The Dow Jones index dropped over 500 points today leaving the market at it's
lowest point since 2005. Lehman Brothers investment bank declared
bankruptcy. Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch and AIG is on the verge of
bankruptcy too. Wachovia or Washington Mutual banks may be the next shoes to
drop. The result of all these financial disasters is that the country's
financial markets are in turmoil and money is being lost in massive amounts.
All of this can be laid at the feet of the deregulation of the financial
markets that is at the heart of the economic philosophy of the republican
party. The Bush administration made a decision to let the markets regulate
themselves ever since taking office. Now we see the results of no
regulation. A bear market on Wall street, a credit crisis, a real estate
crash, and now the financial markets falling apart. After all this, some
people still want to put republicans back in power come November. John
McCain doesn't know much about economics, according to him, but he is a
believer of deregulation of markets. Can the country afford another leader
that thinks "hands off" the markets is the way to operate? Forget about
Palin. Do we want more republicans at the helm of America's economic ship?
You'd have to be crazy to let those people stay in charge of our money and
financial institutions. The answer is simple; No More Republicans.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
The Dow Jones index dropped over 500 points today leaving the market at it's
lowest point since 2005. Lehman Brothers investment bank declared
bankruptcy. Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch and AIG is on the verge of
bankruptcy too. Wachovia or Washington Mutual banks may be the next shoes to
drop. The result of all these financial disasters is that the country's
financial markets are in turmoil and money is being lost in massive amounts.
All of this can be laid at the feet of the deregulation of the financial
markets that is at the heart of the economic philosophy of the republican
party. The Bush administration made a decision to let the markets regulate
themselves ever since taking office. Now we see the results of no
regulation. A bear market on Wall street, a credit crisis, a real estate
crash, and now the financial markets falling apart. After all this, some
people still want to put republicans back in power come November. John
McCain doesn't know much about economics, according to him, but he is a
believer of deregulation of markets. Can the country afford another leader
that thinks "hands off" the markets is the way to operate? Forget about
Palin. Do we want more republicans at the helm of America's economic ship?
You'd have to be crazy to let those people stay in charge of our money and
financial institutions. The answer is simple; No More Republicans.

Hawke



I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick Willie
Clintdud.

Jim

Jim Chandler wrote:
Hawke wrote:
The Dow Jones index dropped over 500 points today leaving the market
at it's lowest point since 2005. Lehman Brothers investment bank
declared bankruptcy. Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch and AIG is
on the verge of bankruptcy too. Wachovia or Washington Mutual banks
may be the next shoes to drop. The result of all these financial
disasters is that the country's financial markets are in turmoil and
money is being lost in massive amounts. All of this can be laid at
the feet of the deregulation of the financial markets that is at the
heart of the economic philosophy of the republican party. The Bush
administration made a decision to let the markets regulate
themselves ever since taking office. Now we see the results of no
regulation. A bear market on Wall street, a credit crisis, a real
estate crash, and now the financial markets falling apart. After all
this, some people still want to put republicans back in power come
November. John McCain doesn't know much about economics, according
to him, but he is a believer of deregulation of markets. Can the
country afford another leader that thinks "hands off" the markets is
the way to operate? Forget about Palin. Do we want more republicans
at the helm of America's economic ship? You'd have to be crazy to
let those people stay in charge of our money and financial
institutions. The answer is simple; No More Republicans.

Hawke



I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick Willie
Clintdud.


You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
ERISA was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed securities
he kicked of this nightmare.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick Willie
Clintdud.


You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed securities
he kicked of this nightmare.

Okay, assuming this is right, why didn't Billy Clinton do anything to fix it? I think he
had control of things up to 1994. Now if you said GWB did this blaming Republicans would
be in order.

What you seem to miss is that money buys congress. Sometimes both sides take the money
but one side sits back and lets the other side take the rap. There is a lot of
bipartisanism in Congress.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick Willie
Clintdud.


You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed securities
he kicked of this nightmare.

Okay, assuming this is right, why didn't Billy Clinton do anything to fix
it? I think he
had control of things up to 1994. Now if you said GWB did this blaming
Republicans would
be in order.

What you seem to miss is that money buys congress. Sometimes both sides
take the money
but one side sits back and lets the other side take the rap. There is a
lot of
bipartisanism in Congress.

Wes


Aren't the democrats in control of Congress?

Tom Gardner wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick
Willie Clintdud.


