Buffett warns on investment 'time bomb'

[BlackHorse]

I posted it, you ignored it. link

 

Curiously enough, Spitzer's sex for hire scandal broke less than 30 days after this editorial appeared.

 

I see what you're saying retro, the problem is you posted an article that seemed to be more interested in bashing the Bush administration rather than trying to explain both sides of the issue. For instance it says things like

 

the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners.

 

Choosing instead to align themselves with banks that were "victimizing" home owners.

 

Whenever I see a printed article that uses inflamatory language like that, red flags start going up. This is an agenda driven piece.

 

Why did the Bush adminsitration "look the other way"? Why did they "align themselves with banks?" The article never says why they took those actions. Instead it just implies that for some strange reason the Bush administration and banks teamed up to screw the little guy. Only the obvious flaw is that in screwing these people over they know they are screwing themselves over. It's easy to say "those damn predatory banks, they did it on purpose. They took advantage of customers that didn't know any better and put them in mortgages that they knew would default." If you're in the banking business, why do you lend money to people you know are not going to pay back the money you just loaned them? Just because you're an evil banker I guess. Strangely that also happens to jive with the "corporate America is evil, let the government make everything fair" theme that laces democrat rhetoric.

 

So, I went and found an article that explains why the Bush administration opposed the things mentioned in this article.

 

http://www.inman.com/news/2007/11/4/bush-a...ry-lending-bill

 

That article actually makes an attempt to explain the issue from both sides, neither casting praise nor criticism. It was actually just the facts, a refreshing change from the opinion based media that is so prevalent these days.

 

Now, I'm not saying that what the Administration did was right or a good idea. It may well have been a bad idea, as we look back now I think that argument could be made. But it doesn't change the fact that at the core of this financial collpase was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now we both know that Bush Administration was telling congress from they very first year in 2001 that something had to be done about these two agencies or the damage would be unbelieveable. They tried numerous times over the past eight years to reign in Fannie and Freddie. Everytime the effort was resisted and stopped by Democrats.

 

So, in conclusion I would have to say that yes, the Bush Adminstration made a serious error in judgement and screwed up big time with respect to backing the banks as your article points out. I think they were doing what they thought was best for consumers in the long run. Obviously it was not. What I also noticed about your article was that the opposition to what he was doing seems to have come entirely from the state Attorneys General respectively. All fifty of them right? Question, Where were the democrats in the House and Senate while all of this was going on? Why weren't they saying "Hey Bush, we gotta do something about these Predatory Lending Policies"? Could it be because if they did they would also have to address what was going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and quit blocking those known and well recorded efforts on the part of the Adminstration among other Republican leaders to do something about those two entities?

Edited October 12, 2008 by BlackHorse

[RangerM]

-deleted for space-

 

Something to add to your post, BH.

[BlackHorse]

Something to add to your post, BH.

 

 

Thanks Ranger, just months before the Democrats took back control.

[fmccap]

But it doesn't change the fact that at the core of this financial collpase was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The core actually is our monetary policy from the FED and government.

[Edstock]

Anyway, back to Buffet.

 

What Warren was trying to say is that we have never lived in an electronic economy before. Because of that, there is nobody who understands what can happen. So, he stays out of derivatives.

 

And therefore, it could come to pass = I hope not = that the governments around the world may have to act repeatedly in unison to keep financial tsunamis from growing out of the as-yet-to-be-discovered clusterfuck.

 

This is because we are talking about a world-wide financial system. Like Bennie observed a long time ago, "Gentlemen, we must surely hang together, or we will surely hang separately". Bennie was no business fool; he invented printing franchises.

 

So, conservatives beware: keeping this system functional could require further government intrusion, nobody knows.

 

Tom Clancy is also no fool. His description of what the US government is, and what he'd like to see, is very interesting, and well worth reading by all Americans. He goes into some detail in his Jack Ryan novel, where Jack becomes POTUS.

