Pajamas Media

37 Comments

1. Pastor of Muppets:

So you’ve “spent 25 years discussing politics in online forums”, and you think that this makes you qualified to invalidate the well-supported arguments of top economists and financial experts that deregulation of the financial system and subsequent uncontrolled packaging and selling of CDOs led to the current crisis?

Why do I have a nagging suspicion that you have no idea what you’re talking about?

Apr 10, 2009 - 8:13 am 2. e:

#1 So single ad hominim argument invalidates every point put forth by the writer? Please, at least argue against ideas.

About the only regulation that would have helped avert this mortgage crisis would have been one to require that the quality of the loans be included in the documentation of the securities.

The rest was due to good regulations not being enforced and bad regulations being forced.

Apr 10, 2009 - 8:47 am 3. vigilantuser:

I am a citizen, and I HAVE A PITCHFORK – MY VOTE. I intend to use it – to throw the (Democratic) bums out.

Apr 10, 2009 - 10:19 am 4. Meryl:

When the Precedential Thug made his pitchfork threat, I so wish that 4 or 5 five of those bankers had done the following: slowly, deliberately, straightened up in their chairs, silently looked at him for 3-5 seconds, then said, “Excuse us????”, and then, slowly closed their folders, gotten up from their chairs and silently walked out of the room, heading for the nearest microphones in the driveway.

I’m looking forward to the day when His Giggliness is addressing a large, large group and is greeted with silence and body language that indicates “you’re an idiot and we all know and we’re not going to pretend any more.” That will be a good day.

Apr 10, 2009 - 10:24 am 5. Kevin in OK:

#1 Pastor,

I will paraphrase your argument: “Shut up!”

In your twisted world, the First Amendment only applies to you and those whom you agree with.

Apr 10, 2009 - 10:29 am 6. rrr:

Well-supported arguments??? Pastor, you lead those muppets. Because if you lead real people, we’ll all end up like your savior wants us and is taking sure steps to ensure: Collectively managed and completely broke.

Baaa.

Apr 10, 2009 - 10:32 am 7. Pilgrim1949:

e:
As a former collegiate saber fencer, I say, “Touche!”

Barny the Lavender Demosaur and his “oversight” (or is that near-sighted?) cohort of flying monkeys mimicked the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to what’s going on behind the Freddie/Fannie curtain! Nothing to see here, no problems at all, everything’s fine, no need for any outside oversight! Just move along, now, move along…”

Bunch of multiples of Three Stooges in a sinking boat, furiously drilling more holes in the bottom to let out all the incoming water. Yup, that’ll do the trick.

Apr 10, 2009 - 10:40 am 8. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

hold on a bit. Pastor has made a reasonable argument. I also see no evidence that the author has any more specialized knowledge than, say, Pres Obama. OK, he’s held a job. let’s say only about twice as much knowledge as Pres Obama.

Apr 10, 2009 - 10:46 am 9. Steve Seivers:

Professor Reynolds. I disagree with a few popular notions. The financial crisis was not caused by lending to people who could not afford the homes that they were purchasing.
The crisis was caused by the bubble in the real estate markets, most noteably in Las Vegas, SoCal. South Florida and believe it or not South Carolina. Greenspan had warned us about these problems on several occasions.

The scenario goes like this. A condo in Las Vegas sold new for 250K in 2000. Resold for 400K in 04 and sold again for 700K in 2007. Any Bank under conservative lending principles would lend at least 560K on your purchase. You, the purchaser were not being extravagent. All the condos were selling for similar prices. So you make the purchase, get the loan and settle down in your new home. Happy, Right . . . NO! The bubble burst and your condo is now only worth 375K. Ouch! You still have a 560K mortgage on a 375K asset.

What did many do? They left the keys in the mailbox and banks and mortgage companies started to choke on “other assets.” These assets were downgraded on the books and suddenly companies were in trouble. You’ve seen the results. Glen there is more to this (easy money) but now I have to go.

Apr 10, 2009 - 10:49 am 10. Eric Florack:

Why do I have a nagging suspicion that you have no idea what you’re talking about?

As a guess, the reason would be that you’re an Obama supporter. Just a guess.

But let’s examine this. Has anyone noticed that the places we’re busy bailing out are without exception the most regulated businesses on the planet? It’s almost enough for people to start thinking maybe the regulation was the PROBLEM.

Apr 10, 2009 - 11:02 am 11. Jephnol:

Paster of Muppets, that’s a clever spoonerism, but not so clever as to conceal your conceit.