You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed
securities he kicked of this nightmare.

Okay, assuming this is right, why didn't Billy Clinton do anything
to fix it? I think he
had control of things up to 1994. Now if you said GWB did this
blaming Republicans would
be in order.

What you seem to miss is that money buys congress. Sometimes both
sides take the money
but one side sits back and lets the other side take the rap. There
is a lot of
bipartisanism in Congress.

Wes


Aren't the democrats in control of Congress?

Not for a long time Tom.
They have had a simple majority for the last 20 months but that's it.
The last majority was Republican and it lasted ten years.
Six of those years included control of all three branches.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

All of the bad loans given to first time buyers and brokered by libs
that sold to those that didn't have a valid ID or work history.
When they vaporized and left the bank with the worn home, the housing
market fluttered and slid. Is there any reason not to think this is the
case when Fanny and Freddy were given below cost money and sold higher
and made money left and right and sold blocks of homes to lots of companies.
Government backed loans that went sour.

Makes you wonder why the junk bond types got into this and caused a failure.

Hum.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Hawke wrote:
The Dow Jones index dropped over 500 points today leaving the market at it's
lowest point since 2005. Lehman Brothers investment bank declared
bankruptcy. Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch and AIG is on the verge of
bankruptcy too. Wachovia or Washington Mutual banks may be the next shoes to
drop. The result of all these financial disasters is that the country's
financial markets are in turmoil and money is being lost in massive amounts.
All of this can be laid at the feet of the deregulation of the financial
markets that is at the heart of the economic philosophy of the republican
party. The Bush administration made a decision to let the markets regulate
themselves ever since taking office. Now we see the results of no
regulation. A bear market on Wall street, a credit crisis, a real estate
crash, and now the financial markets falling apart. After all this, some
people still want to put republicans back in power come November. John
McCain doesn't know much about economics, according to him, but he is a
believer of deregulation of markets. Can the country afford another leader
that thinks "hands off" the markets is the way to operate? Forget about
Palin. Do we want more republicans at the helm of America's economic ship?
You'd have to be crazy to let those people stay in charge of our money and
financial institutions. The answer is simple; No More Republicans.

Hawke




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:56:41 -0400, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed securities
he kicked of this nightmare.

Okay, assuming this is right, why didn't Billy Clinton do anything to fix
it? I think he
had control of things up to 1994.
------------
I think you just explained the real reason for the impeachment
drive, the BJ being the excuse.

From somewhat patchy evidence this was exactly what he was
attempting to do, which is unusual as he comes from a
historically corrupt political background [Arkansas] so things
must have been really rank. Still, even a crook doesn't want
their town burned down as then there would be nothing to steal.

His major mistake was in forgetting just who he was dealing with,
and take precautions accordingly. It is well to remember that
this is the same group that made the mob "an offer they couldn't
refuse" for Las Vagus (which they gratefully and humbly
accepted).

FWIW -- the first obvious breach of the protections enacted as
result of the 1929 financial implosion was the repeal of
regulation Q by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and
Monetary Control Act of ==1980,== which allowed the FDIC to set
the permissible interest rates for demand deposits [hot money]
and checking accounts [0%]. This allowed the "high roller" banks
to offer high deposit rates leading to speculation with the money
and the classical trap where they lent long [30 year mortgages]
with short term money [hot/brokered demand deposits]. As soon as
other investment opportunities offered better returns [such as
another bank with higher interest rates] the hot money was
pulled, and the banks collapsed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Q

A key term is "disintermediation" where individuals invest their
money directly rather than through established organizations such
as banks and insurance companies which both pool the individual
funds and assume responsibility, in addition to having a greater
understanding of the risks, but charge a [implicit] fee resulting
in a [slightly] lower return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disintermediation
http://www.utdallas.edu/~chaf/ba4345/trans/ch11.ppt
if of interest google on "financial disintermediation" for
about 5k hits.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:56:41 -0400, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick Willie
Clintdud.


You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed securities
he kicked of this nightmare.

Okay, assuming this is right, why didn't Billy Clinton do anything to fix
it? I think he
had control of things up to 1994. Now if you said GWB did this blaming
Republicans would
be in order.

What you seem to miss is that money buys congress. Sometimes both sides
take the money
but one side sits back and lets the other side take the rap. There is a
lot of
bipartisanism in Congress.

Wes


Aren't the democrats in control of Congress?


Ayup..and they still continue to fund an "illegal and immoral war"
too.



