That’s what the guv said in Midland yesterday. Check out the video; then, all you Rick Perry critics, start your outrage machines.
42 comments
And Perry is “hell bent” on corporatism:
- Texas Enterprise Fund (Countrywide and WaMu were recipients)
- Emerging Technology Fund (Money shuffled through the Enterprise Fund to help out A&M)
- Privatizing the Lottery (Could have been a sweetheart deal to Mr. Gramm)
- Requiring HPV vaccines (Helping out his former Chief of Staff to help his pharma client)
- Privatizing certain health and human services delivery (Accenture)
@ 10:26 am on November 12, 2009
Funny. I was watching a documentary about FDR, and during the whole New Deal era, with its WPA and CCC, people also said he was a socialist. But those temporary programs were just that – temporary – and when they were no longer needed, they were gone.
So history is doomed to repeat itself, I suppose.
@ 10:28 am on November 12, 2009
I’m done being outraged. Rick can keep talking about socialism to one audience, corporatism to another and, to yet another, his aspirations for national office.
All we have to do is vote for Kay in the primary and the Democratic nominee in the general election. Problem solved. Adios mofo.
@ 10:48 am on November 12, 2009
“But those temporary programs were just that – temporary – and when they were no longer needed, they were gone.”
You mean like Social Security?
@ 10:54 am on November 12, 2009
We are also not in a recession according to Perry.
oh, BRB. Gotta go feed my unicorn in the backyard.
@ 10:59 am on November 12, 2009
@Bethany
Did you forget about all the permanent programs FDR created? You know, the ones that have been expanded upon and now leave us trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities? Yes, perhaps history will repeat itself. It’s unfortunate.
Perry’s going to end up making a caricature of himself and losing whatever credibility he has left.
@ 11:02 am on November 12, 2009
Telling comment, Bethany. Unfortunately, people don’t realize FDR’s promises kept, probably because they live with temp-gone-perm programs like the Energy Dept. (created by Carter to wean the US off foreign oil); income taxes (on for the Civil War, off, on, off, then permanently on in 1913); and more.
I believe it’s because bureaucracy tends to be oyster-like in its opportunistic self-preservation and expansion, regardless of original intentions. Bureaucracies engender lobbyists and support selected politicians, just like private industry.
Bottom line: Obama’s initiatives will live on, past effective lifetimes or even the bureaucrats’ lifetimes.
@ 11:06 am on November 12, 2009
Social Security wasn’t temporary nor is it unfunded but, its TRUST fund has been raided by both D and R administrations alike.
Medicare is from the 60s.
I’m not sure what unfunded trillions are from FDRs administration.
Perhaps you’ve confused W’s war funding?
@ 11:15 am on November 12, 2009
@VisitDallas…
Social Security is a ponzi scheme that would make Bernard Madoff proud. There is no SS trust fund. The “trust fund” is basically an IOU sitting on the balance sheet.
@ 11:24 am on November 12, 2009
Outrage machines **** up the environment.
@ 11:25 am on November 12, 2009
@DMBurrows… your unicorn must enjoy the employment and GDP figures from the white house.
@ 11:30 am on November 12, 2009
I was referring to the temporary programs. I even used the word temporary.
@ 11:37 am on November 12, 2009
It’s not just Obama’s “temporary” initiatives that live on; new “temporary” programs that require a new or expanded bureaucracy almost always live on long past the originally-intended expiration date. Some would say that it’s because the programs prove valuable in ways that were unintended even at the outset, others would say that it’s because the first job of an entrenched bureaucracy is to ensure that it remains (and can prove) that it is necessary, thus preserving the jobs of the bureaucrats at the expense of the greater good (which would presumably be better served by making temporary initiatives truly temporary).
This isn’t a R or D issue, really. It’s the nature of a bureaucracy. They never shrink, they only expand.
@ 11:53 am on November 12, 2009
VD – the unfunded trillions are the social security promise of retirement income to all comers in America with only current taxes to pay it. The Trust Fund has been “invested” in government obligations that can only be paid off with current taxes. Since we run a budget deficit we are borrowing $$ to pay off the obligations that were already spent to make previous budget deficits look smaller than they really were. Social Security has been a trail of broken promises and outright lies that is coming home to roost and most of the elected representatives that gave birth to it, robbed it and raped it are long gone. Letting Congress run anything that takes honesty and integrity is asking too much.