[Deanh]

That's it? That's what you got for me Deanh? I'm over here watching a movie, having some dinner and then I remember "Oh yeah, surely by now Dean has got some pearl of wisdom for me. Some incontrovertible evidence that supports his claim that the republicans are just as much to blame for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the democrats. Because, you know, Dean is usually so well spoken and makes good points." What was your response?

 

Shit happens.

 

Shit happens and then I guess you decided to ramble on about old men that fart dust and focusing on Iraq and who controlled the house. Anything but actually answering the question I posed and backing up your claims. Did you watch those videos at all? Have you watched the news about this at all? I'm not being sarcastic I seriously would like to know because if you had then you would know that the efforts of republicans to include the adminstration to reign in and put some regulation on Fannie and Freddie were blocked by democrats. Let me say that again. They efforts were blocked by democrats in Congress. Blocked, as in obstructed, stopped, prevented from coming to fruition. It did not matter that the republicans controlled congress at the time. There are ways that those committees, sub-committees and all that House and Senate rules apply that enabled them to block the efforts despite the republican majority.

 

If you want to make that the issue, however, the democrats have controlled congress for the last two years. I know that the issue of Fannie and Freddie was once again brought up as an order of business within that time. I believe it was even pointed out in one of those videos. So why didn't the democrats who have controlled congress for the last two years do something about this?

 

I'm serious man, I really wanted to see some evidence from you that implicated some republicans in this because it wouldn't bother me one bit to harp all over them too. Instead? Shit happens. Pure genius.

 

Does anyone else have anything that could implicate the repubs in this because obvioulsy Dean is either not up to the task or he just couldn't find anything. Anyone, I would love to see it.

 

Who am I kidding? You guys are a waste of time. Maybe you Edstock? Got anything? How about you Razor? Can you quit running on about baby boomers and other unrelated issues and provide me with some solid evidence that shows the Demcorats tried to prevent this? Serioulsy, you guys are pretty smart, let's hear it.

actually Blackie, the shit happens comment pertained to your spelling errors........I seem to remember a certain person questioning education levels when pointing out THEIR errors/ mistakes....and its "SERIOUSLY"...not Serioulsy....like I said...$hit happens...and please blame EVERYTHING on Fannie and Freddie....that is the SOLE reason we are all witnessing the mis-management of the USA....hell, convieniently forget all the TRILLIONS being spent in Afganistan and Iraq....hey I don't back either party...just find it curious that you see no wrong by Republicans...they rock!

[Edstock]

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Angry

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABXPICWjFIo

 

If you don't know about the Black Swan, you should.

 

Nassim explains, and he sure is pissed.

[NickF1011]

.hell, convieniently forget all the TRILLIONS being spent in Afganistan and Iraq....

 

Most of that money is going back to American contractors who are supplying our military and contributing to rebuilding efforts. :yup:

[Deanh]

Most of that money is going back to American contractors who are supplying our military and contributing to rebuilding efforts. :yup:

so...nothing is contributed to the deficit??????????? Iraq was/ is a costly mistake, Afganistan I can agree with, but still feel they should have at least completed one before going into another....BOTH loose ends show no sign of completion....and someone has to foot the bill......

[NickF1011]

so...nothing is contributed to the deficit??????????? Iraq was/ is a costly mistake, Afganistan I can agree with, but still feel they should have at least completed one before going into another....BOTH loose ends show no sign of completion....and someone has to foot the bill......

 

...says one opinion.

 

I tend to disagree with your assessment, but I'm not about to get into it. It's a tired debate that no one is willing to sensibly argue.

[Deanh]

...says one opinion.

 

I tend to disagree with your assessment, but I'm not about to get into it. It's a tired debate that no one is willing to sensibly argue.

yep...kinda a no win argument there for sure.....like politics...EVERYONE has an opinion....

[NickF1011]

yep...kinda a no win argument there for sure.....like politics...EVERYONE has an opinion....