"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick
Willie Clintdud.


You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed securities
he kicked of this nightmare.

Okay, assuming this is right, why didn't Billy Clinton do anything to
fix it? I think he had control of things up to 1994. Now if you
said GWB did this blaming Republicans would be in order.

What you seem to miss is that money buys congress. Sometimes both
sides take the money but one side sits back and lets the other side
take the rap. There is a lot of bipartisanism in Congress.


The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) was what ended
the era of defined benefit pension plans and ushered in the defined
contribution system you know today.

IRA's were the first outgrowth and you could only open an IRA at a bank in
the beginning. 401K's, Roth IRA's, Keogh's and the rest followed as the
defined benefit era ended.
We now are so far along that these things can even be self directed.
In the end there was a lot of new money. A LOT.
Just sitting there.
Waiting.
But not until the 90's.

Inflation was a real issue in the 70's as well. Richard Nixon imposed wage
and price controls for a while.
There were a couple of recessions but they were relatively brief and had
triggering events. As 1979 rolled around things came to a head. Inflation
hit double digits and when that happened the nations originators of
mortgages were in real trouble. Savings and loans were operating in a way
that required them to borrow money at nearly twice the rate they had lent it
out at in the form of long term mortgages and they were going broke. Paul
Volker had determined that inflation was the most dangerous threat to our
economy and had raised interest rates to the point that Prime plus one was
twenty percent. Usury laws had to be rewritten but until they were, lending
effectively stopped except in certain commercial transactions. Mortgages
were at 14 percent.

It was at this point that the Congress passed a piece of legislation that
allowed Savings and Loans to apply their current losses against the years of
taxes they'd paid over the previous ten years. They would get checks back
from the IRS. The losses, however had to be monetized before they could be
useful in this scheme and it was hard to do.
Then came Salomon Brothers Inc. and a short, fat little Italian who was
dying to get out of the back room. IIRC we are up to 1984.
His idea, and what he did, was to take bundles of mortgages that S&L's were
desperate to unload and package them for sale as bonds. Salomon Brothers
would generate a fee, the S&L's would reap their tax benefit in huge chunks
and money would then flow back into the new mortgage market. He and a small
team hit the road to promote their new product and after nearly running out
of gas, they sold the first $25 million of bands to Bank of America. Half
way through the champagne and caviar one of the lawyers piped in that what
had been done might not be legal. He was right. Laws had been written to
protect the baking industry and these sorts of securities couldn't be sold
to federally insured institutions without having first been "franked" by
either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Fannie was the lighted touch due to
competitive reasons - they were the junior GSE at the time and were
suffering a big case of penis envy.

The S&L's went wild selling every mortgage they had at steep discounts all
the while refilling their coffers with the tax rebates they received as they
reported huge losses on paper. This was how the Reagan administration
"saved" the mortgage banking industry. They used our tax dollars as a gift
to the industry.
M&A BOOMED. All of the money flowing into S&L's had to go somewhere so they
all started buying the debt used to fund mergers and acquisitions. That debt
is was called "High Yield" bonds and what came to be known as Junk bonds in
the end.

The years between 1990 and today have been years of laws being modified or
just plain thrown out in order to give the people who create these sorts of
debt instruments the greatest possible access to the tremendous wealth
Americans have stored in the savings and investment plans created as the
result of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Our pockets have been picked nearly clean at this point and by the publics
own demand for earnings, not it's consent.
We'll see another Pecora Commission in eighteen months and we need it.

Charlie Rose had four of Wall Streets top players on yesterday and if you
think for a minute that I am pessimistic or that George is being harsh you
should have heard them. None of the four thought we were going to have
anything less than complete collapse over the next year.

They made a convincing case and I'm afraid - really afraid - they are
correct.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Then came Salomon Brothers Inc. and a short, fat little Italian who was
dying to get out of the back room. IIRC we are up to 1984.
His idea, and what he did, was to take bundles of mortgages that S&L's were
desperate to unload and package them for sale as bonds. Salomon Brothers
would generate a fee, the S&L's would reap their tax benefit in huge chunks
and money would then flow back into the new mortgage market. He and a small
team hit the road to promote their new product and after nearly running out
of gas, they sold the first $25 million of bands to Bank of America. Half
way through the champagne and caviar one of the lawyers piped in that what
had been done might not be legal. He was right. Laws had been written to
protect the baking industry and these sorts of securities couldn't be sold
to federally insured institutions without having first been "franked" by
either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Fannie was the lighted touch due to
competitive reasons - they were the junior GSE at the time and were
suffering a big case of penis envy.