As for Obama, calling him a socialist is being kind.
@ 11:55 am on November 12, 2009
We should definitely continue down the path set by the Bush Administration. Two wars, run away corporations, stressed out troops, dismantled families, real estate collapse, corporate collapse…Anyone who believes Obama’s administration is powerful enough to have caused the country’s current GDP, unemployment figures and economic state is clearly making him the most powerful President in this country’s history. WOW! All that accomplishment in just 9 short months!
@ 12:11 pm on November 12, 2009
@Hmmmm
You’re absolutely right, Obama did not cause the current economic climate. But neither did Bush. One man cannot, and should not, be blamed for the ills of an entire society. Nor should one man be given credit for the successes of an entire society.
An economy is a function of those who participate in the economy. When that function has variables like people making $40k/year buying $1M homes you’re going to run into problems at some point. The unsustainable path was laid out by the American people and, unfortunately, a correction is now taking place and everyone has to suffer a little bit because of it. If you think Obama’s policies are going to change the behaviors that caused this (or that Bush’s policies were the catalyst for the behavior) you’re sadly mistaken and I’d like to give you a stack of books so you can stop listening to stump speeches on MSNBC and start learning something.
@ 12:56 pm on November 12, 2009
So you don’t think that the lack of oversight over these institutions that gave the risky loans to the $40k earners in the $1M homes was at all to blame?
@ 1:06 pm on November 12, 2009
As far as socialism it concerned, I’ve yet to hear a compelling or legitimate definition of its meaning, historic or otherwise, by the the gun-slingers who like using it to describe other politician’s policies.
The use of it, however, does make me think of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse; the part of the show where everybody is supposed to go nuts when the word of the day is uttered in casual conversation.
It’s a fun game to play but it still doesn’t get us enough H1N1 flu vaccine to take care of everybody in Texas. Perry fumbled that one, assuming that private health care providers would order enough. 24% of the Texas population, uninsured people who don’t have private health care, never crossed his mind.
Want to talk socialism, Gov. Perry? Viruses are socialist.
@ 1:15 pm on November 12, 2009
I love you Yossarian, but not like that. If you know what I mean.
If you’re going textbook definition, the U.S. has had a mixed economy for years. Decades. And because of that, we’ve always been a little bit socialist.
All of these people screaming socialism – will you be taking your Social Security payments when you retire (assuming there are any)? Will you head over to a Cowboys game, which was partially built with taxpayer money? Will you utilize Medicare?
@ 1:27 pm on November 12, 2009
@Yossarian: If you hear someone say the Secret Word, scream real loud!
Just wait until the Guv opts out of the new health-care plan. If that doesn’t make it to the final bill, then the talk of secession will return.
Again, vote for Kay in the primary. Thank you.
@ 1:33 pm on November 12, 2009
@Bethany
Lack of oversight? Do you really think it was a lack of oversight that encouraged those loans? Let me guess…you probably also think it was the result of predatory lending practices by big bad banks taking advantage of poor innocent consumers.
Without getting into an argument over what party is to blame (because it’s both of them dating back a quarter century), the government was in lockstep with the financial institutions throughout. It was the congressional policies that not only enabled, but encouraged the behavior. Congress even threatened financial institutions with fines and penalties if they didn’t make those very loans because of the perceived incidence of redlining in poor and underserved communities. The financial institutions had standards for risk and credit worthiness that Congress made them throw out the window. Oh, and looky here, Obama was actually one of the lawyers who influenced this in the early and mid 1990’s. Let’s blame him! (Sarcasm intended.)
I am saying that if there were no loans to be had for people who did not qualify, there would be no bubble, and no bubble to burst.
@ 1:55 pm on November 12, 2009
“So you don’t think that the lack of oversight over these institutions that gave the risky loans to the $40k earners in the $1M homes was at all to blame?”
Lack of oversight? Those charged with oversight encouraged the practice, even threatening institutions which did not go along with the CRA.
And it’s odd odd how the most-regulated elements of the economy were the ones that fell the hardest, and lack of regulation is always to blame.
Kinda like DC schools – most spent per student, worst in the nation, but the problem is, of course, not enough money.
Who in 2006 (unemployment 4.5%, stock Market at highest level in history, and the fastest growing economy in the world) said elect us and we’ll change the direction of this country?
The same people who are trying to pass a bill which is chock-full of social engineering, “fill in the blanks”, explosive bureaucratic growth, regulations up the wazoo and greater control of citizen choices.