Apr 10, 2009 - 11:05 am 12. tim maguire:

There’s plenty of blame to go around. Some, but certianly not all of it, with the government. I happen to like the policy decision recognizing the benefits to a communty of wide-spread homeownership. Collateralizing the loans turned out to be a mistake because the incentive of banks changed from making loans they thought could be repaid to making loans they thought they could sell. As such, they had an incentive to not care about a borrower’s ability to repay. There was an assumption that the ever increasing value of real estate would paper over any problems that crop up–even a zero-down mortgage holder would have equity by the time the house went into foreclosure.

As has been pointed out above, one of the bottle necks in the system, a place where one change could have prevented a lot of damage, is in the bond-rating system. If these loans had been properly rated, they would have been harder to sell and the banks would have been less likely to make the loans in the first place.

As for pitchforks, there should be plenty to go around, just as there is plenty fo blame to go around.

Apr 10, 2009 - 11:06 am 13. T:

RE: comment #1.

A. Fannie and Freddie were central to the packaging and selling of mortgage backed securities.
B. The gubmint set capitalization rules allowing these securities as reserves
C. Fannie and Freddie also led the charge to “zero down” and liar loans.
D. Oversight of these entities, and the banks in general, was completely ignored by COngress, even when specific challneges to the risk load and potential solvency of Fannie and Freddie were repeatedly raised (see Frank, Barney)
E. mark to market has been a huge contributing factor, both in inflating the bubble and in it’s rapid deflation

These, any many other FACTS, all point back to the central role the gubmint played in creating the problem. The lack of oversight in TARP, the bailouts of politically connected organizations, and the use of AIG as a money laundering scheme also implicate the gubmint after the fact. We won’t even go into CRA and it’s use in social engineering.

Sorry Muppet, the gubmint is at the center of this problem. BOTH PARTIES! Anyone dumb enough to believe the free market is at play here doesn’t know the first thing about free markets.

Apr 10, 2009 - 11:38 am 14. Yehudit:

” … The financial crisis was not caused by lending to people who could not afford the homes that they were purchasing.
The crisis was caused by the bubble in the real estate markets, most noteably in Las Vegas, SoCal. South Florida and believe it or not South Carolina….”

So many new buyers coming into the market with the ability to buy houses above their means drove up housing prices. Some buyers who bought several properties and flipped them got solid loans but many were also people who bought above their means.

This bubble could have happened without lax lending rules, say if housing stock is way below number of people desiring to buy a house and with enough income to get a solid loan. Bubbles happen anyway.

Most economists do NOT agree with Obama’s plans. 200 of them including several Nobel winners recently took out an ad in major newspapers to tell him so. When he says most economists agree with him he is lying.

Apr 10, 2009 - 12:06 pm 15. sportutegrl:

I disagree that the housing ‘bubble’ (the sudden spike and then drop in price) is the problem. Sensible people buy a home that they like and can live in at a price they can afford. If everyone did that, then it should make no difference what happens to the value of the home later, except that one’s property taxes may go down. If you bought a home you are comfortable in, then the fact that it is worth less on paper should not change your comfort level. If you bought a home at a price you can afford with a loan at terms you can afford, then the drop in value shouldn’t change that, either. If you lost your job, then that is a job problem, not a home problem. If you did a cash out refi, then you shouldn’t be bailed out. If you got an exotic mortgage, then at the time you secured the mortgage, you should have calculated the payments on the worst case scenario and if you could not afford them, then you shouldn’t get the mortgage. If you can’t calculate your mortgage payments, or understand a contract, then you should demand your parent’s property tax payments to pay for your high school education be refunded.

Apr 10, 2009 - 12:44 pm 16. Steve Seivers:

Sorry Eric, I thought you were Glenn. Just to finish my thought. In dealing with what the media calls “toxic assets” we are finding that the overwhelming percentage of these assets are homes from about 350K to about 1.5M. When I read a file and look at the history of the debtors I find people like you and me who were making good money in good times. Many of which had never experienced a credit problem until recently. But when the dominos started falling, their savings went in the toilet and their businesses were not generating capital. They had been making it for years. They had planned for bad times but not for real bad times.

Many of us watched this crisis happen. None of us expected so many dominos to fall. As one economist told me, “We are now so globally interconnected that when Countrywide fails, a Russian plumber loses his job.” You know, a nail, a shoe, a king, a war, a kingdom.