The book "Liar's Poker" is an excellent and entertaining study of these
events. The author, Michael Lewis, had a first-hand view, as he worked
at Salomon Brothers.

--
Jedd Haas - Artist - New Orleans, LA
http://www.gallerytungsten.com

Jedd Haas wrote:
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


The book "Liar's Poker" is an excellent and entertaining study of
these events. The author, Michael Lewis, had a first-hand view, as he
worked at Salomon Brothers.

I have another. "Trail Fever" and it's very entertaining as well as
factually accurate.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On 2008-09-16, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:
Jedd Haas wrote:
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


The book "Liar's Poker" is an excellent and entertaining study of
these events. The author, Michael Lewis, had a first-hand view, as he
worked at Salomon Brothers.

I have another. "Trail Fever" and it's very entertaining as well as
factually accurate.


And if you want to think about risk better, read this book

http://www.amazon.com/Fortunes-Formu.../dp/0809045990

It is an exremely insightful book.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus14986 wrote:
On 2008-09-16, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:
Jedd Haas wrote:
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


The book "Liar's Poker" is an excellent and entertaining study of
these events. The author, Michael Lewis, had a first-hand view, as
he worked at Salomon Brothers.

I have another. "Trail Fever" and it's very entertaining as well as
factually accurate.


And if you want to think about risk better, read this book



http://www.amazon.com/Fortunes-Formu.../dp/0809045990

It is an exremely insightful book.

I'm familiar with both Kelly and Thorp. What is different in today's
scenario is that the deck is constantly and deliberately being morphed
without any rules and in an environment that is extremely opaque. What if
the dealer remove all of the face cards from the deck and you didn't know
it?
That's what we have in the markets today.

The book is on my list. I generally wait until I've got several before
purchasing in order to save the shipping.
The recent exception was "Ricochet" because it was being discussed here and
Ed Huntress contributed to the editing process.
It's a decent book and for a guy like me who has not had the slightest
interest in the subject matter it was informative and well written. At eight
bucks delivered it was also an excellent value.

Thanks for the link.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Not for a long time Tom.
They have had a simple majority for the last 20 months but that's it.
The last majority was Republican and it lasted ten years.
Six of those years included control of all three branches.


Unless the Republicans had 2/3's of the Senate during those 6 years, their majority was
simple also.

Wes

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Not for a long time Tom.
They have had a simple majority for the last 20 months but that's it.
The last majority was Republican and it lasted ten years.
Six of those years included control of all three branches.


Unless the Republicans had 2/3's of the Senate during those 6 years,
their majority was simple also.



Regardless, Tom is still lying and he knows it.
The result isn't only obvious, it's bad news.


--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Unless the Republicans had 2/3's of the Senate during those 6 years,
their majority was simple also.



Regardless, Tom is still lying and he knows it.
The result isn't only obvious, it's bad news.




The Dems set the agenda in both the Senate and the House. While they do not have full
control, they do have control on what legislation makes it to the floor.

Then there is who is the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the Senate, which side
has more of their party on each committee and those sort of things. Outside of the
filibuster in the Senate, the Dems own both houses the Congress, 4.? Supreme Court
Justices and the federal permanent employees that stay on from one administration to
another.

Tom's response, "Aren't the democrats in control of Congress?" not a lie as far as I can
determine. The Dems are in control of Congress and have a majority of regulators in their
camp.


Wes

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


Not for a long time Tom.
They have had a simple majority for the last 20 months but that's it.
The last majority was Republican and it lasted ten years.
Six of those years included control of all three branches.



Unless the Republicans had 2/3's of the Senate during those 6 years, their majority was
simple also.

Wes


The great majority of the problems we are experiencing today is the
result of the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933, under, you
guessed it, Slick Willie. The repeal of that act allowed commercial and
investment banks to intermingle and that is when the greed and
corruption set in.

Jim

Jim Chandler wrote:
Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


Not for a long time Tom.
They have had a simple majority for the last 20 months but that's
it. The last majority was Republican and it lasted ten years.
Six of those years included control of all three branches.



Unless the Republicans had 2/3's of the Senate during those 6 years,
their majority was simple also.

Wes


The great majority of the problems we are experiencing today is the
result of the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933, under, you
guessed it, Slick Willie. The repeal of that act allowed commercial
and investment banks to intermingle and that is when the greed and
corruption set in.

