Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:41:31 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't
somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a
lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?

Where have all the real conservatives gone?

To seize your "yacht" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable

Jim Thompson wrote:

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't
somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a
lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?

Where have all the real conservatives gone?

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'm against people who give vent to their loquacity by
extraneous bombastic circumlocution.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson
From the article;
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift
industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at
the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have
to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift
industry.''

Peter's article May 2005 "Now it gets serious"
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp


10-30-07
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a_l2_kTFSFGU
Peter's quoted here,
A loss of confidence in the companies could prompt investors to dump FHLB
debt, potentially causing the collapse of one or more banks, according to
Peter Wallison and lawmakers including Representative Richard Baker of
Louisiana. If others were unable to meet the liabilities, taxpayers would be
on the hook, they said.

and nobody listened,
Mike

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:58:14 -0500, "amdx" wrote:


"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson
From the article;
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift
industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at
the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have
to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift
industry.''

Peter's article May 2005 "Now it gets serious"
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp


10-30-07
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a_l2_kTFSFGU
Peter's quoted here,
A loss of confidence in the companies could prompt investors to dump FHLB
debt, potentially causing the collapse of one or more banks, according to
Peter Wallison and lawmakers including Representative Richard Baker of
Louisiana. If others were unable to meet the liabilities, taxpayers would be
on the hook, they said.

and nobody listened,
Mike


....and nobody listened :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:41:31 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't
somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a
lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?

Because that is what the *people* wanted... Mortgages that allowed
people to get houses that were substantially more than they should
have gotten...



Where have all the real conservatives gone?

WTF is a conservative? Or a liberal for that matter?

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:27:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:41:31 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't
somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a
lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?

Where have all the real conservatives gone?

To seize your "yacht" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Hovnanian's definition of a "yacht": a row boat with 3 oars ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable

Jim Thompson wrote:

Hovnanian's definition of a "yacht": a row boat with 3 oars ;-)


Sounds like a floating 'oar house. ;-)


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On 29/09/2008 Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:


...... And why did it keep on going on?

Very simple. They paid overblown bonuses to all the salespeople who
ensured that the gravy train didn't stop. It's called capitalism.

--
John B

amdx wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson
From the article;
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift
industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at
the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have
to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift
industry.''

Peter's article May 2005 "Now it gets serious"
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

10-30-07
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a_l2_kTFSFGU
Peter's quoted here,
A loss of confidence in the companies could prompt investors to dump FHLB
debt, potentially causing the collapse of one or more banks, according to
Peter Wallison and lawmakers including Representative Richard Baker of
Louisiana. If others were unable to meet the liabilities, taxpayers would be
on the hook, they said.

and nobody listened,
Mike

What Clinton pushed for was a form of deregulation. In other words,
relax (or eliminate) the rules. The sitting GOP-run Congress, and the
impending Bush administration also have knee jerk reactions to
regulation.

Tightening up mortgage requirements would have rained on the brokers',
bankers' and builders' picnics. So it was too easy to go along with
Clinton's policy.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
amdx wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson
From the article;
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another
thrift
industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at
the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will
have
to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the
thrift
industry.''

Peter's article May 2005 "Now it gets serious"
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

10-30-07
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a_l2_kTFSFGU
Peter's quoted here,
A loss of confidence in the companies could prompt investors to dump FHLB
debt, potentially causing the collapse of one or more banks, according to
Peter Wallison and lawmakers including Representative Richard Baker of
Louisiana. If others were unable to meet the liabilities, taxpayers would
be
on the hook, they said.

and nobody listened,
Mike

What Clinton pushed for was a form of deregulation. In other words,
relax (or eliminate) the rules. The sitting GOP-run Congress, and the
impending Bush administration also have knee jerk reactions to regulation.

But the mortgage lenders would have protected themselves (with or without
regulation) if they didn't have the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)
to buy the paper.
Mike

"PeterD" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:41:31 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't
somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a
lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?