 

I, for one, have never looked forward to an election as much as this one. Not because I can't wait to vote and see change for our country. But just so I can stop listening to all the pinhead "analysts" everywhere who think I care about their opinion. The talking points of this election are the most tiring drivel I've ever heard-- from both camps.

[Deanh]

I, for one, have never looked forward to an election as much as this one. Not because I can't wait to vote and see change for our country. But just so I can stop listening to all the pinhead "analysts" everywhere who think I care about their opinion. The talking points of this election are the most tiring drivel I've ever heard-- from both camps.

one word to me sums it up...actually two...overblown circus.....

[BlackHorse]

so...nothing is contributed to the deficit??????????? Iraq was/ is a costly mistake, Afganistan I can agree with, but still feel they should have at least completed one before going into another....BOTH loose ends show no sign of completion....and someone has to foot the bill......

 

Oh, I see you want to talk about "costly" things are. Sure let's do that. Lets start with how much the "War on Poverty" has cost us. Try Six Trillion with a T. Poverty rate in America after 4 decades and 6 Trillion dollars spent in the war on poverty? Unchanged.

 

The War on Drugs. This one is mostly a republican brainchild but be sure there are plenty of democrats on board with it. Again, we've spent untold amounts of money. Drugs are still here.

 

 

 

Wait, this will really blow you mind. Public Law 107-243.

 

 

If you say to someone "Hey, lets you and I jump in that mudhole and get all dirty." than don't cry like a little girl later on when you get all dirty.

 

 

By the way your assesment of what qualifies as success or failure in Iraq and Afghanistan is based on how much you do or don't see it in the media which frankly is of no value at all. I always laugh when people complain about how "we took our eye off the ball with Iraq" or "we should have completed one before the other". I mean I hate to use you as an example dean and point out how completely ignorant to reality that is but think about it for a moment. It's the United States Military. They can do more than one thing at the same time. Statements about finsihing one before the other or not keeping our eye on the ball are bumper sticker buzz phrases intended to whip up the liberal base over nothing. I say nothing because it is a lie to assert that we can only do one at a time. Amazingly enough this is the same country that fought a global war across most to the western Pacific, Europe and Northern Africa all at the same time. Now all of a sudden we can't handle Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time? Think about how full of crap that is. Don't buy into that nonsense Dean, you know better. Also I'd really love it if you could find for me a Democrat who lead the charge to regulate Fannie and Freddie anywhere in the last seven or eight years. Still no one has done that.

Edited October 13, 2008 by BlackHorse

[Deanh]

Oh, I see you want to talk about "costly" things are. Sure let's do that. Lets start with how much the "War on Poverty" has cost us. Try Six Trillion with a T. Poverty rate in America after 4 decades and 6 Trillion dollars spent in the war on poverty? Unchanged.

 

The War on Drugs. This one is mostly a republican brainchild but be sure there are plenty of democrats on board with it. Again, we've spent untold amounts of money. Drugs are still here.

 

 

 

Wait, this will really blow you mind. Public Law 107-243.

 

 

If you say to someone "Hey, lets you and I jump in that mudhole and get all dirty." than don't cry like a little girl later on when you get all dirty.

 

 

By the way your assesment of what qualifies as success or failure in Iraq and Afghanistan is based on how much you do or don't see it in the media which frankly is of no value at all. I always laugh when people complain about how "we took our eye off the ball with Iraq" or "we should have completed one before the other". I mean I hate to use you as an example dean and point out how completely ignorant to reality that is but think about it for a moment. It's the United States Military. They can do more than one thing at the same time. Statements about finsihing one before the other or not keeping our eye on the ball are bumper sticker buzz phrases intended to whip up the liberal base over nothing. I say nothing because it is a lie to assert that we can only do one at a time. Amazingly enough this is the same country that fought a global war across most to the western Pacific, Europe and Northern Africa all at the same time. Now all of a sudden we can't handle Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time? Think about how full of crap that is. Don't buy into that nonsense Dean, you know better. Also I'd really love it if you could find for me a Democrat who lead the charge to regulate Fannie and Freddie anywhere in the last seven or eight years. Still no one has done that.