Not exactly.
It was an ammendment after passage authored by Phil Graham.
The truth is bad enough, tell the entire story.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that "Tom Gardner"
wrote on Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:56:41 -0400 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:
I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick Willie
Clintdud.
You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed securities
he kicked of this nightmare.

Okay, assuming this is right, why didn't Billy Clinton do anything to fix
it? I think he
had control of things up to 1994. Now if you said GWB did this blaming
Republicans would be in order.

What you seem to miss is that money buys congress. Sometimes both sides
take the money but one side sits back and lets the other side take the rap. There is a
lot of bipartisanism in Congress.

Wes

Aren't the democrats in control of Congress?

Hard to say. Has the war been defunded? Are the troops brought
home from Iraq? Is President George W. Bush still in office?
No? then I'd say the answer is "nope, the Democrats are not in
control." And considering what their press office is doing, "not in
control" is an understatement.

--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

I think you'll find that the de-regulation started under Slick
Willie Clintdud.


You need to think a little harder then jimbo.
was before Clinton and when Ronnie allowed mortgage backed securities
he kicked of this nightmare.

Okay, assuming this is right, why didn't Billy Clinton do anything to
fix it? I think he had control of things up to 1994. Now if you
said GWB did this blaming Republicans would be in order.

What you seem to miss is that money buys congress. Sometimes both
sides take the money but one side sits back and lets the other side
take the rap. There is a lot of bipartisanism in Congress.


The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) was what ended
the era of defined benefit pension plans and ushered in the defined
contribution system you know today.

IRA's were the first outgrowth and you could only open an IRA at a bank in
the beginning. 401K's, Roth IRA's, Keogh's and the rest followed as the
defined benefit era ended.
We now are so far along that these things can even be self directed.
In the end there was a lot of new money. A LOT.
Just sitting there.
Waiting.
But not until the 90's.

Inflation was a real issue in the 70's as well. Richard Nixon imposed wage
and price controls for a while.
There were a couple of recessions but they were relatively brief and had
triggering events. As 1979 rolled around things came to a head. Inflation
hit double digits and when that happened the nations originators of
mortgages were in real trouble. Savings and loans were operating in a way
that required them to borrow money at nearly twice the rate they had lent
it
out at in the form of long term mortgages and they were going broke. Paul
Volker had determined that inflation was the most dangerous threat to our
economy and had raised interest rates to the point that Prime plus one was
twenty percent. Usury laws had to be rewritten but until they were,
lending
effectively stopped except in certain commercial transactions. Mortgages
were at 14 percent.

It was at this point that the Congress passed a piece of legislation that
allowed Savings and Loans to apply their current losses against the years
of
taxes they'd paid over the previous ten years. They would get checks back
from the IRS. The losses, however had to be monetized before they could be
useful in this scheme and it was hard to do.
Then came Salomon Brothers Inc. and a short, fat little Italian who was
dying to get out of the back room. IIRC we are up to 1984.
His idea, and what he did, was to take bundles of mortgages that S&L's
were
desperate to unload and package them for sale as bonds. Salomon Brothers
would generate a fee, the S&L's would reap their tax benefit in huge
chunks
and money would then flow back into the new mortgage market. He and a
small
team hit the road to promote their new product and after nearly running
out
of gas, they sold the first $25 million of bands to Bank of America. Half
way through the champagne and caviar one of the lawyers piped in that what
had been done might not be legal. He was right. Laws had been written to
protect the baking industry and these sorts of securities couldn't be sold
to federally insured institutions without having first been "franked" by
either Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. Fannie was the lighted touch due to
competitive reasons - they were the junior GSE at the time and were
suffering a big case of penis envy.

The S&L's went wild selling every mortgage they had at steep discounts all
the while refilling their coffers with the tax rebates they received as
they
reported huge losses on paper. This was how the Reagan administration
"saved" the mortgage banking industry. They used our tax dollars as a gift
to the industry.
M&A BOOMED. All of the money flowing into S&L's had to go somewhere so
they
all started buying the debt used to fund mergers and acquisitions. That
debt
is was called "High Yield" bonds and what came to be known as Junk bonds
in
the end.

The years between 1990 and today have been years of laws being modified or
just plain thrown out in order to give the people who create these sorts
of
debt instruments the greatest possible access to the tremendous wealth
Americans have stored in the savings and investment plans created as the
result of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Our pockets have been picked nearly clean at this point and by the publics
own demand for earnings, not it's consent.
We'll see another Pecora Commission in eighteen months and we need it.