In looking over the entire situation it appears that the basic regulatory problem was that capital was not required to back up the credit swap guarantees. Its not surprising however, since neither Congress, Wall Street nor Main Street knew of their existence. What is surprising is that such a small company (Countrywide)and such a small problem could grow into the crisis that we have experienced.

Having said this, I am happy to say that there are many indicators that are on the rise. It appears that the descent is slowing. Some companies are hiring, some are increasing their inventory. Commercial and residential attorneys tell me that things are picking up.
Hopefully, we have seen the worst.

Apr 10, 2009 - 2:01 pm 17. AST:

I distrust any government program intervention in the economy, especially those that get passed in times of economic stress. They get enacted during emergencies, but hardly ever go away when things get better, and that largely despite rather than because of government intervention.

The current mess can’t be blamed on one group or party. I think it’s the fault of everybody, from borrowers on up. The ultimate cause is excessive debt. Credit is a useful tool, like fire and electricity, but it can get out of control and wreak havoc, just like those two others.

I think that Wall Street, regulators, Congress and home speculators all got too smart for their own good and fell into the same old trap of trying to make money with borrowed funds, just as investors did in the late 1920s.

The answer should be to let the market settle all the problems, no matter whom it hurts, because ultimately any other ’solution’ ends up trying to keep a housing bubble inflated, which only continues the basic problem. It is absolutely unfair and dishonest to use tax revenues to bail out any of the ones who took excessive risks with the costs to be charged to those who didn’t.

Apr 10, 2009 - 3:43 pm 18. Anonymous:

Sorry Eric, I thought you were Glenn.

(Chuckle)
I often wish I had his hit rates.

Apr 10, 2009 - 5:18 pm 19. Class Clown:

Pastor, go home. Your flock needs you.

Apr 10, 2009 - 6:28 pm 20. bad:

——-America’s bankers lack backbone.——–

Eric, perhaps they are just prudent.

Apr 10, 2009 - 7:13 pm 21. Mike Blackadder:

Re: #1: Did you hear that Eric, there’s already a consensus. I hate to always bring up global warming, but I don’t because is so bloody cold out these days. And how about those polar ice caps, eh?

Yehudit: Regarding the housing bubble: “So many new buyers coming into the market with the ability to buy houses above their means drove up housing prices.”

I agree. Also very low interest rates. Still this has nothing at all to do with free markets.

What’s really sad about trillions of dollars to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is that you can actually buy a lot of houses for $1T. If you’re buying houses at 200K each you could buy 5 million homes for that. They could have just printed the money and said, “Here you go. Future generations of Americans just bought you a house, but we wrote the check, so I hope you will continue to vote for the Democrat Party. Have a hopey-changey day”. As bad as that sounds, it would have been far less painful.

Apr 10, 2009 - 7:40 pm 22. Libby:

The original author has the correct story. Muppet Pastor is likely an Acorn.

Thanks for sticking to the true story rather than trying to follow the incredible number of balls Obama tries to keep in the air so no one will ever be able to focus on what he is doing.

With any luck the current administration will have massive mental breakdowns under the weight of their own efforts to try to make these stories, and their attending lies, look like reality.

That’s why they always start cursing and calling names, when the real questions come.

Apr 10, 2009 - 9:38 pm 23. HonestJon:

12. tim maguire: Your comment is far more accurate than the author’s. Plenty of blame to go around!

Just something to ponder: If the banking industry is the most-regulated on the planet (as Mr. Florack postulates), then why were they allowed to leverage at 30:1? That seems a bit like no regulation to me.

The CRA didn’t force Countrywide to hand out loans namby pamby to undeserving people. The execs at Coutrywide did it to get rich quick. The government didn’t force Freddie or Fannie to package and sell these bad mortgages. The execs there decided to get rich quick (see Raines, Franklin). The Dems didn’t force AIG to back these “securities” (ironic to hace an insecure security, isn’t it), the execs did it to get rich quick. The gubmint didn’t force the rating agencies to rate these securities as AAA (1 in 10,000 chance of going bad). The execs ath the rating agencies decided to do it to get rich quick.

The bottom line is that the greedy execs at a lot of firms handed the risks down the road and got their cut before the tidal wave hit. And when the tidal wave hit, the rich bankers et al were already in their yachts riding out the wave while the folks that had to bail out their companies (read the taxpayers) got hit full force by that wave.

regards

Apr 10, 2009 - 11:28 pm 24. HonestJon:

For anyone who is interested in the TRUE reasons that the financial world collapsed, the following is absolutely required reading:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice

regards

Apr 11, 2009 - 1:05 am 25. Alex:

This is a badly researched article.

