Six Largest sum of Wall Street Bonuses Paid Ever!!!!

[hideyoursheep]

And your "lack of back-up" stems from the complete red herringness of your argument. That people who really couldn't afford their mortgages were getting loans. But who the fuck was getting them loans and why?

Because evil gov't agents made them? Really? Then why were they actively pursuing subprime loans? Why were they tempting even middle class people into even bigger mortgages and houses/condos with "teaser rates?" Who made them do this and specifically when?

BT...

[LoungeMachine]

BT is a bright guy, and most of the time has some game/argument.

But on this one, he's fucking out of it.

[Big Train]

Whatever Nick, I can't spell it out any easier than I have. You want to keep shifting it around...fine. In the effort to be somewhat civil, I won't resort to saying you are this or that for not agreeing. I'm just done with that (why I left previously, wasn't worth the effort to get into it). I'll also apologize for not having a link for the article, I was in a hurry, as I have a career, wife and kids to attend to. I will do my best in the future.

These rules were were enacted in the late 90's, when Frank was in a prime position to relax these rules (with the possibility of non-above board actions from his 'spouse"). This was the height of the internet bubble. When that popped, Wall St. went to housing derivatives to drive growth. I think those facts we can all agree on.

The real problem here debating is that if we don't remember what the other person said, you generally attribute things to them that aren't true. For example, we started down this whole path because I said "barney frank should be in jail". This is not to say that others should not be in jail (plenty on "my side"....although for the millionth time, I'm independent, I voted for fucking NADER, TWICE...) and I have never made that claim. Phil Gramm does have some things to answer for Lounge, I'm not disputing that, but apparently I have to type that out. My previous responses (multiple) claiming that many people have things to answer for probably wasn't specific enough.

The point is simple. Frank was and HAS been in a position to see all the data and act accordingly. He has said (as recent as 2004) all was well with the subprime market and the deals being offered by Wall St. He saw EVERYTHING. So he is either in Freddy and Fannie's pockets (his campaign contributions seem to indict that), is incredibly incompentant or a complete fucking idiot. As a senior ranking member of the house, he was in a position to act. He chose the opposite path: blocking the Republicans plans for reform, which would have taken a lot of the sting out of our current situation.

Housing for the poor is a noble idea. When it starts to trip up the whole house of cards, it becomes a liability.

You can call it a red herring if you will. If Cheney were chairing that committe, it would be "obvious" to you. The SEC does not oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae , oversight, under a Congressional charter, is provided by the office of federal housing enterprise oversight:

http://www.ofheo.gov/about.aspx?Nav=73

What you have to ask yourself is: We ALL saw it coming, so why did Barney Frank, a guy with all the data, and the ability to enact legislation not see it or chose not to? That's why I think he ought to be in jail. Corruption (which obviously would need to be proved) or negligence, take your pick.

A good primer:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/

[Nickdfresh]

Whatever Nick, I can't spell it out any easier than I have. You want to keep shifting it around...fine. ...

LMFAO!!

"Shifting?" Moi? Um, dude, check the thread title and your last bunch of posts attempting to put everything on Barney Frank and Freddie/Fannie. Who's shifting this from "why are Wall Street scumbags profiting amidst the catastrophe of 401Ks dissolving" to it's all Barney Frank's fault" simpleton partisan propaganda 101?

It's an argument dispelled long ago. The "meltdown" is the transfer or debt as assets to Wall Street investment firms and speculators, and the legislation that rescinded the oversight. It's that simple, you can post all of the irrelevant blog entries demonizing the evil queer Sen. Barney Frank all you want, most of which is clearly designed as a "pass the buck" defense of the Laissez-faire extremist crowd who want to prevent gov't regulation from actually enforcing laws....

[Big Train]

Wow, your usual classy self, Nick. You really do earn the title when people call you a douche.

Your version of events, the "myths" that are disspelled makes it not worth arguing with you. Not because of facts, I've gone to great lengths to discuss what I feel is a valid piece of this puzzle. This is what I mean, you keep switching perspectives, I argue one point, then you switch the view to another , more macro view, as a response. If you would respond to the post as presented without introducing other tangents as your response, this would be a lot easier exchange. But that would involve a little give on your part, which you seem utterly unable to do.

[Nickdfresh]

Wow, your usual classy self, Nick. You really do earn the title when people call you a douche.

Why, that just hurts!

I guess I'm "classy" enough to avoid personal insults. And remember, a douche goes someplace good,










...asshole!

Your version of events, the "myths" that are disspelled makes it not worth arguing with you. Not because of facts, I've gone to great lengths to discuss what I feel is a valid piece of this puzzle.

Well, you think it's a valid piece of the puzzle, and I think it is a red herring. Freddie and Fannie routinely donated to both sides of the isle and pinning it on Frank is silly. He wasn't the only one on that bi-partisan commission....

This is what I mean, you keep switching perspectives, I argue one point, then you switch the view to another , more macro view, as a response. If you would respond to the post as presented without introducing other tangents as your response, this would be a lot easier exchange. But that would involve a little give on your part, which you seem utterly unable to do.

I think you argue points that you find to be extremely self-serving and I post what I think is correct. The truth is macro, not micro. We can get hung up in partisan specifics, but at the end of the day I want to know what actually caused the "housing bubble," which appears to be more of a credit bubble than anything else and is a bit scary since we're living on borrowed time...

[Big Train]

Why, that just hurts!

I guess I'm "classy" enough to avoid personal insults. And remember, a douche goes someplace good,



...asshole!



Well, you think it's a valid piece of the puzzle, and I think it is a red herring. Freddie and Fannie routinely donated to both sides of the isle and pinning it on Frank is silly. He wasn't the only one on that bi-partisan commission....



I think you argue points that you find to be extremely self-serving and I post what I think is correct. The truth is macro, not micro. We can get hung up in partisan specifics, but at the end of the day I want to know what actually caused the "housing bubble," which appears to be more of a credit bubble than anything else and is a bit scary since we're living on borrowed time...

I did my best for most of this to avoid them and will continue.

How what I think is "self serving" and what you think is "correct" says a lot about your thought patterns, as make this assumption about everyone you disagree with.

The truth is macro to you....I will remember that and we can argue macro from now on. When you veer from macro, I'll try to remind you. That way, the truth can be known.