Charlie Rose had four of Wall Streets top players on yesterday and if you
think for a minute that I am pessimistic or that George is being harsh you
should have heard them. None of the four thought we were going to have
anything less than complete collapse over the next year.

They made a convincing case and I'm afraid - really afraid - they are
correct.


Is that supposed to be a surprise? I guess it is but only to supply siders
and Neocons. Anyone besides those foolish idealists knows from our past
history that whenever business gets too powerful and gains the ability to
make the government jump to it's commands we get the same scenario. Control
of business comes off, a period of prosperity ensues, a boom if you like,
and then the inevitable collapse follows. The worst example of this scenario
was the Great Depression. You would have though we would have learned our
lesson from that experience once and for all but that's clearly not the
case. Business has it's republican flunky in the White House and with a
compliant congress everything that kept the system in check was chucked out
the window. How long will it take to fix things and how bad will it get is
hard to say but it's going to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
My only question is whether the country has had enough of this stuff and
will elect a government that will put the brakes on an out of control
business community. We'll see in November if it would prefer some more of
the same or do they recognize a change has to be made and I don't mean from
one pro business republican to another one.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Not for a long time Tom.
They have had a simple majority for the last 20 months but that's it.
The last majority was Republican and it lasted ten years.
Six of those years included control of all three branches.


Unless the Republicans had 2/3's of the Senate during those 6 years, their
majority was
simple also.

Wes

That would be true if both parties were both the same. They're not.
Republicans vote as a block in general. It's rare for a republican to cross
over and vote with the Democrats. Conversely, the entire time the
republicans had large majorities in congress they could always count on a
number of Democrats, like Joe Lieberman, to vote with them thus giving them
all the votes they needed to pass the legislation the party wanted passed.
If you want to see the difference in action take a look at how many
republicans have crossed over and voted with the Democrats since '06 when
the Democrats got the majority. You will find that the Democrats have been
virtually powerless to pass any legislation because of the solidarity of the
republicans and the veto pen of Bush. So you see, the truth is the
republicans were able to pass virtually all of the legislation they wanted
to for at least six years. The Democrats can't do that. If we get a Democrat
in the White House and big majorities in congress then they will be in the
position the republicans used to be in. Until that happens the only party
that has been in the driver's seat has been the republicans, and that is why
the problems we have today were caused by them. They were in control of all
three branches of the government. But being the cowardly hypocrites
republicans are, instead of owning up to the failure of their policies what
have they done? They tried to pass the blame on to the Democrats. But then
that's exactly what I would expect them to do. I mean, to expect a
republican to act honorably is really laughable.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Unless the Republicans had 2/3's of the Senate during those 6 years,
their majority was simple also.



Regardless, Tom is still lying and he knows it.
The result isn't only obvious, it's bad news.




The Dems set the agenda in both the Senate and the House. While they do
not have full
control, they do have control on what legislation makes it to the floor.

Then there is who is the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the
Senate, which side
has more of their party on each committee and those sort of things.
Outside of the
filibuster in the Senate, the Dems own both houses the Congress, 4.?
Supreme Court
Justices and the federal permanent employees that stay on from one
administration to
another.

Tom's response, "Aren't the democrats in control of Congress?" not a lie
as far as I can
determine. The Dems are in control of Congress and have a majority of
regulators in their
camp.


Wes

Nobody can be said to control congress unless they get to where they have
the 60 votes needed in the senate to break a filibuster. Having a small
majority gives one side more power than the other but it doesn't give it
control until they can pass what they want regardless of what the opposition
party does. The republicans had that for a number of years and passed
anything they wanted and the Democrats couldn't do a thing about it. It's
nothing like that right now. But having the White house and a close minority
can arguably be said to be the party actually in control of the government.

Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Jim Chandler wrote:
Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


Not for a long time Tom.
They have had a simple majority for the last 20 months but that's
it. The last majority was Republican and it lasted ten years.
Six of those years included control of all three branches.



Unless the Republicans had 2/3's of the Senate during those 6 years,
their majority was simple also.

Wes


The great majority of the problems we are experiencing today is the
result of the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933, under, you
guessed it, Slick Willie. The repeal of that act allowed commercial
and investment banks to intermingle and that is when the greed and
corruption set in.