Numbers dont lie;

the entire Real estate market in the USA is worth roughly 20 Trillion dollars in 2007, as referneced by Atttached Fed data. Real Estate markets have dropped about 40% since this report, so we can figure somewhere in the 14 Trillion range today.

http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/2007/10_09_07.html

we need to put numbers into perspective;

U.S. annual gross domestic product is about $15 trillion
U.S. money supply is also about $15 trillion
Current proposed U.S. federal budget is $3 trillion
U.S. government’s maximum legal debt is $9 trillion
U.S. mutual fund companies manage about $12 trillion
World’s GDPs for all nations is approximately $50 trillion
Unfunded Social Security and Medicare benefits $50 trillion to $65 trillion ( debt)
Total value of the world’s real estate is estimated at about $75 trillion ( asset)
Total value of world’s stock and bond markets is more than $100 trillion
BIS valuation of world’s derivatives back in 2002 was about $100 trillion
BIS 2007 valuation of the world’s derivatives is now a whopping $516 trillion ( Debt)

It is estimated today there is over 900 trillion in derivatives, banks have so far refused to open their books and allow audit of their holdings ( debts). 900 trillion of international banking credit based on less than 100 trillion of real assets. ( 2009 valuations). The markets have dropped roughly 40-50%. Derivatives have not been adjusted. This difference is why banks are bleeding, there are hundreds of trillions in worthless paper held by international banks.

BIS : Bank of International Settlement. What Banks did was create derivatives to sell each other out of thin air. This is what caused financial collapse. In 1934 congress passed the glass steagal act to prevent banks from issuing and rating their own credit, as this caused credit bubble that led to the great depression. In 1999, congress and clinton repealed the act, allowing banks to once again create their own credit instead of relying on regulated federal and european bank system.
Banks placed Taxpayers as insurance pool ( AIG ) to underwrite the derivatives. AIG paid off the losses (so far) at 100%, allowing banks to recieve full value of losses even though markets have dropped 30-50%.

Corruption in international banking is what brought the current crisis around, and only because taxpayers were placed as underwriters by Clinton and congress in 1999. Everyone was so focused on impeachment for sex they forgot to watch the banking lobby. Easy credit fueled speculation in real estate and stocks, just as in the 1920’s, it was massive credit bubbles created by international Banks, in 1920’s and in the first decade of the 21st century.

Deregulating Banks in 1999 allowed them to run amok, issue their own credit and then rate their own credit, once again. This is what caused todays banking crisis.

Badly researched article.

Apr 11, 2009 - 1:19 am 26. Mike Blackadder:

HonestJon,

Yes, I agree that there were willing participants and don’t buy the notion that banks were significantly forced into this by the government. But you’re seriously understating the government’s role, especially the embodiment of their policies through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Government intervention always stacks-the-deck to create winners and losers, so it doesn’t actually reduce the government’s culpability to point out that people have made money. The government’s concerted effort to promote lending to low-income Americans and the ‘too big to fail’ mentality has created opportunity for many people to make easy money, and to offload the consequences of risk-taking to tax payers. This notion that we need to blame law-abiding opportunists for their greed would be no different than blaming individuals for winning the lottery. It’s the game that is flawed, not the players. The ‘greedy execs’ argument is just socialist propaganda.

Big lie #1 is that this economic meltdown was caused by Bush’s failed economic policies. Whatever the argument you want to make about lack of regulation can be pointed squarely at the Democrats who invariably shielded the sub-prime market from the regulators. Similarly, you can applaud Bush’s efforts over the past eight years, fighting to shield taxpayers from this outcome. If you want to criticize Bush, then do so because he failed in his efforts, due to his lack of skill as a politician. Or blame him for his own administration’s deficits.

Big lie #2 is to say that this economic meltdown is the result of the free market, and people being motivated to make money (ie. greed). I like T’s summary (comment 13), but would add that forcing low interest rates also contributed to the housing bubble. But that final point is sort of moot since the US has little choice but to keep interest rates low.

Apr 11, 2009 - 8:14 am 27. HonestJon:

26. Mike Blackadder: I was attempting to address the author’s unwillingness to blame someone other than the Dems. I hate to be disagreeable, but the “greedy execs” argument is populist propaganda if it is propaganda at all. The point being that it’s true at least to me and to many others in this country who are now suffering from the combination of bad government and bad business policies.