Forget bullets, stock up on medical supplies.
@ 1:57 pm on November 12, 2009
The use of it, however, does make me think of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse; the part of the show where everybody is supposed to go nuts when the word of the day is uttered in casual conversation.
You mean kind of like “gun slingers”? Funny how progressives are always running away from the terms that describe them.
@ 1:58 pm on November 12, 2009
Bethany:
“I was referring to the temporary programs. I even used the word temporary.”
Yes, I know, but you also stated that people called FDR a Socialist. It wasn’t just because of the temporary programs. Social Security is by definition a Socialist program in that it takes from one group, the working class, for the benefit another, the retired class. It’s also going to bankrupt this nation, but that’s for another thread…
@ 2:08 pm on November 12, 2009
“As far as socialism it concerned, I’ve yet to hear a compelling or legitimate definition of its meaning…”
When 50% of the people earn their money through work, and 50% earn their money by voting?
@ 2:08 pm on November 12, 2009
“The financial institutions had standards for risk and credit worthiness that Congress made them throw out the window.”
You mean the lobbyists for the financial institutions that wrote the bills that Congress submitted and approved that gutted the system of standards for risk and credit worthiness? The financial institutions that invented derivatives and lobbied Wendy Gramm, under the Ronald Regan administration, to remove all government oversight over derivative trading? Those financially prudent financial institutions? Where the heck do you think the thousands of multi-million dollar bonuses for Wall Street come from, 5% 30 year fixed rate mortgage loans? Or a system without standards for risk and credit worthiness?
@ 2:11 pm on November 12, 2009
Back to the topic at hand, our beautifully coifed governor, the honorable Rick Perry. Isn’t it interesting how history repeats itself? If you read the saga of Ma and Pa Ferguson, the populist husband-wife Texas governors of the early 1900s, you will see interesting mirrors to our current populist governor. Rural roots. Check. Homespun delivery. Check. Questionable relationships with Big Money. Check. Arrogance. Check. Personal aggrandizement. Check. And the list goes on. My heart aches when Mr. Perry strums a chord of baser instinct, then finds a large public choir to sing along. Where are those widows and orphans we were kicking off AFDC? Gotta use those funds for a Wal-Mart grant. Sigh.
@ 3:14 pm on November 12, 2009
“When 50% of the people earn their money through work, and 50% earn their money by voting?”
The elite love it when they can get the middle-class to push the boot down on the impoverished class. It makes their work so much easier. (”Don’t mind us, we’re moving HQ to Dubai.”)
@Bethany Thanks for the love. I understand, in that way not that other. Back at you.
@Doug I used gun-slinger in the slang context, meaning a person who uses quick and aggressive politics to achieve their goals. I fail to see how that does not accurately describe Perry.
@ 3:36 pm on November 12, 2009
@CoB
1. Congressional aides write legislation, not lobbyists.
2. Derivatives are actually a quite effective way to mitigate risk. The problem was, too many institutions bet solely on housing and neglected to diversify their holdings. When housing went belly-up, so went the institution.
3. Why in the world would a bank lobby to increase their risk?
4. Take a look at an amortization table. A 5% 30yr mortgage pays pretty well under normal cirsumstances. Most homeowners don’t carry a 30 yr mortgage to term so, say, they pay on the house for 10 years. In that 10 years, very little principle is paid down…it’s primarily interest. Homeowner then moves out, sells the homes, and the bank recovers the majority of the principle. Nevermind the fact that 5% rates on a mortgage are fairly new. It wasn’t so long ago that 10% was considered a “good” interest rate on a home purchase.
5. Goldman Sachs tends to be the one everyone hates, so I’ll use them as an example. Their brokerage unit is the business that’s done exceptionally well this year. Why is that? They’re brokering the trading of all the treasury securities we’re having to sell to pay off this massive Obama agenda. In a way, Obama may as well take credit for the fact that GS is paying $30B in bonuses this year. Congrats POTUS!
P.S. I challenge you to define derivative without using Google or Wikipedia. Even better, I beg you to tell me why Southwest Airlines did so well in the mid 2000’s when other airlines were faltering. I’ll give you a hint: derivatives.
Cheers.
@ 3:38 pm on November 12, 2009
Anyone who thinks that congressional aides actually write legislation is living in some kind of fantasyland. Okay, maybe they are the ones doing the actual typing, but they just “writing” what is being dictated to them by the lobbyists.