Not exactly.
It was an ammendment after passage authored by Phil Graham.
The truth is bad enough, tell the entire story.

The reason for repealing the Glass-Stegall Act was, of course, to unleash
financial institutions from government regulations, which had been keeping
those institutions sound since the Depression. Once they were free to do as
they wished they decided that to make more money they needed to take a lot
more risk. Being the geniuses they are they thought they had risk management
completely under control to the point where they were leveraged at a rate of
30 to 1. Now, any beginner to the investment world knows that the greater
the risk the higher the reward. But along with the higher reward comes the
greater chance of going broke. Not these guys though. They wanted the
freedom to gamble, and they did. Today we see the results of the gambling
(uh, investing) by the investment banks.

Without the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the passing of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, which allowed commercial and investment banks to
consolidate, we wouldn't be where we are today. We got unfettered free
market capitalism with the ending of business regulation by the government.
As expected, a few people made millions and the rest of the country got
****ed. A quote about those who don't know history repeating it goes here.

To add to the pot there is a rumor going around about who is going to become
the next secretary of the Treasury if McCain is elected. Guess who it's
going to be? The one and only Phil Gramm. Now wouldn't that be nice? That's
the problem with electing McCain. You get all the crud he brings with him
and most of it is the same gang of thieves that are in positions of
authority in Washington right now. In fact, if McCain wins the turnover from
Bush's administration to McCain's will be the smallest in history. We
substitute McCain for Bush but nearly everybody else stays in place. Like
things the way they are now? If you do you know who to vote for. Hint; he's
old, and white.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote:

Nobody can be said to control congress unless they get to where they have
the 60 votes needed in the senate to break a filibuster. Having a small
majority gives one side more power than the other but it doesn't give it
control until they can pass what they want regardless of what the opposition
party does. The republicans had that for a number of years and passed
anything they wanted and the Democrats couldn't do a thing about it. It's
nothing like that right now. But having the White house and a close minority
can arguably be said to be the party actually in control of the government.

Hawke


You are correct on the 60. 60 is clouture which will get something to the floor passing a
filibuster that seldom actually happens. Two thirds gets a treaty approved or a senator
expelled.

Now when did the Republicans have 60 seats in the Senate and own the House? I must have
missed those good times. I tried to google for how the various parties held congress
over the years but could not not find the proper search terms.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote:

Nobody can be said to control congress unless they get to where they have
the 60 votes needed in the senate to break a filibuster. Having a small
majority gives one side more power than the other but it doesn't give it
control until they can pass what they want regardless of what the
opposition
party does. The republicans had that for a number of years and passed
anything they wanted and the Democrats couldn't do a thing about it. It's
nothing like that right now. But having the White house and a close
minority
can arguably be said to be the party actually in control of the
government.

Hawke


You are correct on the 60. 60 is clouture which will get something to the
floor passing a
filibuster that seldom actually happens. Two thirds gets a treaty
approved or a senator
expelled.

Now when did the Republicans have 60 seats in the Senate and own the
House? I must have
missed those good times. I tried to google for how the various parties
held congress
over the years but could not not find the proper search terms.

Wes

The republicans didn't have 60 but they always had a few Democrats from
republican leaning states they could always count on to give them the votes
they needed. Like Joe Lieberman who could be counted on to vote with the
republicans whenever they wanted him to. Like I said you can't find examples
where republican senators crossed over and voted with the Democrats. If they
did they would never be allowed to keep living if they betrayed the other
republicans. Everything doesn't need 60 votes either only some issues. But
the point is the republicans had effective majorities when they were in
charge. As you can see from this congress the republicans don't let the
Democrats pass anything. It wasn't like that in the first six years of
Bush's term.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote:

The republicans didn't have 60 but they always had a few Democrats from
republican leaning states they could always count on to give them the votes
they needed. Like Joe Lieberman who could be counted on to vote with the
republicans whenever they wanted him to. Like I said you can't find examples
where republican senators crossed over and voted with the Democrats. If they
did they would never be allowed to keep living if they betrayed the other
republicans. Everything doesn't need 60 votes either only some issues. But
the point is the republicans had effective majorities when they were in
charge. As you can see from this congress the republicans don't let the
Democrats pass anything. It wasn't like that in the first six years of
Bush's term.


You are so clueless. Snowe, Lincoln Chafee (lasted for years), Chuck Hagel, Guliani,
McCain isn't an arch conservative either.

Wes