting rights will incur other Federal judges to bestow on them the right of cumulative voting? This judge's decision should be cause for concern for any and all that believe all men were created equal.
The VRA was signed into law in 1965 by President Johnson, which ended the Southern practice of discriminating against blacks by having literacy tests, poll taxes and other such devices to try to the best of their ability to preclude as many blacks as possible from voting. For my own amusement, 94% of Republicans voted for this in the Senate vs. 73% of Democrats; and 82% of Republicans voted for this in the House vs. 78% of Democrats. So when Democrats try to misconstrue (aka lie about) history and tell you that the Republican Party is the Party of Racism, cite them these facts (beside the fact that the Republican Party was founded on the basis of abolishing slavery).
So back to this Federal judge, he believed that this town violated the VRA simply because they never elected a Hispanic village trustee. What irks me even more than this bonehead judge trying to get a specific outcome, is the waste of money that was put into "educating" voters in this town. "The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row..." In order to get naturalized, one has to have a command of the English language, this eliminates the necessity of having a bilingual ballot. If people want to partake in the voting process, LEARN ENGLISH. What irks me even more is this dumb broad, "I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."
If she can't speak English, she's probably an illegal immigrant, and should thus be deported. But I digress, why is she expecting special treatment from a Hispanic village trustee solely because she's Hispanic? Imagine the justified outrage if a Candidate ran on the basis of representing only white people? Morons would jump to their feet and call out racism/bigotry/etc. Perhaps we've come to a point in our Nation's history where we should only worry about our own race, and make sure that our own race gets special treatment and make sure that other races don't infringe on our so called rights. Perhaps whites should, while they still comprise a majority in this country, rise up and vote in politicians that will deport the 12-20 million illegal immigrants before they're naturalized and given voting rights. Perhaps these new found voting rights will incur other Federal judges to bestow on them the right of cumulative voting? This judge's decision should be cause for concern for any and all that believe all men were created equal.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Synchronized Swimmers killed by Israelis
In this Breitbart article, "The bodies of two Palestinians killed by Israeli fire in the seas off Gaza washed ashore on Tuesday, bringing to six the total number of alleged militants killed by the Navy in a raid off the coast." "A survivor who was on shore at the time of the attack said the six men on the boat were members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, an armed group which is loosely tied to the secular Fatah movement of Western-backed president Mahmud Abbas, but that there were no weapons on the boat." "He said they were doing swimming exercises some 100 metres (yards) off the coast when they were attacked by Israeli naval forces."
Where is the international outrage over this incident too? Afterall, the "unarmed" men were only doing "swimming exercises" in occupied waters when the untermensch Israelis killed them. /sarcasm off
It appears to me that the intent of the blockade busters is having perhaps intended consequences. If Islamists know where the Israeli naval positions are, perhaps they can USS Cole them and claim some marginal victory or perhaps use Israel's distraction with the blockade busters to carry out some other plan. What's also interesting is Iran's attempt to enter the foray by declaring they'll send naval vessels to aid the blockade busters. It's ironic considering the oh so advanced Iranians cannot even refine their own oil to make gasoline and other petroleum products. At what point does the US enter this mess, which it's currently allowing to fester into something worse, and put an end to this blockade busting nonsense? I fear our leader, who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper sack, will continue to dither on this issue as he has all other issues put on his desk.
Where is the international outrage over this incident too? Afterall, the "unarmed" men were only doing "swimming exercises" in occupied waters when the untermensch Israelis killed them. /sarcasm off
It appears to me that the intent of the blockade busters is having perhaps intended consequences. If Islamists know where the Israeli naval positions are, perhaps they can USS Cole them and claim some marginal victory or perhaps use Israel's distraction with the blockade busters to carry out some other plan. What's also interesting is Iran's attempt to enter the foray by declaring they'll send naval vessels to aid the blockade busters. It's ironic considering the oh so advanced Iranians cannot even refine their own oil to make gasoline and other petroleum products. At what point does the US enter this mess, which it's currently allowing to fester into something worse, and put an end to this blockade busting nonsense? I fear our leader, who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper sack, will continue to dither on this issue as he has all other issues put on his desk.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Islam is very peaceful and tolerant
In this USA Today article, a University lecture in Sweden was interrupted by Islamists allegedly headbutting a Professor and shouting "Allah Akbar!" The professors two crimes, one depicting the alleged Prophet Muhammad as a dog and two, showing a video clip from an Iranian artist discussing homosexuality and Islam, specifically that engaged by the alleged Prophet Muhammad.
I note that a) if Islam is peaceful, why the head butting and b) if Islam is tolerant why the subsequent reaction and stifling of speech when Muslims disagree with another person's viewpoint/opinion/etc. For example, when the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funded "art" showing the crucifix in a jar of urine, or the Virgin Mary smeared in feces, Christians didn't rise up and burn down the exhibition or slit the throat of the artists, or even manage to get funding to the NEA cut off. This however, doesn't fit with Progressive/Leftist/Liberal world view that Islam is the Religion of Peace and Christianity is the Religion of Intolerance and Violence (i.e. Crusades).
I guess in a way, this is why Helen Thomas can tell Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back to Auschwitz". It's cool to be pro-Islam and anti-anti-Islamic-religions (think about that double negative for a second). If it's not cool, then it's at least hip to be passive towards Islam, which is just another means of being for it; like appeasing tyranny, you only get more of it when you refuse to confront it. When one views the current ongoing events re: Israel's legal blockade of Gaza, one can see why the world automatically sides with the Islamists-propagators and anti-Jews. Not even the U.S. is backing Israel's right to blockade Gaza, therefore the U.S. is enabling anti-Jews to continue their campaign at breaking the Gaza blockade.
Charles Krauthammer had a great article in the Wall Street Journal stating, "Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense." "It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem." "The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense." Therefore one could summarize this campaign as essentially pro-Islamist and anti-Jew, with the U.S. taking the position of passivity. We can all take comfort however, based on the few examples I've listed, that we can expect the Islamist Palestinians to treat the non-Islamic Israelis with peace and tolerance.
I note that a) if Islam is peaceful, why the head butting and b) if Islam is tolerant why the subsequent reaction and stifling of speech when Muslims disagree with another person's viewpoint/opinion/etc. For example, when the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funded "art" showing the crucifix in a jar of urine, or the Virgin Mary smeared in feces, Christians didn't rise up and burn down the exhibition or slit the throat of the artists, or even manage to get funding to the NEA cut off. This however, doesn't fit with Progressive/Leftist/Liberal world view that Islam is the Religion of Peace and Christianity is the Religion of Intolerance and Violence (i.e. Crusades).
I guess in a way, this is why Helen Thomas can tell Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back to Auschwitz". It's cool to be pro-Islam and anti-anti-Islamic-religions (think about that double negative for a second). If it's not cool, then it's at least hip to be passive towards Islam, which is just another means of being for it; like appeasing tyranny, you only get more of it when you refuse to confront it. When one views the current ongoing events re: Israel's legal blockade of Gaza, one can see why the world automatically sides with the Islamists-propagators and anti-Jews. Not even the U.S. is backing Israel's right to blockade Gaza, therefore the U.S. is enabling anti-Jews to continue their campaign at breaking the Gaza blockade.
Charles Krauthammer had a great article in the Wall Street Journal stating, "Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense." "It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem." "The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense." Therefore one could summarize this campaign as essentially pro-Islamist and anti-Jew, with the U.S. taking the position of passivity. We can all take comfort however, based on the few examples I've listed, that we can expect the Islamist Palestinians to treat the non-Islamic Israelis with peace and tolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)