@ 4:30 pm on November 12, 2009
Derivatives are also a good way to hide risk. Especially when you’re happily doubling down on the very bad mortgages the government is supposedly forcing you to make.
@ 4:40 pm on November 12, 2009
You know how the Packers’ and Vikings’ profess their hatred for the other during the game, but at all other times the players work together to make themselves richer?
The Democrats and Republicans are just like that, and you taxpayer are the ticket purchaser with an expensive seat license.
@ 5:08 pm on November 12, 2009
The guv is not the only caricature in politics…..but he is correct about the chosen one. Entitlements are never rescinded and his desire is to have everyone latched to the government teet. The future for small business is apocalyptic because the chosen one makes every decision for big labor.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln…..
@ 5:15 pm on November 12, 2009
@Sammy
There’s no doubt that lobbyists influence legislation. This is something that happens on both sides of the aisle. The fallacy is that lobbyists are some evil unique to the Republican party. They’re not. If you really believe in your reasoning, what terrible soul sucking lobby is writing the health care bills floating through congress? All I seem to hear about is how the lobbyists are trying to kill health care reform. Seriously, think before you type something.
@Gwyon
I should have made a small addition to my argument that the government was “forcing” banks to make bad loans. To clarify, there’s no doubt the government forced banks to make *some* of the bad loans. The addition is that the government also explicitly guaranteed the bad loans that were made regardless of any coercion. For example, if you own a shop and the government tells you, “If you extend a line of credit to your customers, we’ll guarantee the loans if the customers somehow can’t repay.” In this scenario, you’ll give a line of credit to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walks through the door. Is this so hard to understand?
@ 5:20 pm on November 12, 2009
@smithdew
1. Lobbyists significantly influence legislation. No one said it was only one party. Bills of enormous size get that big because of special interest lobbying.
2. Derivatives can be used to sell high-risk products.
3. High risk investments can make very large short-term profits so a small number of people can walk away with a huge bonus. If the investments blow up no money is ever returned.
4. You’ve watched “It’s A Wonderful Life” too many times. No one gets rich that way.
5. Wall Street firms do whatever they can to make money without regard to the effect on the overall economy. This is happening if a R or D is in the White House.
P.S. Read F.I.A.S.C.O. by Frank Partnoy for all you need to know about derivatives.
Southwest Airlines made money through fuel hedging. Read their 10Q or 10K.
@ 6:25 pm on November 12, 2009
@Yossarian
“The elite love it when they can get the middle-class to push the boot down on the impoverished class. It makes their work so much easier. (”Don’t mind us, we’re moving HQ to Dubai.”).
And the middle class is putting the boot down on the “impoverished class” exactly how, by paying taxes?
@ 8:38 pm on November 12, 2009
When the on shore regulations get too strict the big boys just move off shore and set up their own casino to manipulate markets. They did it when they set up the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE)and now Goldman continues to make huge amounts of $$ trading in oil contracts that do not have oil behind them for delivery. The sad thing is that the consumer suffers when they push oil from $30 per barrel to $140 per barrel since the increase is reflected in the price of gasoline. That move in the price of oil in 2008 was a major factor in the recession. There currently exists a glut in oil and reduced demand which would normally mean reduced prices.
Southwest Airlines hedged there fuel needs and kept the company solid through tough times. The too big to fail boys such as GS and MS continue to move the markets at our expense and are using TARP money to do it with.
The ICE scam is making ENRON look tame. Don’t forget that KBH’s husband is an attorney with Vinson & Elkins – the law firm that represented ENRON to the tune of over $150 million in fees and then denied any knowledge of wrong doing.
@ 8:53 pm on November 12, 2009
@CoB
It’s too late and I’m too drunk to speak intelligently at this point, but I would like to address my comment regarding SWA. The most basic and fundamental derivative is a futures contract. That’s why SWA did so well, so yes, you understood the point I was making.
Derivatives in and of themselves are not an evil in the financial industry. But risking the health of your company on a portfolio of mortgage backed securities because they’re returning 35% annually is not an endorsement that derivatives need to be more regulated or are a “bad” thing.
For the record, I do read 10Qs and 10Ks. In fact, I help to write them.
Frankly, I just enjoy stirring the pot. You may be the only intelligent person I’ve sparred with on a comment board recently. I may not agree with you, but I appreciate your insight.