how bout these apples Blackie...great post! ( and ZERO sarcasm there ) hey, I fully understand there is a great deal more to certain subjects ( both wars for instance ) than I admit to understand, like I have stated politics is interesting if one can sift thru all the smoke screens and BS, and yes I will raise my hand and confess a certain ignorance, I do not, and never will have the interest to sift thru all the garbage,so yes my veiws are based on what is SHOVED down our throats by sensationalist media complete with twisted ( artistic licence???? ) information, along with an outside opinion. I have been here since 84, I do love this country ( although political correctness needs to take a HUGE step back along with giving every Tom, Richard, Jose Mohammed, Wang, O'Brien the sense that they have more rights than a true American resident the moment they step off the boat, lets remember, people have a CHOICE whether to come here or not and should abide by the rules of those whom live here ) but it is an a total state of panic and dis-repair right now. And I for one cannot lay the blame on something as simplistic as the Fannie and Freddie cop out. If you think that is the sole reason, then so be it, seems a little simplistic to me. Yes its PART of the reason, but definitely not all. As for my veiws on Iraq...they ARE simplistic, we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place...it was ONE guy...there must have been other alternatives...but hey thats my cop out opinion. One area I will stand by, and it has an international flavor too it, and reflects overseas veiws as a whole....the US seems to like poking its nose in basically everyones business ( consequence of being a world power probably )....I think they would do better to focus internally for a while....and guess what...thats what BOTH candidates seem to be promoting......

[fmccap]

Also I'd really love it if you could find for me a Democrat who lead the charge to regulate Fannie and Freddie anywhere in the last seven or eight years. Still no one has done that.

Here are many in the House that voted for it and passed it twice in the house. Read down in the article and they have links to the votes. Problem is that the Senate never took it up for a vote when each side had an opportunity with control.

Mark Udall voted against tougher regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The roll call votes on the Federal Housing Reform Act show that Udall supported overall passage of the bill twice. In 2005, the bill passed by 331 to 90, with Udall voting yes. He again voted for the bill in 2007, when it passed the House by 313-to-104. Both times, the Senate failed to take up the bill.

Summaries of the bill explicitly say it would have created an agency that would have supervised and regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

You can blame this side or that side but the FACT is both sides had control of the Senate and did nothing.

[BlackHorse]

Here are many in the House that voted for it and passed it twice in the house. Read down in the article and they have links to the votes. Problem is that the Senate never took it up for a vote when each side had an opportunity with control.

Mark Udall voted against tougher regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

 

You can blame this side or that side but the FACT is both sides had control of the Senate and did nothing.

 

 

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this one Fmccap. I've been busy.

 

Thanks for that info, it is both useful and yet at the same time skewed to suit your agenda. Why did the Senate not take up the bill? You didn't state that.

 

The answer is even more daming to republicans actually. As usual, the democrates in the Senate unilaterally voted against the measure, but the real problem was potentially criminal activity on the part of a group called DCI. This is where the republicans get implicated, at the Senate level. and now we have the names of those responsible.

 

Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse

 

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

 

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440681,00.html

 

A very enlightening article, it reveals how republicans were maniuplated or willing accomplices in this disaster. It also reveals that John McCain was in fact trying to put some regulation in place, as he has said. Finally it reveals that "all democrats" opposed it. So while I'm by no means making excuses for these republicans that are at fault here, I am also not taking anything back with respect to the fact that democrats did nothing to stop this and all of them are culpable here. At least "some" republicans tried to stop this from happening. We had some bad apples in the bunch though.

 

Seriously though, thanks for that info. I knew there had to be some republican involvement and I wanted to find out to what extent and who.