Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2008; 12:19 PM
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan called today for imposing some of the same sorts of regulations on mortgage securities he resisted when he was in office, acknowledging that the current financial crisis had exposed "a flaw" in his view of how the world and markets function.
The way mortgage securities were traded is less than half the problem. The securities that were being traded would be just fine if the mortgages contained within them were of good quality. Fannie and Freddie were required to reduce the loan standards. The loans were then packaged into securities and traded by stock brokers. As has been shown in this thread numerous times, it wasn't the republicans who were pushing Fannie and Freddie to make these loans.
The SEC should have required that the brokers do their due diligence on these mortgage securities, but why should they worry? After all Fannie and Freddie have the US govt to back them up when the loans fail.
About all it proves, is Greenspan doesn't have any answers.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
Hey, at least we know the RNC spent $150,000 on clothes for Palin. Now THAT'S sticking to the issues.
On a similar note, Obama's Medicare ads have been factchecked as false. Yet, it's still McCain that is the only one accused of running negative ads. FactCheck.org: Obama's False Medicare Claim
Factcheck is run by Annaberg. Obama's linked with them as a past employee, and current receiver of donations.
By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 23, 2008; 12:19 PM
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan called today for imposing some of the same sorts of regulations on mortgage securities he resisted when he was in office, acknowledging that the current financial crisis had exposed "a flaw" in his view of how the world and markets function.
A flaw? Gee...ya think?
I'll admit that was a flaw since it wasn't mine as to you being right, about what. I've exposed nearly all your fallacies already. Got another?
You ready to admit that the SEC isn't at fault because it can't regulate what it has expressly been excluded from regulating.
Gee, not likely, you'd have to admit you are wrong, something you never do on the many many things you are wrong on.
As to gloating, hold that thought for 4 years and tell me 'are you better off now than you were 4 years ago.'
The great thing about people that gloat, is that what goes around comes around.
John, you are absolutely correct about that. Therefore I want to go on record right now stating that I have the utmost respect for the Philadelphia Phillies, their entire organization and the city of Philadelphia itself. They are the best team in the National League and neither I or the team that I pull for, The Tampa Bay Rays will be talking smack about them.
Especially when the electio.... ooops I mean the World Series isn't even over yet.
Rick, Can you say "Dewey Wins, Dewey Wins"?
Remember what happened in the 5th game of the 2008 ALCS.
Besides, except for very rare circumstances, cockiness is extremely distasteful.
An oldie but a goodie. This simple lesson seems to apply more now than ever.
Quote:
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2 ? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the 9 sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is some what friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
An interesting point I read today. Quite simply, that, given what we know of Obama, he would be highly unlikely to receive a basic security clearance. Imagine that, a President who couldn't get a security clearance.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
I read an article today that argued that is Nobama wasn't at the head of the ticket he would not have survived the vetting process for VP, character references, past associations, experience etc..
Not saying Palin should have either, but I like spunk at least.
If he couldn't have survived the process for VP, what the heck makes him qualified for P?
John USYacht 27 "Cora Lee"