@ 1:22 am on November 13, 2009
@ Michael Brilliant analogy.
@ 6:50 am on November 13, 2009
Let’s see, Gov Perry’s logic is two bus loads of illegals being dumped off at the international bridge and escorted to the middle is all about punishing Texas by dumping illegal aliens caught in other states.
He’s right of course. He’s right in the simplest of mindsets. But it seems Presidio will profit from the traffic, even if it’s just two bus drivers and the guards.
As for derivatives, I think that’s what you get when Perry and Palin bump nasties.
@ 6:57 am on November 13, 2009
Of course, if you actually look at the tenets of socialism, and then the president’s record, you’ll probably come to the same conclusion that the editor of Socialist magazine came to: “[Obama] is not a socialist except, perhaps, in the imaginations of an odd assortment of conservatives”
FrontBurner® launched in March 2003, the first blog in Dallas run by a media organization. This is where the editors of D Magazine come to waste a tremendous amount of time.
42 comments
And Perry is “hell bent” on corporatism:
- Texas Enterprise Fund (Countrywide and WaMu were recipients)
- Emerging Technology Fund (Money shuffled through the Enterprise Fund to help out A&M)
- Privatizing the Lottery (Could have been a sweetheart deal to Mr. Gramm)
- Requiring HPV vaccines (Helping out his former Chief of Staff to help his pharma client)
- Privatizing certain health and human services delivery (Accenture)
Funny. I was watching a documentary about FDR, and during the whole New Deal era, with its WPA and CCC, people also said he was a socialist. But those temporary programs were just that – temporary – and when they were no longer needed, they were gone.
So history is doomed to repeat itself, I suppose.
I’m done being outraged. Rick can keep talking about socialism to one audience, corporatism to another and, to yet another, his aspirations for national office.
All we have to do is vote for Kay in the primary and the Democratic nominee in the general election. Problem solved. Adios mofo.
“But those temporary programs were just that – temporary – and when they were no longer needed, they were gone.”
You mean like Social Security?
We are also not in a recession according to Perry.
oh, BRB. Gotta go feed my unicorn in the backyard.
@Bethany
Did you forget about all the permanent programs FDR created? You know, the ones that have been expanded upon and now leave us trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities? Yes, perhaps history will repeat itself. It’s unfortunate.
Perry’s going to end up making a caricature of himself and losing whatever credibility he has left.
Telling comment, Bethany. Unfortunately, people don’t realize FDR’s promises kept, probably because they live with temp-gone-perm programs like the Energy Dept. (created by Carter to wean the US off foreign oil); income taxes (on for the Civil War, off, on, off, then permanently on in 1913); and more.
I believe it’s because bureaucracy tends to be oyster-like in its opportunistic self-preservation and expansion, regardless of original intentions. Bureaucracies engender lobbyists and support selected politicians, just like private industry.
Bottom line: Obama’s initiatives will live on, past effective lifetimes or even the bureaucrats’ lifetimes.
Social Security wasn’t temporary nor is it unfunded but, its TRUST fund has been raided by both D and R administrations alike.
Medicare is from the 60s.
I’m not sure what unfunded trillions are from FDRs administration.
Perhaps you’ve confused W’s war funding?
@VisitDallas…
Social Security is a ponzi scheme that would make Bernard Madoff proud. There is no SS trust fund. The “trust fund” is basically an IOU sitting on the balance sheet.
Outrage machines **** up the environment.
@DMBurrows… your unicorn must enjoy the employment and GDP figures from the white house.
I was referring to the temporary programs. I even used the word temporary.
It’s not just Obama’s “temporary” initiatives that live on; new “temporary” programs that require a new or expanded bureaucracy almost always live on long past the originally-intended expiration date. Some would say that it’s because the programs prove valuable in ways that were unintended even at the outset, others would say that it’s because the first job of an entrenched bureaucracy is to ensure that it remains (and can prove) that it is necessary, thus preserving the jobs of the bureaucrats at the expense of the greater good (which would presumably be better served by making temporary initiatives truly temporary).
This isn’t a R or D issue, really. It’s the nature of a bureaucracy. They never shrink, they only expand.
VD – the unfunded trillions are the social security promise of retirement income to all comers in America with only current taxes to pay it. The Trust Fund has been “invested” in government obligations that can only be paid off with current taxes. Since we run a budget deficit we are borrowing $$ to pay off the obligations that were already spent to make previous budget deficits look smaller than they really were. Social Security has been a trail of broken promises and outright lies that is coming home to roost and most of the elected representatives that gave birth to it, robbed it and raped it are long gone. Letting Congress run anything that takes honesty and integrity is asking too much.
As for Obama, calling him a socialist is being kind.
We should definitely continue down the path set by the Bush Administration. Two wars, run away corporations, stressed out troops, dismantled families, real estate collapse, corporate collapse…Anyone who believes Obama’s administration is powerful enough to have caused the country’s current GDP, unemployment figures and economic state is clearly making him the most powerful President in this country’s history. WOW! All that accomplishment in just 9 short months!
@Hmmmm
You’re absolutely right, Obama did not cause the current economic climate. But neither did Bush. One man cannot, and should not, be blamed for the ills of an entire society. Nor should one man be given credit for the successes of an entire society.
An economy is a function of those who participate in the economy. When that function has variables like people making $40k/year buying $1M homes you’re going to run into problems at some point. The unsustainable path was laid out by the American people and, unfortunately, a correction is now taking place and everyone has to suffer a little bit because of it. If you think Obama’s policies are going to change the behaviors that caused this (or that Bush’s policies were the catalyst for the behavior) you’re sadly mistaken and I’d like to give you a stack of books so you can stop listening to stump speeches on MSNBC and start learning something.
So you don’t think that the lack of oversight over these institutions that gave the risky loans to the $40k earners in the $1M homes was at all to blame?
As far as socialism it concerned, I’ve yet to hear a compelling or legitimate definition of its meaning, historic or otherwise, by the the gun-slingers who like using it to describe other politician’s policies.
The use of it, however, does make me think of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse; the part of the show where everybody is supposed to go nuts when the word of the day is uttered in casual conversation.
It’s a fun game to play but it still doesn’t get us enough H1N1 flu vaccine to take care of everybody in Texas. Perry fumbled that one, assuming that private health care providers would order enough. 24% of the Texas population, uninsured people who don’t have private health care, never crossed his mind.
Want to talk socialism, Gov. Perry? Viruses are socialist.
I love you Yossarian, but not like that. If you know what I mean.
If you’re going textbook definition, the U.S. has had a mixed economy for years. Decades. And because of that, we’ve always been a little bit socialist.
All of these people screaming socialism – will you be taking your Social Security payments when you retire (assuming there are any)? Will you head over to a Cowboys game, which was partially built with taxpayer money? Will you utilize Medicare?
@Yossarian: If you hear someone say the Secret Word, scream real loud!
Just wait until the Guv opts out of the new health-care plan. If that doesn’t make it to the final bill, then the talk of secession will return.
Again, vote for Kay in the primary. Thank you.
@Bethany
Lack of oversight? Do you really think it was a lack of oversight that encouraged those loans? Let me guess…you probably also think it was the result of predatory lending practices by big bad banks taking advantage of poor innocent consumers.
Without getting into an argument over what party is to blame (because it’s both of them dating back a quarter century), the government was in lockstep with the financial institutions throughout. It was the congressional policies that not only enabled, but encouraged the behavior. Congress even threatened financial institutions with fines and penalties if they didn’t make those very loans because of the perceived incidence of redlining in poor and underserved communities. The financial institutions had standards for risk and credit worthiness that Congress made them throw out the window. Oh, and looky here, Obama was actually one of the lawyers who influenced this in the early and mid 1990’s. Let’s blame him! (Sarcasm intended.)
*Partison Politics Alert*
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html
I am saying that if there were no loans to be had for people who did not qualify, there would be no bubble, and no bubble to burst.
“So you don’t think that the lack of oversight over these institutions that gave the risky loans to the $40k earners in the $1M homes was at all to blame?”
Lack of oversight? Those charged with oversight encouraged the practice, even threatening institutions which did not go along with the CRA.
And it’s odd odd how the most-regulated elements of the economy were the ones that fell the hardest, and lack of regulation is always to blame.
Kinda like DC schools – most spent per student, worst in the nation, but the problem is, of course, not enough money.
Who in 2006 (unemployment 4.5%, stock Market at highest level in history, and the fastest growing economy in the world) said elect us and we’ll change the direction of this country?
The same people who are trying to pass a bill which is chock-full of social engineering, “fill in the blanks”, explosive bureaucratic growth, regulations up the wazoo and greater control of citizen choices.
Forget bullets, stock up on medical supplies.
The use of it, however, does make me think of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse; the part of the show where everybody is supposed to go nuts when the word of the day is uttered in casual conversation.
You mean kind of like “gun slingers”? Funny how progressives are always running away from the terms that describe them.
Bethany:
“I was referring to the temporary programs. I even used the word temporary.”
Yes, I know, but you also stated that people called FDR a Socialist. It wasn’t just because of the temporary programs. Social Security is by definition a Socialist program in that it takes from one group, the working class, for the benefit another, the retired class. It’s also going to bankrupt this nation, but that’s for another thread…
“As far as socialism it concerned, I’ve yet to hear a compelling or legitimate definition of its meaning…”
When 50% of the people earn their money through work, and 50% earn their money by voting?
“The financial institutions had standards for risk and credit worthiness that Congress made them throw out the window.”
You mean the lobbyists for the financial institutions that wrote the bills that Congress submitted and approved that gutted the system of standards for risk and credit worthiness? The financial institutions that invented derivatives and lobbied Wendy Gramm, under the Ronald Regan administration, to remove all government oversight over derivative trading? Those financially prudent financial institutions? Where the heck do you think the thousands of multi-million dollar bonuses for Wall Street come from, 5% 30 year fixed rate mortgage loans? Or a system without standards for risk and credit worthiness?
Back to the topic at hand, our beautifully coifed governor, the honorable Rick Perry. Isn’t it interesting how history repeats itself? If you read the saga of Ma and Pa Ferguson, the populist husband-wife Texas governors of the early 1900s, you will see interesting mirrors to our current populist governor. Rural roots. Check. Homespun delivery. Check. Questionable relationships with Big Money. Check. Arrogance. Check. Personal aggrandizement. Check. And the list goes on. My heart aches when Mr. Perry strums a chord of baser instinct, then finds a large public choir to sing along. Where are those widows and orphans we were kicking off AFDC? Gotta use those funds for a Wal-Mart grant. Sigh.
“When 50% of the people earn their money through work, and 50% earn their money by voting?”
The elite love it when they can get the middle-class to push the boot down on the impoverished class. It makes their work so much easier. (”Don’t mind us, we’re moving HQ to Dubai.”)
@Bethany Thanks for the love. I understand, in that way not that other. Back at you.
@Doug I used gun-slinger in the slang context, meaning a person who uses quick and aggressive politics to achieve their goals. I fail to see how that does not accurately describe Perry.
@CoB
1. Congressional aides write legislation, not lobbyists.
2. Derivatives are actually a quite effective way to mitigate risk. The problem was, too many institutions bet solely on housing and neglected to diversify their holdings. When housing went belly-up, so went the institution.
3. Why in the world would a bank lobby to increase their risk?
4. Take a look at an amortization table. A 5% 30yr mortgage pays pretty well under normal cirsumstances. Most homeowners don’t carry a 30 yr mortgage to term so, say, they pay on the house for 10 years. In that 10 years, very little principle is paid down…it’s primarily interest. Homeowner then moves out, sells the homes, and the bank recovers the majority of the principle. Nevermind the fact that 5% rates on a mortgage are fairly new. It wasn’t so long ago that 10% was considered a “good” interest rate on a home purchase.
5. Goldman Sachs tends to be the one everyone hates, so I’ll use them as an example. Their brokerage unit is the business that’s done exceptionally well this year. Why is that? They’re brokering the trading of all the treasury securities we’re having to sell to pay off this massive Obama agenda. In a way, Obama may as well take credit for the fact that GS is paying $30B in bonuses this year. Congrats POTUS!
P.S. I challenge you to define derivative without using Google or Wikipedia. Even better, I beg you to tell me why Southwest Airlines did so well in the mid 2000’s when other airlines were faltering. I’ll give you a hint: derivatives.
Cheers.
Anyone who thinks that congressional aides actually write legislation is living in some kind of fantasyland. Okay, maybe they are the ones doing the actual typing, but they just “writing” what is being dictated to them by the lobbyists.
Derivatives are also a good way to hide risk. Especially when you’re happily doubling down on the very bad mortgages the government is supposedly forcing you to make.
You know how the Packers’ and Vikings’ profess their hatred for the other during the game, but at all other times the players work together to make themselves richer?
The Democrats and Republicans are just like that, and you taxpayer are the ticket purchaser with an expensive seat license.
The guv is not the only caricature in politics…..but he is correct about the chosen one. Entitlements are never rescinded and his desire is to have everyone latched to the government teet. The future for small business is apocalyptic because the chosen one makes every decision for big labor.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln…..
@Sammy
There’s no doubt that lobbyists influence legislation. This is something that happens on both sides of the aisle. The fallacy is that lobbyists are some evil unique to the Republican party. They’re not. If you really believe in your reasoning, what terrible soul sucking lobby is writing the health care bills floating through congress? All I seem to hear about is how the lobbyists are trying to kill health care reform. Seriously, think before you type something.
@Gwyon
I should have made a small addition to my argument that the government was “forcing” banks to make bad loans. To clarify, there’s no doubt the government forced banks to make *some* of the bad loans. The addition is that the government also explicitly guaranteed the bad loans that were made regardless of any coercion. For example, if you own a shop and the government tells you, “If you extend a line of credit to your customers, we’ll guarantee the loans if the customers somehow can’t repay.” In this scenario, you’ll give a line of credit to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walks through the door. Is this so hard to understand?
@smithdew
1. Lobbyists significantly influence legislation. No one said it was only one party. Bills of enormous size get that big because of special interest lobbying.
2. Derivatives can be used to sell high-risk products.
3. High risk investments can make very large short-term profits so a small number of people can walk away with a huge bonus. If the investments blow up no money is ever returned.
4. You’ve watched “It’s A Wonderful Life” too many times. No one gets rich that way.
5. Wall Street firms do whatever they can to make money without regard to the effect on the overall economy. This is happening if a R or D is in the White House.
P.S. Read F.I.A.S.C.O. by Frank Partnoy for all you need to know about derivatives.
Southwest Airlines made money through fuel hedging. Read their 10Q or 10K.
@Yossarian
“The elite love it when they can get the middle-class to push the boot down on the impoverished class. It makes their work so much easier. (”Don’t mind us, we’re moving HQ to Dubai.”).
And the middle class is putting the boot down on the “impoverished class” exactly how, by paying taxes?
When the on shore regulations get too strict the big boys just move off shore and set up their own casino to manipulate markets. They did it when they set up the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE)and now Goldman continues to make huge amounts of $$ trading in oil contracts that do not have oil behind them for delivery. The sad thing is that the consumer suffers when they push oil from $30 per barrel to $140 per barrel since the increase is reflected in the price of gasoline. That move in the price of oil in 2008 was a major factor in the recession. There currently exists a glut in oil and reduced demand which would normally mean reduced prices.
Southwest Airlines hedged there fuel needs and kept the company solid through tough times. The too big to fail boys such as GS and MS continue to move the markets at our expense and are using TARP money to do it with.
The ICE scam is making ENRON look tame. Don’t forget that KBH’s husband is an attorney with Vinson & Elkins – the law firm that represented ENRON to the tune of over $150 million in fees and then denied any knowledge of wrong doing.
@CoB
It’s too late and I’m too drunk to speak intelligently at this point, but I would like to address my comment regarding SWA. The most basic and fundamental derivative is a futures contract. That’s why SWA did so well, so yes, you understood the point I was making.
Derivatives in and of themselves are not an evil in the financial industry. But risking the health of your company on a portfolio of mortgage backed securities because they’re returning 35% annually is not an endorsement that derivatives need to be more regulated or are a “bad” thing.
For the record, I do read 10Qs and 10Ks. In fact, I help to write them.
Frankly, I just enjoy stirring the pot. You may be the only intelligent person I’ve sparred with on a comment board recently. I may not agree with you, but I appreciate your insight.
@ Michael Brilliant analogy.
Let’s see, Gov Perry’s logic is two bus loads of illegals being dumped off at the international bridge and escorted to the middle is all about punishing Texas by dumping illegal aliens caught in other states.
He’s right of course. He’s right in the simplest of mindsets. But it seems Presidio will profit from the traffic, even if it’s just two bus drivers and the guards.
As for derivatives, I think that’s what you get when Perry and Palin bump nasties.
Of course, if you actually look at the tenets of socialism, and then the president’s record, you’ll probably come to the same conclusion that the editor of Socialist magazine came to: “[Obama] is not a socialist except, perhaps, in the imaginations of an odd assortment of conservatives”
http://bit.ly/5F1Jr
But don’t let that stop you. Argue! Go!