I agree with the notion that President Bush failed to make changes to prevent this crisis. He did attempt to do something let there be no doubt. I just wish that President Bush would have been as fiscally conservative as he was socially conservative. If you have the time to read the Atlantic article that I linked above, then it may shed some light on the root of President Bush’s failure in this respect. And the Republicans in general, and to be fair, the Democrats as well.

I disagree with your analogy of the lottery concerning these greedy execs. If somebody plays the lottery and loses, it doesn’t bring their neighbors grief. What these guys did was play the lottery with other people’s money. When they didn’t win, everybody else lost. But they made sure that they got their cut before the game was played. And quite a cut it was!

regards

Apr 11, 2009 - 9:14 am 28. Arroyo:

Mike Blackadder:
You have great insight and I agree with everything you’ve said.

Apr 11, 2009 - 9:38 am 29. Eric Florack:

The Atlantic?

Please….

Apr 11, 2009 - 1:03 pm 30. Meryl:

22 Libby…I’ve been turning something over in my mind and don’t know if I can get at it, but here goes: there’s something ugly about obama’s general perceptions about people he doesn’t like or agree with.

His remarks about the people with the pitchforks didn’t “come out of nowhere”. He has a nasty and very low opinion of the general population of the United States and doesn’t succeed in masking it very well, as illustrated also in his remarks on the road last fall with regard to the Bible clingers, etc.

Can you imagine President Bush or President Reagan referring to those who opposed them as a bunch of people with pitchforks?…ready to come after those involved with the administration?

I fully expect to hear soon about obama’s plans to force everyone to register their pitchforks. Apparently this is the kind of stuff he thinks about when he visualizes people opposing his policies.

The potential massive mental breakdown you posit has occurred to me as well. This group is so removed from normal procedures, practices, protocols and policies they have got to be experiencing mental overload from morning ’til night. (And I don’t say that with any sympathy or empathy. Just sayin’.)

Apr 11, 2009 - 4:04 pm 31. Eric Florack:

Numbers dont lie;

But, liars figure.

What Banks did was create derivatives to sell each other out of thin air.

But, why? The whole things started rolling when the CRA got modified by Clinton. What the banks were doing was a direct reaction to governmental interference in the marketplace. THe law of unintended consequences. The government, under Clinton MANDATED that they lend to risky borrowers. The laws he set up wouldn’t let them grow or expand without doing so. That changed the way they did business and is exactly what got us here. That’s the corruption you speak of, Alex. It wasn’t a lack of regulation, it was OVER-regulation. And it falls directly at the feet of the Democrats.

And Alex? I didn’t need to research the thing. I spent a few years in a bank. I got to see this stuff from the inside.

Apr 11, 2009 - 5:43 pm 32. Alex:

“And Alex? I didn’t need to research the thing. I spent a few years in a bank. I got to see this stuff from the inside”

This explains why your article falls short. Not researching cause of this banking crisis, and assuming it is due to what you saw come across your desk is nonsense. You saw less than 1 / 10 of 1% how banking works and you saw absolutely nothing how international banking operates. There is no substitute for good research.

PNB paribas froze depositors funds in August of 2007, this is what set off the crisis. PNB does not sell mortgages in the USA, so if a french bank had exposure, there was more than subprime mortgages in play. It was at that point the house of cards came crashing down as Banks scrambled to unload worthless derivatives, which were insured by AIG. The hundreds of billions sent to AIG went to pay off European banks and Goldman Sachs holding derivatives, not american banks writing sub prime mortgages.

Regulated banking system worked just fine after Glass Steagal was legislated in 1934. Congress forced banks to operate under regulation as they went wild during the 1920’s and issued credit based on thin air. This forced banks to operate in a regulated and organized system of credit markets and brought stability to the American banking system.

In 1999 Congress and Clinton repealed Glass Steagal and allowed banks to once again run amok and issue credit (derivatives) out of thin air. Interestingly enough it took the same amount of time, one decade, for banks to destroy credit systems and bring markets crashing down.

Always research your subject.

Apr 11, 2009 - 8:06 pm 33. HonestJon:

29. Eric Florack: said, “The Atlantic? Please….”

I don’t know about you, Mr. Florack, but I have an open mind about many things and have read a number of very good articles in the Atlantic. I like to get opinions and analysis from as many sources as I can so that I attain solid backing for my reasoning and arguments.