Because that is what the *people* wanted... Mortgages that allowed
people to get houses that were substantially more than they should
have gotten...



Where have all the real conservatives gone?

WTF is a conservative? Or a liberal for that matter?

In Britain a Conservative is AKA a Toraidhe - the Gallic word for bandit.

UltimatePatriot wrote in
:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:27:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F933A0575AC0A9
6F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Leave it to the Democrats to **** EVERYTHING up, and then blame the
Republicans for it, AND THEN have the goddamnad gall to tell folks that
they have the solution for "the problem".

Obama will **** this country up worse than it already is.


I just had a truely nightmarish thought: what if he wins, and does *not*
FUBAR everything worse than it is now? Or even more radical, what if most
people come out better off then they've been for the past 8 years?

Good gawd =:-o , what will we do then...?!?!

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:35:43 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

UltimatePatriot wrote in
:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:27:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F933A0575AC0A9
6F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Leave it to the Democrats to **** EVERYTHING up, and then blame the
Republicans for it, AND THEN have the goddamnad gall to tell folks that
they have the solution for "the problem".

Obama will **** this country up worse than it already is.


I just had a truely nightmarish thought: what if he wins, and does *not*
FUBAR everything worse than it is now? Or even more radical, what if most
people come out better off then they've been for the past 8 years?

Good gawd =:-o , what will we do then...?!?!

I take it that you believe in fairy tales?

I predict...

(1) Obama will win
(2) It will be a period worse than during Carter's "reign"

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in
:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...EF933A0575AC0A
96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't
somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a
lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?]

Maybe they were too busy gaming the system themselves and making money hand
over fist...?

Or maybe they were too busy playing partisan politics as opposed to looking
out for the *national* interest?



Where have all the real conservatives gone?


There are lots and lots and lots of social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatives are, however, pretty much DOA - they want all the
spending for their own districts to remain in place and make everyone else
cut *their* spending.


The problem with cuts is one of balance. Yes, there is wasteful spending
and inefficiency (and even downrigh theft) in governemtn. But it's also
true that everyone wants to eliminate all taxes (IOW spending) until it is
*their* checks that stop arriving in the mail, *their* house that burns
down because firefighting services were cut, *their* commuting route to
work that becomes impassible because tehre is no money for road repairs,
*their* schools that run out of money for fancy sports stadiums (locally,
there have been $$millions available for stadiums and fancy buildings, but
they send kids to stand in the road begging for money for textbooks, go
figure), and so on.

FOr example, even McCain, with an estimated worth of $73 million, 13 cars,
and 7 houses, doesn't return his nearly $2000/month social security check.
So it's not likely that those "selfish" people who actually need to live on
their disability or soc. sec. checks will up and return theirs.

PeterD wrote in
:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:41:31 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...3EF933A0575AC0
A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't
somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a
lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?

Because that is what the *people* wanted... Mortgages that allowed
people to get houses that were substantially more than they should
have gotten...



Where have all the real conservatives gone?

WTF is a conservative? Or a liberal for that matter?

Technically, or in practice?

Technically, AFAIK, Conservatives beleive in Laissez Faire economics and
zero social spending; whereas Liberals believe, based upon historical
evidence, that in the post-Industrial Revolution world, that voluntary
charity is insufficient to keep people from being put out onto the streets
to starve, to maintain things like public fire/police services, to build
and repair public roads, to have livable wages for workers, and other
things that benefit the "peasantry".

In practice, given the decreasing involvement of the average person in both
the democratic process, the actions of their elected representatives, and
acquiring the knowledge necessary to make informed choices, what's
happening is that the extremists of both tribes (to take a term from
another post) are gaining too much influence, which is Balkanizing the
nation - a process for which each tribe blames the other while refusing to
accept any and all responsibility for contributing to said Balkanization.

HTH

"amdx" wrote in
:


"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...
amdx wrote:

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in message ...

Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...153EF933A0575A
C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson
From the article;
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another
thrift
industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow
at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government
will have
to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the
thrift
industry.''

Peter's article May 2005 "Now it gets serious"
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

10-30-07
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a_l2_kTFSFGU
Peter's quoted here,
A loss of confidence in the companies could prompt investors to dump
FHLB debt, potentially causing the collapse of one or more banks,
according to Peter Wallison and lawmakers including Representative
Richard Baker of Louisiana. If others were unable to meet the
liabilities, taxpayers would be
on the hook, they said.

and nobody listened,
Mike

What Clinton pushed for was a form of deregulation. In other words,
relax (or eliminate) the rules. The sitting GOP-run Congress, and the
impending Bush administration also have knee jerk reactions to
regulation.

But the mortgage lenders would have protected themselves (with or
without
regulation) if they didn't have the government-sponsored enterprises
(GSEs) to buy the paper.
Mike




AFAIK, they (the mortgage brokers) would have protected themselves had they
remained legally bound to the eventual owners of the mortgages - IOW, it
used to be that you'd go to a bank to apply for a loan, and a bank employee
would handle the paperwork (which included minor annoyances such as
checking to see wheterh you really could afford to pay back the loan).

One of the big problems was that deregulation changed that, allowing
brokers to be independent entities whcih merely sold the loans on a
commission basis, and then bundled them (usually mixing bad loans in with
good loans so as to disguise them) and sold the bundles to financial
institutions, which then became responsible for covering any risk. So the
linik between those who made bad loans, and those who became respobnsible
for covering the lonas, was severed. This was called "free market
competition", and occurred with absolutely zero oversight.

So, while people keep bitching about the banks, the scumpuppies who
actually brokered the loans (even the illegal loans - i.e. where info on
the documents was changed by brokers so as to get the loan approved) have
gotten off without so much as a broken pinky-nail.


Similar with "Wall Street". Multi-billion-dolla hedge funds had the
capital to start sell-offs of various companies, which in turn panicked
average investors who thought that those sell-offs meant the company was
tnking, and created havoc in the market which they could (with their huge
capital reserves) manipulate to their benefit, thus making their super-rich
clients super-SUPER rich. There were laws in place that had worked to
control these sorts of actions, but those laws were either repealed, or
ignored, by people who were more concerned with deregulation (and IMO their
own wallets) than they were concerned about the effects such piracy would
have on us mere hoi polloi.


So, yes, housing, technically, the Clinton administration did make it
possible for people to buy a house without forst saving up a 20%-25% down
payment. But it took the following administration to completely do away
with things like verifying that people could actually pay back their loans,
and so on.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:49:46 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

[snip]

FOr example, even McCain, with an estimated worth of $73 million, 13 cars,
and 7 houses, doesn't return his nearly $2000/month social security check.
So it's not likely that those "selfish" people who actually need to live on
their disability or soc. sec. checks will up and return theirs.


Except that McCain has no such net worth.

His wife is heiress to (as we call it here in AZ) the "Beer Baron
Fortune".

McCain, himself, own no houses (or cars). He's a kept man... just as
long as Cindy is happy... otherwise out on the street just like a lot
of you guys who don't know how to keep a woman happy ;-)

McCain's income sources are his Senate salary and social security. I
don't know, but he may have a military pension as well.

I also receive a substantial monthly social security check as well as
a pension from GenRad. Do you consider me "selfish"?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:48:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:35:43 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

UltimatePatriot wrote in
m:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:27:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F933A0575AC0A9
6F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Leave it to the Democrats to **** EVERYTHING up, and then blame the
Republicans for it, AND THEN have the goddamnad gall to tell folks that
they have the solution for "the problem".

Obama will **** this country up worse than it already is.


I just had a truely nightmarish thought: what if he wins, and does *not*
FUBAR everything worse than it is now? Or even more radical, what if most
people come out better off then they've been for the past 8 years?

Good gawd =:-o , what will we do then...?!?!

I take it that you believe in fairy tales?

I predict...

(1) Obama will win
(2) It will be a period worse than during Carter's "reign"

...Jim Thompson

Carter inherited Nixon and Ford's economic mess. That mess was
generated by the same gang of craven fools who are running the Bush
administration. So, Jim, you could be right, there might be nothing
Obama can do to mitigate the hell these guys have unleashed through
their inept policies and swaggering failures. I thought they were done
****ing up the country, but no, their thick, stupid economic policies
have finally destroyed the US financial industry, and their buddies in
congress will now prevent any kind of assistance. Go republicans! It
is aparently their last-ditch effort to prevent Obama from creating a
national health care system: bankrupt the country!

Regards,
Bob Monsen

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:48:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:35:43 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

UltimatePatriot wrote in
m:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:27:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F933A0575AC0A9
6F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Leave it to the Democrats to **** EVERYTHING up, and then blame the
Republicans for it, AND THEN have the goddamnad gall to tell folks that
they have the solution for "the problem".

Obama will **** this country up worse than it already is.


I just had a truely nightmarish thought: what if he wins, and does *not*
FUBAR everything worse than it is now? Or even more radical, what if most
people come out better off then they've been for the past 8 years?

Good gawd =:-o , what will we do then...?!?!

I take it that you believe in fairy tales?

I predict...

(1) Obama will win
(2) It will be a period worse than during Carter's "reign"

...Jim Thompson

Carter inherited Nixon and Ford's economic mess. That mess was
generated by the same gang of craven fools who are running the Bush
administration. So, Jim, you could be right, there might be nothing
Obama can do to mitigate the hell these guys have unleashed through
their inept policies and swaggering failures. I thought they were done
****ing up the country, but no, their thick, stupid economic policies
have finally destroyed the US financial industry, and their buddies in
congress will now prevent any kind of assistance. Go republicans! It
is aparently their last-ditch effort to prevent Obama from creating a
national health care system: bankrupt the country!

Regards,
Bob Monsen

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:33:56 -0700, Robert Monsen
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:48:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:35:43 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

UltimatePatriot wrote in
:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:27:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F933A0575AC0A9
6F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Leave it to the Democrats to **** EVERYTHING up, and then blame the
Republicans for it, AND THEN have the goddamnad gall to tell folks that
they have the solution for "the problem".

Obama will **** this country up worse than it already is.


I just had a truely nightmarish thought: what if he wins, and does *not*
FUBAR everything worse than it is now? Or even more radical, what if most
people come out better off then they've been for the past 8 years?

Good gawd =:-o , what will we do then...?!?!

I take it that you believe in fairy tales?

I predict...

(1) Obama will win
(2) It will be a period worse than during Carter's "reign"

...Jim Thompson

Carter inherited Nixon and Ford's economic mess. That mess was
generated by the same gang of craven fools who are running the Bush
administration. So, Jim, you could be right, there might be nothing
Obama can do to mitigate the hell these guys have unleashed through
their inept policies and swaggering failures. I thought they were done
****ing up the country, but no, their thick, stupid economic policies
have finally destroyed the US financial industry, and their buddies in
congress will now prevent any kind of assistance. Go republicans! It
is aparently their last-ditch effort to prevent Obama from creating a
national health care system: bankrupt the country!

Regards,
Bob Monsen

Revisionist history ?:-)

Carter was the biggest **** head to walk the face of the earth.

From your comments I wonder if you were even there?? I was. I didn't
enjoy pushing my cars in line at the gas station.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable

Jim Thompson wrote:
Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson


I don't think those 30 year fixed rate mortgages are where the problems
began; Here is more under GWB's watch:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020618-1.html

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:13:13 -0400, RFI-EMI-GUY
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson


I don't think those 30 year fixed rate mortgages are where the problems
began; Here is more under GWB's watch:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020618-1.html

Looks like the Republican equivalent to ACORN.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

Jim Thompson wrote:

From your comments I wonder if you were even there?? I was. I didn't
enjoy pushing my cars in line at the gas station.

Oh come on now Jim, you didn't really push your car now did you? As I
recall, most of the people in line were trying to top off their tanks by
adding a whole gallon of gas. Just like they do here in houston when a
storm is coming, people ran on the gas stations keeping the lines long and
the pumps dry.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:41:26 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:57:25 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

From your comments I wonder if you were even there?? I was. I didn't
enjoy pushing my cars in line at the gas station.

Oh come on now Jim, you didn't really push your car now did you? As I
recall, most of the people in line were trying to top off their tanks by
adding a whole gallon of gas. Just like they do here in houston when a
storm is coming, people ran on the gas stations keeping the lines long and
the pumps dry.


With that ridiculous rewrite of history I can see why he wonders if
you were ever there.

That's the kind of vague sentence that gives me pause...

Did you think _I_ presented a "ridiculous rewrite of history", or were
you referring to Fremont?

I did have to push my cars, nearly on empty... it'd be a bit foolish
to stand in line when you don't really need gas.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Viewed from afar, even whores and Democrats seem reputable

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:41:26 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:57:25 -0500, "Anthony Fremont"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

From your comments I wonder if you were even there?? I was. I didn't
enjoy pushing my cars in line at the gas station.

Oh come on now Jim, you didn't really push your car now did you? As I
recall, most of the people in line were trying to top off their tanks by
adding a whole gallon of gas. Just like they do here in houston when a
storm is coming, people ran on the gas stations keeping the lines long
and
the pumps dry.


With that ridiculous rewrite of history I can see why he wonders if
you were ever there.

That's the kind of vague sentence that gives me pause...

Did you think _I_ presented a "ridiculous rewrite of history", or were
you referring to Fremont?

I did have to push my cars, nearly on empty... it'd be a bit foolish
to stand in line when you don't really need gas.

In the UK you only have to mention the words: "fuel strike" and everyone's
in line clogging up the forecourt - its guaranteed to run every filling
station dry within a matter of hours even if there is no interruption to
deliveries!

amdx wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
...

[snip]


What Clinton pushed for was a form of deregulation. In other words,
relax (or eliminate) the rules. The sitting GOP-run Congress, and the
impending Bush administration also have knee jerk reactions to regulation.

But the mortgage lenders would have protected themselves (with or without
regulation) if they didn't have the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)
to buy the paper.

They would have protected themselves if there were no GSEs around to buy
the risk. But given the political pressure to relax the standards on
what they (the GSEs) were willing to buy, someone (with fiscally
conservative leanings) should have pushed for audits to ensure that the
paper being written actually reflected the underlying risk.

If you want to buy loans from people with no known income on 100% of
some iffy property, fine. Just make sure that's what it says on the
contract so when we buy the paper, we know what we're getting.

One thing to consider: If we do hand the financial sector $700 bn to
cover damages, what sort of assurances are we buying that it doesn't
happen again? Like SEC regulation (and accompanying audits) of all
securities that banks are allowed to declare as assets for the purpose
of capital requirements. And getting all that paper off the OTC market
and into a (regulated) market/clearinghouse. That way, the next person
to write a 'liar loan' will be making a misrepresentation to the
government, which (as Martha Stewart knows) is a felony.

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

flipper wrote:

[snip]

That's actually part of the problem.

Think about it. Haven't you wondered how 5% (default rate) bad
mortgages could collapse the entire financial market?

Easy. The way CDOs have been engineered, the people holding the low risk
tranches are still receiving their payments. The people holding the high
risk parts (often the banks who couldn't sell them) are stuck with the
garbage.

The investors holding the low risk bits have stood in the way of any
scheme that would have cashed them out as well as the higher risk paper.

You have a security where 95% is still making a return (loans being
paid) and even the foreclosed property is still property but the
return is less than expected so, given the choice, you'd prefer to buy
something with a higher return. The market for buying 'low yield'
securities is low.

No. You have a package of securities that have little or no risk and
then you've got securities where, if 5% of the mortgages default, they
lose everything.

Our friendly government, however, requires they 'value' the securities
"mark to market' so if no one will buy the low yield security then you
have to declare it as 0 value even though it obviously has, in 'real'
terms, value.

There is no market for the high risk tranches.

The government also requires an asset to loan ratio but has just
forced you to write the entire security to 0, even though there are
real (property) assets and 95% paying, so your asset value went from a
modest decline to a 100% decline and if the ratio is 5 to 1 then you
just lost 5 times the entire asset value in ability to make loans.

No. The banks sold the low risk paper to wealthy old farts that insist
on receiving an ROI with no risk. But the banks couldn't unload the high
risk securities. This is what they have left on their books as 'assets'.

As far as the property goes, it isn't clear who is responsible for
seizing it. And once seized, how would you replace the CDO assets on
banks' books with the real estate when there is no longer a one-to-one
relationship between a mortgage and the debt obligations?

As each property is seized by whomever it is that runs the CDO pool (the
institution that receives mortgage payments and then sends them out to
all the debt holders), it can be sold or the deed kept on the books as
an asset' But the rich old farts who hold the lowest risk pieces of
paper have first call on any cash coming in. So the banks have to take
the non-cash assets. They can't make loans with non-cash assets.

Well, hell, the market for buying securities that can instantly go
from 'not a great yield' to flat ass *zero* value isn't just low, it's
non existent. Which, of course, guarantees the 0 mark to market value.
Add to that GSE bundling so it's difficult, if not impossible, to know
which securities might suddenly go to 0 and the whole thing spirals
down in a heart beat.

And getting all that paper off the OTC market
and into a (regulated) market/clearinghouse.

The 'plan' will 'work' (depending on how you define that) because
Uncle Sam ain't going to play by the same rues they legislate. Just
see how it's being 'explained'. As someone (sorry, forgot who) said,
"the government has the strength and ability to 'wait' for the market
value to recover" so they'll buy the 'bad' securities, knowing they
have real value, and then sell them later, which is precisely what
they prevent the private sector from doing.

Right. But they don't have the power to do something like step in and
refinance entire CDO pools. In other words, call in _all_ the paper for
a block of mortgages (good as well as bad) and then sell paper with no
risk differentiation back onto the market. The old farts with the low
risk slices of the current pools won't let it happen.

The government doesn't have the strength to stare down Paulson's puppet
masters.

If private enterprise did this they'd be in jail. I.E. Remember those
100 buck securities our GSE sold you? Well, surprise, we bundled in 5%
crap so they're only worth $95 bucks. And we're going to require you
write them to 0, making sure no one will buy them, but, good news,
we'll 'bail out' your butt for $50.

Nope. I bought the low risk tranch, so $100 worth will still get me $100
(plus interest) until every last bank has closed and all of you are in
soup lines. Or employed my me, scraping barnacles off my yacht.

Similar problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, btw, Being a GSE they
didn't have to 'play by the rules' either so rather than a 5 or 10 to
1 loan to asset ratio they were operating 100 to 1. How could they do
that? Well, they're government backed, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and
Democrats in general, made sure of that, so one could argue the
government needs to 'back' the mess it created.

That way, the next person
to write a 'liar loan' will be making a misrepresentation to the
government, which (as Martha Stewart knows) is a felony.

Unless you're planning a government take over of the entire financial
market the next 'liar' won't be talking to the government, they'll be
trying to get a loan from a private sector institution. But, lest you
be tempted, let me remind you that the existing 'liar loans' are there
because of the structure set up by the government so if you like this
mess then given them the whole thing.

They are there because the wealthy old farts demanded that the GSEs keep
generating risk differentiated debt obligations. So they could ensure
guaranteed income streams.

If the government steps in, all they have to do is to generate a one
sheet piece of paper that says 'I ___ hearby certify that my income,
down payment and home assessment have been stated truthfully.' And put
the SEC's name at the top. Then, any bank that wants to use the derived
debt obligations as assets for mandated capital reserves have a copy of
each one on file. And all such 'approved for use as assets' paper must
be traded through exchanges, open to the public, with visible bid/ask
prices. Stocks are (largely) already traded under such a scheme. Except
for special classes of equities (have to give the rich old farts some
goodies), all equities offered for sale to the public must be
registered.

But that ain't going to happen if the old farts with money insist on
skimming the 'good' CDO paper out of the system before the rest goes to
market.

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:35:43 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

UltimatePatriot wrote in
:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:27:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:


Under WHOSE Watch ?????

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...F933A0575AC0A9
6F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Leave it to the Democrats to **** EVERYTHING up, and then blame the
Republicans for it, AND THEN have the goddamnad gall to tell folks that
they have the solution for "the problem".

Obama will **** this country up worse than it already is.


I just had a truely nightmarish thought: what if he wins, and does *not*
FUBAR everything worse than it is now? Or even more radical, what if most
people come out better off then they've been for the past 8 years?

Good gawd =:-o , what will we do then...?!?!


Tell me, asshole... what happened to the Social Security that I will
never be getting , yet am still currently paying into?

You have no clue what needs to be done up there, or whose toes need to
be stepped on.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:33:56 -0700, Robert Monsen
wrote:

Carter inherited Nixon and Ford's economic mess.


Standard argument. Not true, however.

The war and the debt it created started in the early sixties, and the
economic impact was voted IN by ALL during that decade (before Nixon OR
Ford), and WE paid for it and are STILL paying for it. It was 55,000
men, and I do blame Nixon directly for about 5000 or more of those, when
he could have quit earlier. The debt was evryone's, however. Your
parents voted them in, if you are my age.

Whether Nixon, or a Democrat was in office, they would have devalued
the gold standard, so you can't blame that one on a party or the person
either. Even though that very act is part of why I have nowhere near the
standard of living my unskilled, non-union father had. So you cannot
attribute those debts to Nixon and Ford alone. We will be feeling
repercussions from the gold devaluation for over a century. But back to
blame for debt...

Hell, that is not even to mention the cost of the Korean War, and it's
multi-decade economic impact. You all seem to think that an NON-military
man has even the slightest clue as to what is required to retain the
security of this country, and its people, borders, customs, and our being
known for helping more countries around the world than any other. We do,
however, have security issues, therefore, we are still tops, regardless
of the worldwide propaganda,that has caused a lot of under-educated youth
to "hate America". I am glad their fathers and mothers still have sense
over there, in most cases. Sad that many youths take years to finally
get it.

STOP blaming one party or another. They have all turned a blind eye,
and participated in lobbyism. They have all given themselves far too
much money, and need to get pay reduced. They all need to remit their
"campaign residuals", every election, until the social security accounts
are beefed up to snuff. Essentially into perpetuity.

Folks... get the word out, we need record republican voter turnout
this year. We MUST NOT allow the inexperienced democratic stepladder boy
hop into the nation's top executive seat. You people cannot possibly be
that dumb! Everything will get worse, regardless of who gets in, because
the "take the money and run boys" are going to be doing just that.

Obama is scary... scary dumb. Do not put that idiot in office!!!
Harvard does NOT a President make. More IS required.

We now have ANOTHER WAR to prosecute, and you seem to have no clue how
much that is costing, and is going to continue to cost us, even if it
ended tomorrow, for decades. You know, however, that such an early
ending will NOT happen, because the security of our nation is at the
focus, regardless of what Obama thinks he will be doing with our
commanders.... unless you really have been sleeping in a cave.

Look closer, though... There are JOBS, son! THIS COUNRTY is THE BEST
COUNTRY... THAT EVER WAS, AND EVER WILL BE. We will work to make
ourselves more secure. Sure we will always give our teachers more
money. We do not, however, like Obama did,insult every teacher in the
country

.. We will work to make all the free, truly peaceful nations in the world
more secure, and better off economically as has always been the case. No
person in the world should listen to the hate propaganda that has been
proliferated for decades now.

For us?

This country will bounce back, and the information age will guarantee
that we have better, cheaper "oversight", so the hit and run, snake oil
boys can be kept from pulling the wool over the world's eyes again. I
hope we catch up to them, and drag those "parachutes" back in.

Where have you been? Listening to Rosie O'Donnell?

Sorry, we did not "blow up WTC 6" to destroy the records of a 6
trillion dollar hidden account, or for any other reason. It FELL, mainly
from the fire that burned beneath it.

Give it up, Rosie!

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:33:56 -0700, Robert Monsen
wrote:

It
is aparently their last-ditch effort to prevent Obama from creating a
national health care system: bankrupt the country!

Regards,
Bob Monsen


It will take far more than two presidential administration spans to set
up, and implement a proper "health care system". You and Obama and
anyone else that thinks it could possibly occur at the snap of a finger,
or the submission of some dumb, rush to order plan, is nuttier than a
fruitcake. Theplanning alone would take years, much less building the
infrastructure.

Sorry, we don' need no welfare system mistakes. This is going to take
time, and it will require a bi-partisan agreed upon plan to amortize the
debt to the doctors and hospitals (you know, the ones they charge the
current insurance system at more than double it's true value) over a
period of
many years. We'll make sure their kids go to college. Let them pay back
some debt. To me, many of them are in the same boat, in a character
analysis.

That is the main problem. Pharmaceuticals are far too high in price,
and so is health care itself.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message

Jim Thompson wrote:

Under WHOSE Watch ?????


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Note the date, you liberal FASCISTS ;-)

September 30, 1999

So between then and January 20, 2001 all the damage was done?

It took the Clinton administration 7 years to get its way on this, and you
think Bush could have reversed it immediately? On what grounds would he
have argued to reverse it?


Granted, that's what I'd expect from the Clintons. But why didn't
somebody (in Congress perhaps) step in with some regulations to keep a
lid on this? And why did it keep on going on?

Where have all the real conservatives gone?

They were forced into retreat in 98.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message


What Clinton pushed for was a form of deregulation. In other words,
relax (or eliminate) the rules. The sitting GOP-run Congress, and the
impending Bush administration also have knee jerk reactions to
regulation.

Tightening up mortgage requirements would have rained on the brokers',
bankers' and builders' picnics. So it was too easy to go along with
Clinton's policy.

Read the articles at those links. The Republicans didn't go along. They
tried to pass legislation to regulate the loans.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:11:06 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:


"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message


What Clinton pushed for was a form of deregulation. In other words,
relax (or eliminate) the rules. The sitting GOP-run Congress, and the
impending Bush administration also have knee jerk reactions to
regulation.

Tightening up mortgage requirements would have rained on the brokers',
bankers' and builders' picnics. So it was too easy to go along with
Clinton's policy.

Read the articles at those links. The Republicans didn't go along. They
tried to pass legislation to regulate the loans.

Turn on Fox News. They're discussing it right now. Schumer, Franks,
Obama, all the Dems cooking the books.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

"Jim Thompson" wrote
in message

Turn on Fox News. They're discussing it right now. Schumer, Franks,
Obama, all the Dems cooking the books.

And let's not forget that my former whore-mongering governor, Schumer,
ruined AIG to make a name for himself, by forcing out the long-time chairman
on bogus charges.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.