This is not about Sandra Bernhard's unhinged rant, which (in normal times) would be dismissed as the ravings of an infected brain.
Rather, I found THIS to be very interesting:
According to news reports, the D.C. Jewish Community Center is supposedly very happy with their Bernhard show, and partied with Bernhard on opening night. Evidently, according to News Busters, they’re in tune with her right-bashing rage
Excuse my asking in such terms, but WTF is the DC Jewish Community Center so happy about?
HT: Headless, who found this at Black Political Thought
Monday, September 22, 2008
A Cleaner Cleanup
Here's something we should all get behind:
In an effort for transparency, I'd like to see a website that listed each transaction purchased by the government. This could list the details of the asset, the PAR value, the selling institution, the underlying characteristics, the originators of the loans, the price the government paid (and eventual sold the asset for) and any other relevant detail.
Proposed by Calculated Risk.
In an effort for transparency, I'd like to see a website that listed each transaction purchased by the government. This could list the details of the asset, the PAR value, the selling institution, the underlying characteristics, the originators of the loans, the price the government paid (and eventual sold the asset for) and any other relevant detail.
Proposed by Calculated Risk.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
On Second Thought
Yah, I'm NRA, and yah, I practice, and yah, I teach others how to, etc.
But I'm kind with Ace on this:
The thought of Uncle Joe [Biden] owning a gun almost makes you believe in gun control.
Almost
Except for the Iron Rule of gun-ownership, which is that using Joe Biden as an example demonstrates that the 2A was, indeed, for all citizens.
Not just Conservatives.
Even though that might be the better way to do it...
But I'm kind with Ace on this:
The thought of Uncle Joe [Biden] owning a gun almost makes you believe in gun control.
Almost
Except for the Iron Rule of gun-ownership, which is that using Joe Biden as an example demonstrates that the 2A was, indeed, for all citizens.
Not just Conservatives.
Even though that might be the better way to do it...
The Effete Elite: Muffy and Kent
Just leaving the country-club, Muffy and Kent were discussing the nomination of Sarah Palin.
If this is the choice of the conservative base, [Kent] said “Then we need a new base.”
“It’s over,” [Muffy] insisted of Palin’s candidacy.
Of course, BillyBoyKristol and Peggy Noonan should do one more thing as they fire up their Bentleys--look behind them to see who's following.
--Fred, the superannuated "boy" of who misses his shuffleboard game to be on Fox News Channel every Saturday afternoon;
--Aaaahhhhnold, who is required to sacrifice one conservative principle every time he wants to bed his wife;
--George the Eldest, whose wife never could stand all those filthy stinking party events in the Midwest;
--and a few ex-White House and Defense types, whose assignments far exceeded their capabilities. We could call them Wolfie, "No Boots," and "Tricky Dickie" of Pearlescent.
While their motorcade departs Burning Bush, note behind them...
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away
HT: Wigderson
If this is the choice of the conservative base, [Kent] said “Then we need a new base.”
“It’s over,” [Muffy] insisted of Palin’s candidacy.
Of course, BillyBoyKristol and Peggy Noonan should do one more thing as they fire up their Bentleys--look behind them to see who's following.
--Fred, the superannuated "boy" of who misses his shuffleboard game to be on Fox News Channel every Saturday afternoon;
--Aaaahhhhnold, who is required to sacrifice one conservative principle every time he wants to bed his wife;
--George the Eldest, whose wife never could stand all those filthy stinking party events in the Midwest;
--and a few ex-White House and Defense types, whose assignments far exceeded their capabilities. We could call them Wolfie, "No Boots," and "Tricky Dickie" of Pearlescent.
While their motorcade departs Burning Bush, note behind them...
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away
HT: Wigderson
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The Next Time a RadioMouth Yaps About "Dow UP"...
As the intrepid and valuable skeptic Vox points out:
...these are the companies that were part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1998 that are no longer so: Chevron Corporation, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Union Carbide, Sears Roebuck, AT&T Corporation, Eastman Kodak, International Paper Company, Altria Group (Phillip Morris) and Honeywell International. These declining companies were replaced by healthier, more growth-friendly corporations like the American International Group,
So that "10 year average increase" of 4.4% (shitty increase, by the way) is....ah....a bit manipulated, I guess.
Goodyear blew up. Union Carbide, ditto (literally, in India...). Sears got out-maneuvered by the banko K-Mart (!!); Eastman cannot buy sales anymore.
Real measurement. All the time.
Yah, right.
...these are the companies that were part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1998 that are no longer so: Chevron Corporation, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Union Carbide, Sears Roebuck, AT&T Corporation, Eastman Kodak, International Paper Company, Altria Group (Phillip Morris) and Honeywell International. These declining companies were replaced by healthier, more growth-friendly corporations like the American International Group,
So that "10 year average increase" of 4.4% (shitty increase, by the way) is....ah....a bit manipulated, I guess.
Goodyear blew up. Union Carbide, ditto (literally, in India...). Sears got out-maneuvered by the banko K-Mart (!!); Eastman cannot buy sales anymore.
Real measurement. All the time.
Yah, right.
Obama's (ummmnnnhhhh) Senate Voting (uhhhhnnnn) Record
RedState did a very brief analysis.
Seems that the O-and-Savior has serious problems with 1) thinking straight; and 2) pushing buttons. That "button" thing--I hope Mr. Putin is paying close attention...
March 14, 1997 Thank you Madam Speaker (sic). Will the sponsor yield? I let this – I voted to have this bill come out of committee, because I think it was useful to have this kind of discussion on the bill, and I think the Senator has good intent… So although I did vote Yes to get this out of the committee, I – as currently constituted in light of the discussion, I think that it may – I will probably vote in opposition to the bill.
March 18, 1997 This is actually on the previous bill, 1076. I pressed yes, but my button didn’t come up.
March 19, 1997 The – yesterday on Senate Bill 1000, I should have – I was trying to vote Yes on this and I was recorded as a No. Just wanted to have that in the record.
March 20, 1997 Yes, Madam President. On Senate bill 700, I should have pressed a Yes vote; pressed a Present vote. I’d like that reflected in the record, please.
May 13, 1997 Yes, Mr. President. I was off the floor and I was wondering if we were going to go back on 2nd reading. I’d ask the body for 2147. Move it from 2nd to 3rd.
May 28, 1997 Thank you, Madam President. My button seems to be sticking. So I was recorded as not voting on that; I would have voted aye.
October 30, 1997 Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Chamber, the sponsor. Let me start off by just saying that – I want to apologize to the sponsor because the – I’m originally recorded as a – as a Yes vote on this, and it’s an indication, I think, that I wasn’t paying sufficient attention. I do have concerns on this bill, and I just want to express those concerns very quickly…
November 14, 1997 Thank you, Mr. President. I had the same problem on Senate Bill 493. I’d like to be recorded as a No vote.
[Later that same day]
Thank you, Mr. President. On Senate Bill 452, I was out in the hall when the vote came up and I didn’t get back here in time. I would like to be recorded as a Yes vote.
May 22, 1998 I apologize, Mr. President. I was off the floor and missed House Bill 1706. I just wanted to record that I would have voted in the affirmative.
Sure.
"Mr. Putin, on that little nuclear strike, I'm sorry, but I meant to press the "NO" button."
Seems that the O-and-Savior has serious problems with 1) thinking straight; and 2) pushing buttons. That "button" thing--I hope Mr. Putin is paying close attention...
March 14, 1997 Thank you Madam Speaker (sic). Will the sponsor yield? I let this – I voted to have this bill come out of committee, because I think it was useful to have this kind of discussion on the bill, and I think the Senator has good intent… So although I did vote Yes to get this out of the committee, I – as currently constituted in light of the discussion, I think that it may – I will probably vote in opposition to the bill.
March 18, 1997 This is actually on the previous bill, 1076. I pressed yes, but my button didn’t come up.
March 19, 1997 The – yesterday on Senate Bill 1000, I should have – I was trying to vote Yes on this and I was recorded as a No. Just wanted to have that in the record.
March 20, 1997 Yes, Madam President. On Senate bill 700, I should have pressed a Yes vote; pressed a Present vote. I’d like that reflected in the record, please.
May 13, 1997 Yes, Mr. President. I was off the floor and I was wondering if we were going to go back on 2nd reading. I’d ask the body for 2147. Move it from 2nd to 3rd.
May 28, 1997 Thank you, Madam President. My button seems to be sticking. So I was recorded as not voting on that; I would have voted aye.
October 30, 1997 Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Chamber, the sponsor. Let me start off by just saying that – I want to apologize to the sponsor because the – I’m originally recorded as a – as a Yes vote on this, and it’s an indication, I think, that I wasn’t paying sufficient attention. I do have concerns on this bill, and I just want to express those concerns very quickly…
November 14, 1997 Thank you, Mr. President. I had the same problem on Senate Bill 493. I’d like to be recorded as a No vote.
[Later that same day]
Thank you, Mr. President. On Senate Bill 452, I was out in the hall when the vote came up and I didn’t get back here in time. I would like to be recorded as a Yes vote.
May 22, 1998 I apologize, Mr. President. I was off the floor and missed House Bill 1706. I just wanted to record that I would have voted in the affirmative.
Sure.
"Mr. Putin, on that little nuclear strike, I'm sorry, but I meant to press the "NO" button."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Slimeballs) Awakes to 21st Century
Sen. Dodd, whose mortgage rates have always been, uhhhh, ....extra-nice, showed up for a meeting with Paulson and Bernanke.
"This problem began with bad lending practices"
said Dodd, while Angelo Mozilo was busy stroking Dodd's.....shoes.
Note that Senator Dodd did not say WHY there were "bad lending practices."
Hint:
Look at Sen. Dodd, ACORN, and Barney "Furtive" Frank (D-Boys). (Or is it FrankFurter?)
Never mind.
As Barney would say, "BOHICA!!! It's party time!!!"
"This problem began with bad lending practices"
said Dodd, while Angelo Mozilo was busy stroking Dodd's.....shoes.
Note that Senator Dodd did not say WHY there were "bad lending practices."
Hint:
Look at Sen. Dodd, ACORN, and Barney "Furtive" Frank (D-Boys). (Or is it FrankFurter?)
Never mind.
As Barney would say, "BOHICA!!! It's party time!!!"
"Journalists" Push Party Line
In a brilliant display of investigative and journalistic talent, PATRICK MARLEY and STEVEN WALTERS discovered that
The lead Department of Justice attorney for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s lawsuit against the state’s election authority met with Republican Party representatives about a week before filing the suit.
Crikey, mate!
Next, Marley and Walters will discover that James Doyle, Governor of Wisconsin, met withDemocrat Heavy Lifter and Major Contributor attorney Lester Pines before giving Pines a bunch of taxpayer money engaging Pines to defend the indefensible decision made by a Doyle-appointed committee of old go-along-to-get-along farts of honorable, venerable retired judges to give the finger to Federal law delay certain audits which may (or may not) be required by Federal law .
It is clear that such audits would require election clerks to work hard and long for a change impose a burden on some local workers. Further, such audits may uncover thousands of fraudulent registrations have the effect of making voters prove that they exist they are legally registered.
It is unlikely, however, that Walters and Marley will be confused with the accounting firm made famous in Dickens' fiction will ever report that ACORN met with James Doyle, governor of Wisconsin. It is also unlikely that Walters and Marley will report that the long delay in implementing Federal law are due to Governor James Doyle's personally pressuring Accenture to "foul this up real good, eh!!" It is also unlikely that Walters and Marley will report that the Department of Administration deliberately undermined the G.A.B.'s progress on compliance with Federal Law.
After all, Walters and Marley are unlikely to report that their only sources are Democrat party operatives, Doyle, Pines, Wineke, and other barflies confidential.
They won't report that because it may or may not be true. And they only report what is true, right?
Well, SOME of what is true. After all, we have an election torig run.
The lead Department of Justice attorney for Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s lawsuit against the state’s election authority met with Republican Party representatives about a week before filing the suit.
Crikey, mate!
Next, Marley and Walters will discover that James Doyle, Governor of Wisconsin, met with
It is clear that such audits would
It is unlikely, however, that Walters and Marley
After all, Walters and Marley are unlikely to report that their only sources are
They won't report that because it may or may not be true. And they only report what is true, right?
Well, SOME of what is true. After all, we have an election to
Friday, September 19, 2008
Queen Nancy's "Most Ethical Congress"
Rangel.
Amiable, bon vivant, and ....a crook.
Rep. Charles Rangel acknowledged yesterday he may have violated House ethics rules when he used congressional stationery to solicit donations for a Harlem "center for public service" that will be named after him.
...Last year, Rangel's office provided The Post with a list of some of the donations he had already helped secure for the project, which included $10 million from AIG; $500,000 from the Verizon Foundation; and $1 million from Eugene Isenberg, CEO of energy firm Nabors Industries.
It would be a scream if the Fed Reserve placed a lien on Rangel's goods for return of the $10 million.
Amiable, bon vivant, and ....a crook.
Rep. Charles Rangel acknowledged yesterday he may have violated House ethics rules when he used congressional stationery to solicit donations for a Harlem "center for public service" that will be named after him.
...Last year, Rangel's office provided The Post with a list of some of the donations he had already helped secure for the project, which included $10 million from AIG; $500,000 from the Verizon Foundation; and $1 million from Eugene Isenberg, CEO of energy firm Nabors Industries.
It would be a scream if the Fed Reserve placed a lien on Rangel's goods for return of the $10 million.
Still Pumping it Out
There will be a temporary delay while we issue new ATM cards--these will be labeled "USTreasury."
HT: Ace
Short Sells: A Little Terrorism, Dear?
Ritholtz, having a conversation with his pal Joe Besecker:
...from what he was seeing and hearing about in terms of order flow, the vast majority of the financial short selling the past week or so were being done overseas. It appears that the lion's share of shorting was coming out of overseas bourses such as London and Dubai.It may not be a coincidence that the financial short selling ban is both here and in London.
Then there is another coincidence: The huge increase in shorting of the financials occurred on the anniversary of 9/11. And on top of that, the same institutions attacked on 9/11/01 were the ones suffering in recent days
Taking a $200 million short-position is not a problem if your net worth is $1Bn or so and your camels are already paid for.
...from what he was seeing and hearing about in terms of order flow, the vast majority of the financial short selling the past week or so were being done overseas. It appears that the lion's share of shorting was coming out of overseas bourses such as London and Dubai.It may not be a coincidence that the financial short selling ban is both here and in London.
Then there is another coincidence: The huge increase in shorting of the financials occurred on the anniversary of 9/11. And on top of that, the same institutions attacked on 9/11/01 were the ones suffering in recent days
Taking a $200 million short-position is not a problem if your net worth is $1Bn or so and your camels are already paid for.
Lie. Repeat. Lie. Repeat. "Nobody Can Vote" Lie. Repeat..
Van Hollen cannot understand why people seem to think that
due to his lawsuit.
Could it be because Ted Perry, "journalist" at Channel 6, repeated that canard two nights ago (while totally ignoring the Fed's AIG purchase, by the way)?
Or that the 6:00 team of "journalists" on Channel 12 said exactly the same thing on the same night?
Or that countless newspaper stories have repeated the line, fed them by Jim Doyle's hand-picked operatives, cronies, ward-heelers, and professional slimers?
Nah.
Couldn't be that Jim Doyle sorta-kinda-quietly-backhandedly made sure that the database did NOT get up on time, or that thestooges judges (appointed by the very same Jim Doyle) making up the "Accountability" Board said
Face it. Doyle's looking at the US Attorney General slot if the Democrat wins. The Party as a whole is looking at raping and pillaging the remaining wealth-creators in the US if a Democrat wins.
So a lot of repeated lying is worth it.
HT: McIlheran, or maybe Mc Ilheran. Whatever.
'a MILLION PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE'
due to his lawsuit.
Could it be because Ted Perry, "journalist" at Channel 6, repeated that canard two nights ago (while totally ignoring the Fed's AIG purchase, by the way)?
Or that the 6:00 team of "journalists" on Channel 12 said exactly the same thing on the same night?
Or that countless newspaper stories have repeated the line, fed them by Jim Doyle's hand-picked operatives, cronies, ward-heelers, and professional slimers?
Nah.
Couldn't be that Jim Doyle sorta-kinda-quietly-backhandedly made sure that the database did NOT get up on time, or that the
"Accountability? Not on OUR Watch!!"
Face it. Doyle's looking at the US Attorney General slot if the Democrat wins. The Party as a whole is looking at raping and pillaging the remaining wealth-creators in the US if a Democrat wins.
So a lot of repeated lying is worth it.
HT: McIlheran, or maybe Mc Ilheran. Whatever.
Looking for a Small, Light, Self-Defense Gun?
They're called Palm Pistols.
This is neat. Likely very accurate, given the hold-method/firing mechanics, and extremely small.
HT: Of Arms and the Law
This is neat. Likely very accurate, given the hold-method/firing mechanics, and extremely small.
HT: Of Arms and the Law
BuhBye, MPS?
Holy wah!
The Milwaukee School Board voted Thursday night to begin looking into dissolving the Milwaukee Public Schools system
Kind of a Harry Reid moment, eh? "Nobody knows what to do..."
The completely unexpected 6-to-3 vote followed a gloomy assessment of the short- and long-term financial situation of MPS from Superintendent William Andrekopoulos and several board members
Oh, well. Easy come, easy go.
The Milwaukee School Board voted Thursday night to begin looking into dissolving the Milwaukee Public Schools system
Kind of a Harry Reid moment, eh? "Nobody knows what to do..."
The completely unexpected 6-to-3 vote followed a gloomy assessment of the short- and long-term financial situation of MPS from Superintendent William Andrekopoulos and several board members
Oh, well. Easy come, easy go.
Mutual Admiration: Fannie, Freddie, Obama, ACORN, and NACA
Oh, they were tight, indeed.
A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions...[receiving] $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004
In just three years! My, my. How could that be?
Easy. Friends in high places, who were stealing money left and right.
In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.
Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003
"Earned" the money? Not necessarily:
Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.
Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.
Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000
Well. Obama goes to the Senate and picks up more dollars/year from Fannie and Freddie than any other Senator in history.
Think about that. He hardly knew which way to the men's room in the Senate, and he's clocking about $1,000/day, every day of the year, in "donations" from these folks.
You're waiting for the other ACORN to drop, right? Intuitively smart you are!!
In an article focusing on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and how the Clintonoids had pumped up the volume of lending, we find this:
...bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York
These "community organizations" play hardball.
Take Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA), for example.
[The President of NACA]...is unhesitatingly candid about his intent to use NACA to promote an activist, left-wing political agenda. NACA loan applicants must attend a workshop that celebrates—to the accompaniment of gospel music—the protests that have helped the group win its bank lending agreements...
...The home mortgage business is his tool for political organizing: the Homebuyer's Workbook contains a voter registration application and states that "NACA's mission of neighborhood stabilization is based on participation in the political process. To participate you must register to vote." [He] plans to install a high-capacity phone system that can forward hundreds of calls to congressional offices—"or Phil Gramm's house"—to buttress NACA campaigns. The combination of an army of "volunteers" and a voter registration drive portends (though there is no evidence of this so far) that someday CRA-related funds and Marks's troop of CRA borrowers might end up fueling a host of Democratic candidacies
Even though the money lent by NACA (and ACORN) came from Banks, the mortgages were bundled and sold to (ta-da!) Fannie and Freddie, just like a lot of others.
Gee.
"Voter Registration." "Activism." "Income derived from mortgage-brokering activity". "ACORN." "Fraud." "Manipulation." "Unjust Enrichment."
Would it surprise you to learn that NACA has offices in Chicago?
How about Milwaukee?
Yes, indeedy....both places.
You can connect the dots any way you like, and there are lots of interesting little dots to connect, eh?
The big picture: Obama and the GSE's recognized that they were symbiotic. They needed each other as they washed money around in circles:
1) Congressional Democrats force banks to cough up money for "CRA" purposes.
2) The Banks 'lend' the money through extremely politicized LeftyWonzo organizations like NACA and ACORN, who get fee-income which finances "voter registration"--and they know where the voters live, as well as where they USED to live, eh? (Wink-wink...) Those "voters" happen to vote Democrat!
3) Ship the loans, bundled neatly, back to Fannie/Freddie, so that Raines, Johnson, and Gorelick can show what they've done about lending to the disadvantaged, thereby inflating their salaries, bonuses, and stock-option rights.
4) Fannie/Freddie employees then make significant donations to Favored Congressmen--like the O-and-Savior, for example--to make sure that they get re-elected.
5) If Fannie/Freddie go banko, no big deal.
Taxpayers are around to pick up the difference.
HT: RS McCain
A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions...[receiving] $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004
In just three years! My, my. How could that be?
Easy. Friends in high places, who were stealing money left and right.
In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.
Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003
"Earned" the money? Not necessarily:
Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.
Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.
Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000
Well. Obama goes to the Senate and picks up more dollars/year from Fannie and Freddie than any other Senator in history.
Think about that. He hardly knew which way to the men's room in the Senate, and he's clocking about $1,000/day, every day of the year, in "donations" from these folks.
You're waiting for the other ACORN to drop, right? Intuitively smart you are!!
In an article focusing on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and how the Clintonoids had pumped up the volume of lending, we find this:
...bank deregulation had set off a wave of mega-mergers, including the acquisition of the Bank of America by NationsBank, BankBoston by Fleet Financial, and Bankers Trust by Deutsche Bank. Regulatory approval of such mergers depended, in part, on positive CRA ratings. "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application," advises the NCRC in its deadpan tone, "lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations." By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York
These "community organizations" play hardball.
Take Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America (NACA), for example.
[The President of NACA]...is unhesitatingly candid about his intent to use NACA to promote an activist, left-wing political agenda. NACA loan applicants must attend a workshop that celebrates—to the accompaniment of gospel music—the protests that have helped the group win its bank lending agreements...
...The home mortgage business is his tool for political organizing: the Homebuyer's Workbook contains a voter registration application and states that "NACA's mission of neighborhood stabilization is based on participation in the political process. To participate you must register to vote." [He] plans to install a high-capacity phone system that can forward hundreds of calls to congressional offices—"or Phil Gramm's house"—to buttress NACA campaigns. The combination of an army of "volunteers" and a voter registration drive portends (though there is no evidence of this so far) that someday CRA-related funds and Marks's troop of CRA borrowers might end up fueling a host of Democratic candidacies
Even though the money lent by NACA (and ACORN) came from Banks, the mortgages were bundled and sold to (ta-da!) Fannie and Freddie, just like a lot of others.
Gee.
"Voter Registration." "Activism." "Income derived from mortgage-brokering activity". "ACORN." "Fraud." "Manipulation." "Unjust Enrichment."
Would it surprise you to learn that NACA has offices in Chicago?
How about Milwaukee?
Yes, indeedy....both places.
You can connect the dots any way you like, and there are lots of interesting little dots to connect, eh?
The big picture: Obama and the GSE's recognized that they were symbiotic. They needed each other as they washed money around in circles:
1) Congressional Democrats force banks to cough up money for "CRA" purposes.
2) The Banks 'lend' the money through extremely politicized LeftyWonzo organizations like NACA and ACORN, who get fee-income which finances "voter registration"--and they know where the voters live, as well as where they USED to live, eh? (Wink-wink...) Those "voters" happen to vote Democrat!
3) Ship the loans, bundled neatly, back to Fannie/Freddie, so that Raines, Johnson, and Gorelick can show what they've done about lending to the disadvantaged, thereby inflating their salaries, bonuses, and stock-option rights.
4) Fannie/Freddie employees then make significant donations to Favored Congressmen--like the O-and-Savior, for example--to make sure that they get re-elected.
5) If Fannie/Freddie go banko, no big deal.
Taxpayers are around to pick up the difference.
HT: RS McCain
Thursday, September 18, 2008
McCain Becomes McMoron
Sure enough.
He went all nutso.
FIRE!!!! CHRIS COX!!!.
Nevermind that Cox can't be removed from the SEC (although it is possible that the President can remove him as Chair.)
START ANOTHER RTC!!!
Yah, John? And who's going to take the haircut? The taxpayer, again?
Read a book after you leave Green Bay. Like, e.g., Laws Congress Wrote which Screwed Up the Mortgage Business. (Hint: start with every single piece of legislation sponsored by Barney Fife)
He went all nutso.
FIRE!!!! CHRIS COX!!!.
Nevermind that Cox can't be removed from the SEC (although it is possible that the President can remove him as Chair.)
START ANOTHER RTC!!!
Yah, John? And who's going to take the haircut? The taxpayer, again?
Read a book after you leave Green Bay. Like, e.g., Laws Congress Wrote which Screwed Up the Mortgage Business. (Hint: start with every single piece of legislation sponsored by Barney Fife)
SEC Caused the Implosion?
Maybe it was SEC rule-changes which caused the Bear/Lehman/Merrill Lynch problem?
The SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults. [Morgan Stanley is trying to sell itself to Wachovia as this is written.]
...The so-called net capital rule was created in 1975 to allow the SEC to oversee broker-dealers, or companies that trade securities for customers as well as their own accounts. It requires that firms value all of their tradable assets at market prices, and then it applies a haircut, or a discount, to account for the assets' market risk. So equities, for example, have a haircut of 15%, while a 30-year Treasury bill, because it is less risky, has a 6% haircut.
The net capital rule also requires that broker dealers limit their debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1, although they must issue an early warning if they begin approaching this limit, and are forced to stop trading if they exceed it, so broker dealers often keep their debt-to-net capital ratios much lower.
...In 2004, the European Union passed a rule allowing the SEC's European counterpart to manage the risk both of broker dealers and their investment banking holding companies. In response, the SEC instituted a similar, voluntary program for broker dealers with capital of at least $5 billion, enabling the agency to oversee both the broker dealers and the holding companies.
This alternative approach, which all five broker-dealers that qualified — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — voluntarily joined, altered the way the SEC measured their capital. Using computerized models, the SEC, under its new Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowed the broker dealers to increase their debt-to-net-capital ratios, sometimes, as in the case of Merrill Lynch, to as high as 40-to-1. It also removed the method for applying haircuts, relying instead on another math-based model for calculating risk that led to a much smaller discount.
Here's a list of the SEC Commissioners serving in 2004:
Cynthia A. Glassman (R) Harvey J. Goldschmid (D) Paul S. Atkins (R) Roel C. Campos (D)
William H. Donaldson (R), Chairman
Just for fun, ask your friendly banker if you can borrow 30x the value of your house so that you can purchase a basket of debt securities from (e.g.) GM, Zimbabwe, Russia, Germany, FannieMae, the US Treasury, and 20,000 other mortgagees around the country.
HT: Rithotlz
The SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults. [Morgan Stanley is trying to sell itself to Wachovia as this is written.]
...The so-called net capital rule was created in 1975 to allow the SEC to oversee broker-dealers, or companies that trade securities for customers as well as their own accounts. It requires that firms value all of their tradable assets at market prices, and then it applies a haircut, or a discount, to account for the assets' market risk. So equities, for example, have a haircut of 15%, while a 30-year Treasury bill, because it is less risky, has a 6% haircut.
The net capital rule also requires that broker dealers limit their debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1, although they must issue an early warning if they begin approaching this limit, and are forced to stop trading if they exceed it, so broker dealers often keep their debt-to-net capital ratios much lower.
...In 2004, the European Union passed a rule allowing the SEC's European counterpart to manage the risk both of broker dealers and their investment banking holding companies. In response, the SEC instituted a similar, voluntary program for broker dealers with capital of at least $5 billion, enabling the agency to oversee both the broker dealers and the holding companies.
This alternative approach, which all five broker-dealers that qualified — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — voluntarily joined, altered the way the SEC measured their capital. Using computerized models, the SEC, under its new Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowed the broker dealers to increase their debt-to-net-capital ratios, sometimes, as in the case of Merrill Lynch, to as high as 40-to-1. It also removed the method for applying haircuts, relying instead on another math-based model for calculating risk that led to a much smaller discount.
Here's a list of the SEC Commissioners serving in 2004:
Cynthia A. Glassman (R) Harvey J. Goldschmid (D) Paul S. Atkins (R) Roel C. Campos (D)
William H. Donaldson (R), Chairman
Just for fun, ask your friendly banker if you can borrow 30x the value of your house so that you can purchase a basket of debt securities from (e.g.) GM, Zimbabwe, Russia, Germany, FannieMae, the US Treasury, and 20,000 other mortgagees around the country.
HT: Rithotlz
Regulation? What Regulation?
Ben Stein, a conservative Republican, thunk about this just after Bear, Stearns disappeared. So happens (not a coincidence) that Einhorn's observations, and Stein's, are precisely on track with those of Lee Pickard, quoted at the link.
...Einhorn points out that the fellows who run big investment banks have a strong incentive to maximize their assets and leverage themselves into deep trouble because their pay is a function of how much debt they can pile on. If they can use relatively low-interest debt to generate slightly higher returns, the firm earns more revenue and executive pay increases
Under an interesting set of rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004, called “Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities,” the amount of capital that had to underlie assets was reduced substantially. (Mr. Einhorn rightly says that this set of rules should have been called the “Bear Stearns Future Insolvency Act of 2004.”)
Through the act, the S.E.C. — acting as one of Wall Street’s chief regulators, mind you — also allowed such things as “hybrid capital instruments” (much riskier than cash or Treasuries), subordinated debt (ditto) and even deferred return of taxes, to be counted as capital. The S.E.C. even allowed the banks to hold securities “for which there is no ready market” as capital.
Einhorn has even more troubling observations. He says the S.E.C. also allowed broker-dealers to set their own valuations on assets and liabilities that were hard to value. And broker-dealers could assign their own creditworthiness ratings to counterparties in complex derivatives transactions when those counterparties were otherwise unrated
Uh-huh. None of which would bother me (or you) if we hadn't been shanghai-ed into a position where WE may actually pay part of Bear Stearns' or AIG's losses (if there are any.)
And here Ben asks the pertinent question:
The S.E.C. told me that all of its actions were helpful to investors and that no one could have prevented the Bear Stearns collapse because it was caused by liquidity issues, not capital issues. My respectful response is that if Bear were thoroughly well capitalized, why would liquidity issues come up at all?
Under the "old rules," capital had to be 1/8th. The "new rules" allowed 1/30th. BIG difference.
...One truth, that deregulation is sometimes a good thing, has been followed down so long and winding a road that it has led to an immense lie: that deregulation carried to an extreme will not lead to calamity.
IOW, common sense should prevail. But that's not always the case, eh?
To think that people of this mind-set are in charge of the finances of the nation that is the cornerstone of world freedom is terrifying. Mr. Einhorn may well have done us a service of great value.
HT: Dreher
...Einhorn points out that the fellows who run big investment banks have a strong incentive to maximize their assets and leverage themselves into deep trouble because their pay is a function of how much debt they can pile on. If they can use relatively low-interest debt to generate slightly higher returns, the firm earns more revenue and executive pay increases
Under an interesting set of rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004, called “Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities,” the amount of capital that had to underlie assets was reduced substantially. (Mr. Einhorn rightly says that this set of rules should have been called the “Bear Stearns Future Insolvency Act of 2004.”)
Through the act, the S.E.C. — acting as one of Wall Street’s chief regulators, mind you — also allowed such things as “hybrid capital instruments” (much riskier than cash or Treasuries), subordinated debt (ditto) and even deferred return of taxes, to be counted as capital. The S.E.C. even allowed the banks to hold securities “for which there is no ready market” as capital.
Einhorn has even more troubling observations. He says the S.E.C. also allowed broker-dealers to set their own valuations on assets and liabilities that were hard to value. And broker-dealers could assign their own creditworthiness ratings to counterparties in complex derivatives transactions when those counterparties were otherwise unrated
Uh-huh. None of which would bother me (or you) if we hadn't been shanghai-ed into a position where WE may actually pay part of Bear Stearns' or AIG's losses (if there are any.)
And here Ben asks the pertinent question:
The S.E.C. told me that all of its actions were helpful to investors and that no one could have prevented the Bear Stearns collapse because it was caused by liquidity issues, not capital issues. My respectful response is that if Bear were thoroughly well capitalized, why would liquidity issues come up at all?
Under the "old rules," capital had to be 1/8th. The "new rules" allowed 1/30th. BIG difference.
...One truth, that deregulation is sometimes a good thing, has been followed down so long and winding a road that it has led to an immense lie: that deregulation carried to an extreme will not lead to calamity.
IOW, common sense should prevail. But that's not always the case, eh?
To think that people of this mind-set are in charge of the finances of the nation that is the cornerstone of world freedom is terrifying. Mr. Einhorn may well have done us a service of great value.
HT: Dreher
Candidates Respond to AIG/FanFred Crisis
Purloined from McArdle, who purloined it from Noah Millman.
Obama: We're in this mess because the fundamentals are bad, and the fundamentals are bad because the Republicans have been ignoring ordinary working people and their needs. Most of what I think we should do is not particularly germane, and what is germane I don't want to explain in too much detail because I'm worried I might get it wrong. I'm sticking to my platform.
McCain: We're in this mess because a bunch of Wall Street hot shots got us into it, but they won't dare to pull that stuff when I'm in the White House, because I survived five years in a POW camp. Do I look like the kind of guy who hangs around with a bunch of Wall Street sissies who buy their shirts at Thomas Pink? Not on your tintype girlie-girl.
Actual statements' content differs not-in-the-least from the above.
Obama: We're in this mess because the fundamentals are bad, and the fundamentals are bad because the Republicans have been ignoring ordinary working people and their needs. Most of what I think we should do is not particularly germane, and what is germane I don't want to explain in too much detail because I'm worried I might get it wrong. I'm sticking to my platform.
McCain: We're in this mess because a bunch of Wall Street hot shots got us into it, but they won't dare to pull that stuff when I'm in the White House, because I survived five years in a POW camp. Do I look like the kind of guy who hangs around with a bunch of Wall Street sissies who buy their shirts at Thomas Pink? Not on your tintype girlie-girl.
Actual statements' content differs not-in-the-least from the above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