Your dismissive tone concerning the Atlantic I find to be disconcerting. Did you even read the article that I linked? I bet not.

Just because you worked in a bank doesn’t make you an expert. And maybe, just maybe some research would have helped a little to flesh out your arguments.

You said, “The government, under Clinton MANDATED that they lend to risky borrowers.”

You are correct there. But let’s get down to brass tacks here. What percentage of the risky loans were forced on the banks; did the banks ever exceed that percentage; can you explain Countrywide’s collapse?

What about the banks being allowed to leverage 30:1? That’s ridiculous on its face. I’m no economist or banker, but that smacks of nonregulation! Even a fool would know better than to bet the farm with that much liability!

regards

Apr 11, 2009 - 8:18 pm 34. Pastor of Muppets:

Alex: “This explains why your article falls short. Not researching cause of this banking crisis, and assuming it is due to what you saw come across your desk is nonsense. You saw less than 1 / 10 of 1% how banking works and you saw absolutely nothing how international banking operates. There is no substitute for good research.

PNB paribas froze depositors funds in August of 2007, this is what set off the crisis. PNB does not sell mortgages in the USA, so if a french bank had exposure, there was more than subprime mortgages in play. It was at that point the house of cards came crashing down as Banks scrambled to unload worthless derivatives, which were insured by AIG. The hundreds of billions sent to AIG went to pay off European banks and Goldman Sachs holding derivatives, not american banks writing sub prime mortgages.

Regulated banking system worked just fine after Glass Steagal was legislated in 1934. Congress forced banks to operate under regulation as they went wild during the 1920’s and issued credit based on thin air. This forced banks to operate in a regulated and organized system of credit markets and brought stability to the American banking system.

In 1999 Congress and Clinton repealed Glass Steagal and allowed banks to once again run amok and issue credit (derivatives) out of thin air. Interestingly enough it took the same amount of time, one decade, for banks to destroy credit systems and bring markets crashing down.

Always research your subject.”

For The Win!

Apr 13, 2009 - 7:40 am 35. Eric Florack:

I don’t know about you, Mr. Florack, but I have an open mind about many things and have read a number of very good articles in the Atlantic

That you manage to find a worthwhile read in the thing occasionally, doesn’t engender nearly the help needed for the reputation of the place, in my view. Sorry.

You said, “The government, under Clinton MANDATED that they lend to risky borrowers.”

You are correct there. But let’s get down to brass tacks here. What percentage of the risky loans were forced on the banks; did the banks ever exceed that percentage; can you explain Countrywide’s collapse?

Oh, I dunno. Ask Chris Dodd.

And on what basis, once a policy was established to grant such loans would you manage to keep out of court a case brought by someone denied such a loan because they didn’t happen to fall inside a percentile?

Seems to me you’re the one who needs to research your subject. Pay particular attention to lawsuits, this time round.

Apr 13, 2009 - 11:15 am 36. HonestJon:

Thanks for the response, Mr. Florack.

You wrote: “That you manage to find a worthwhile read in the thing occasionally, doesn’t engender nearly the help needed for the reputation of the place, in my view. Sorry.”

I’ll bet a gooberwad that you still didn’t read that article. Good for you! “And don’t apologize! It’s like those miserable Psalms –they’re sooooooo depressing!”

You wrote: “Oh, I dunno. Ask Chris Dodd.”

So you dodge or ignore my first two questions and point the finger at someone else to sidestep the third?

Let us face the fact that the CRA didn’t make the banks overleverage at 30:1. The banks grabbed that fumbled ball at the 5-yard line, ran with it while throwing a couple of stiffarms into the face of regulation at the 50-yard mark (with the consent of the referees (read the government “regulators”)), and finally blasted into the end zone while dancing with diamond watches and earrings glittering in the staduim lights. A short touchdown display of slamming the ball through the uprights (read AIG bonuses, et al.) really kicked sand in the face of the losing team.

I’m afraid to inform you that you’ve been pwn3d by Alex. (And me, too.)

regards

Apr 13, 2009 - 12:08 pm 37. Eric Florack:

So you dodge or ignore my first two questions and point the finger at someone else to sidestep the third?

Hardly a sidestep. I’m pointing at the locus of the problem. It exemplifies the ’stiffarm’ you spoke of.

Apr 14, 2009 - 11:15 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: