OWS: OBAMA'S "MAN-MADE" DISASTER

Assuming that the protesters are not rotating in-and-out?

Stop trying to disparage a beneficial movement and concentrate on the message.

I've yet to hear most of them even understand "what" they're protesting about OR what their solutions would be to fix the problems.

Then avoid the Fox News channel and be enlightened.

"Then avoid the Fox News channel and be enlightened."

bluearcher, are you assuming that since my opinion differs from yours I pay attention only to Fox? As far as I know, you don't know who I am, so it's not your place to make a judgment about what I watch, read, or know. Only ignorant people dwell on a single news source, and I am far from being ignorant.

Good try, but no prize for you.

The same could be said about the Tea Party, right?

No argument there. They have a few good ideas...for alot of the wrong reasons. But do you think it coincidence that the Tea Party is 99.9% white and springs to life after a black is elected?

Not falling for Obama's lame Foxnews war are you? Not very enlightened of you.

Let me show you enlightened. The Media Research Institute (non-profit, non partisan) gives Fox News a 68% accuracy rating and only makes retractions under threat of suit. Would you allow\accept your child lying to you 1\3rd of the time?

Only ignorant people dwell on a single news source, and I am far from being ignorant.

Then please explain how you do not know what OWS represents. Especially considering OWS has trended upward on Google by 600% until last Tuesday.

Blue, I hate to break it to you.....but so is OWS.

Google "Occupy the Hood".

Maybe you could explain how Foxnews is rated the #1 news source in America for 12 years running?

Easily. It panders to low information\low education viewers based upon fear and emotion. Honestly, the masses aren't that educated.

I've watched countless interviews with OWS protestors. They themselves don't know exactly what they want.

Then what do you want? More of the same Wall Street bs?

Well, you know how people are drawn to train wrecks and gawking at bad car accidents. Human nature I guess.

You just described Fox News and unintentionally answered one of your above questions.

Easily. It panders to low information\low education viewers based upon fear and emotion. Honestly, the masses aren't that educated.

Didnt some of those low information/low education viewers vote for President Obama, or are voters only stupid when they vote Republican and vote against (in your opinion)t their intrerests? Are you the final arbiter of who is stupid and who is not? Bill Gates didnt graduate college, is he stupid?

Lampell (2.8)-- Good comment. I love to toss out the following link every now and then, because it is the perfect example of ignorance and blatant racism. Unfortunately, the original, which showed the interviewees, is no longer available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg

For someone to say that people who watch Fox are of low education or information speaks volumes about the poster him/herself.

NJ Person

While FOXNews loyalists may not be of "Low education",. they ceratinly are easily led by pandering politicians who have perfected the art of exploiting wedge issues and appealing to the hatred and animosity that lies just beneath the conservative skin of FOX loyalists.

For proof of that charge, look no further than the crop of conservative candidates the G.O.P. has fielded this time around.

The fact that Mitt Romney is the best of that pathetic lot says volumes.

AZPADDY

DAMN! And I thought my thinking was out of this world! That one was from a different galaxy altogether.

You call Fox viewers "easily led by pandering politicians" while the left turns a blind eye to Obama's ineptness day in and day out. You want to talk about pathetic sheeples look at ows and the lefts struggle to legitimize these morons who are the puppets for George Soros.

Obama's bus tour around the country on the tax payers dime blaming the right for his short comings as a president shows how desperate he and the left are. Newt Gingrich would annihilate Obama in a debate on just his policies and regulations since Obama entered the White House. This talk a lot and do nothing president better get his thin skinned problem fixed. He's about to get taken to the wood shed for a good old fashion ass whoopin. ABBO IN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!

Btw Elaine, thanks for seeding a commentary worth reading. They are few and far between here on the Newsvine. The lefts itty bitty feelings don't like the truth when it is pointed at them. Good job.

NJ Person - thanks for the audio link. I had seen it before and have actually known regular people in my area that think democrats are the conservatives. How easy it is for people to be ignorant, by choice. Guess I have to respect that, it is a freedom. At least here, they can 'hear' what is true. And I don't mind gently pointing out the inaccuracies. haha Have requested you as friend.

NJ Person

I was wondering when the famous conservative claim of monopoly on patriotism was going to appear in these discussions. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to contradict that claim:

Is "patriotism the last refuge of a scoundrel"??

"With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first.

(Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914?)

AZ, you really should stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Hi Elaine,

“OWS is JUST like the Tea Party......Except for getting arrested. And stealing stuff... and crapping on cars, attacking police, and the rapes, the trash, the clueless morons, the sex & drugs, the pervs exposing themselves to children, desecrating the flag & war memorials, embracing communism, getting Nazi endorsements, the anti-Semitism, the spitting on people, abusing local business owners, demanding free stuff….

Besides that, it’s kinda-sorta like the tea party."

This quote says it all!

The "left's lies and demagoguery leaves me cold. Thanks for putting the facts for all our opponents to fret over. Three cheers for the good guys!

Ciao, Elaine, for now.

Thank you, NativeCon. I am old enough to remember the original Woodstock and all it entailed. I found it repulsive as a college student, and I find it repulsive now.

There are many beneficial ways to protest. Turning a protest into a circus atmosphere laden with criminal behaviors does nothing to enhance one's cause and/or effect real change.

. I am old enough to remember the original Woodstock and all it entailed. I found it repulsive as a college student, and I find it repulsive now.

I was there, cant remember too much about it but there was great music and a good time. Comparing OWS with Woodstock, which was a rock concert, not a political event is a bit of a stretch. I did protest the war in Vietnam, got my head smashed at the Pentagon. Those protestors had a goal, a specific goal, which as it turned out, was acheived. I dont see that in OWS which is an amorphous mass that has vague goals and vague complaints. That might change as politicians will herd them into a purpose that suits politicians.

Lampell -- Although I made the comparison here, the information for comparison is readily available on the Internet through varied news sources. You will find that these links compare the OWS environments with Woodstock.

Perhaps it's good that you don't "remember" much about Woodstock. I didn't need to be there in the filth to know how to appreciate good music. Between Woodstock, D.C., and anywhere else you may have gone, I hope that your head and brain survived with minimal damage.

Perhaps it's good that you don't "remember" much about Woodstock. I didn't need to be there in the filth to know how to appreciate good music. Between Woodstock, D.C., and anywhere else you may have gone, I hope that your head and brain survived with minimal damage.

As a twenty year old, college student ( who worked full time to go to college, btw) I enjoyed the "filth", the atmosphere, and had a great time. I was only joking that I didnt remember. Yes I did inhale, just as the President inhaled when he was a kid. And yes I did survive with no damage. I really dont give a frack what the Internet has to say comparing Woodstock to OWS, I havent been to OWS in Wall St, but have seen their activity, first hand in the bastion of liberal thought, San Francisco. Of course I would be personna non grata at OWS, since I work for a living and am self employed.

Lampell -- I'm glad you were able to take part in a part of America's history. Yes, today you would be persona non grata in many places and with many people - not just OWS -- simply because you choose to work (self-employed, no less!) and pay taxes. I would be, too.

The reason I brought up the Internet was that the media has made those comparisons. I found it interesting to read their attempts to compare a rock concert to political/racial/class warfare protests.

I live not far from NYC and have no interest in being caught in the cross-hairs. With maturity comes wisdom.

With maturity comes wisdom.

What was that old saying, youth is wasted on the young?:)

Lampell -- Yes. George Bernard Shaw. Every age has its time. I know that it's wishful thinking on my part, but I still keep hoping that today's youth, with instant access to resources at their fingertips, will be more knowledgeable than we were at their ages.

I still keep hoping that today's youth, with instant access to resources at their fingertips, will be more knowledgeable than we were at their ages.

Having access to resources doesnt really entail knowledge since they dont seem to retain it or be able to use it. Even on the Vine, some people cant speak without posting a link. Pretty soon people wont be able to drive across town without the GPS. Its amazing that you can go somewhere using a GPS and the next time have no idea of how to get there without using the stupid GPS. I love the new technology, I am one of the those ideal customers who has to have it right away, but most of my so called "knowledge" comes from reading hundreds and hundreds of books for fun.

The reason I post links on NV is to support/cite what I say.

"Pretty soon people wont be able to drive across town without the GPS. Its amazing that you can go somewhere using a GPS and the next time have no idea of how to get there without using the stupid GPS." -- We're off-topic on this, but I had to respond. I agree. I don't have a GPS unit and don't feel a need for one. I use Google Maps, a paper map (remember those?), and my geographical knowledge to get from Point A to Point B or wherever I need to go.

I've used the Internet since the mid-1990s, and it has opened up the world to me without having to leave my home. But, I still want to hold a real book, and like you, I read "for fun" every day.

The reason I post links on NV is to support/cite what I say.

For some, however, its to support their view, not a fact, and they wont accept the link if it doesnt agree with their original belief, which is why I rarely post links. And most of all at my age, I should be the link:)

4.11 --- I should have phrased 4.10 better -- The reason I post links on NV is to provide facts that support my comments. Ahhh ... the concept of "facts" really gets in the way of some people's ideologies - "You don't agree with me? Well, you're wrong no matter what you link." Good point.

People don't have to agree; I always welcome a respectful debate. If everyone's favorite ice cream flavor was strawberry, the world would be very boring!

I don't think it's fair to categorize the whole actions of the OWS crowd by what might be the actions of a few.

deewee99 - Couldn't agree more, and I do hope I haven't given that impression. I will say, however; it took 7 days of MSM news coverage, before I actually did see an articulate and sincere protester speaking his mind. It was direct, focused, but alas, without solution. So, yes...not all of these folks are as being portrayed, but I fear the vast majority ARE.

As Elaine said....Take this dance to Congress. You are standing in front of a mic that is NOT PLUGGED IN. How useless is that?

I wonder about the true number of protesters. Now that we know they have extra bodies in the picture not really associated with them it's a inflated number.

I wonder when the Oregon Anarchists will show up and really make things interesting.

Well written piece Elaine. Spot on!

This is going to be interesting as he has to run on his record not against somebody elses record. He must now walk in the path he left behind.

He must now walk in the path he left behind.

Excellent way of putting it. His excuses are his own.

"His excuses are his own." -- Well said, Virgil. Obama's no longer a Commander/President-In-Training. Even children must learn to be responsible for their actions and words. President Obama's time is NOW if he has any hope for re-election. Do something to fix the mess or get out. Stop blaming everyone from George Washington to G.W. Bush for your waffling and failures to lead. Obama's smoke and mirror "hope and change" buzzwords no longer fool people.

And that goes for anyone in both houses of Congress ... of EITHER party .... as well.

And that goes for anyone in both houses of Congress ... of EITHER party .... as well.

Perhaps in days gone by Senators and Congressmen were smarter, looked out for our interests more, who knows, but thanks to the Internet and C Span, whatever mystique these people had, whatever respect they commanded have gone down the drain, they appear to be small minded people scurrrying around like mice.

Obamas objective with OWS is to take peoples minds off of the terrible job he is doing and to give them somebody to blame other than him.

Steve very true Obama is the Blamer in Chief

First he was blaming job losses on inanimate objects such at ATM's. Now he's blaming job losses because of someones bad math. Obama is responsible for the economic advice he took, and no one else. Is this a case were incompetence is lead by incompetence?

krounded, you could at least look into the facts before posting a comment.

Not facts.......conjecture and opinion. If you took exception to all Tea Partiers being painted with a racist brush because of the diversity of people and views in the group, you should also look upon these blaring headlines by Right wing instigators know for spinning lies as suspect.

These sources are not respected unbiased journalism, they are self serving propaganda. Andrew Brietbart's Big Government? Please give me a break. The king of crooked video and skewed ideology says it so it is true?

Palin's emails? What is that all about?

Michele Malkin? Oh come on! That nasty chick stirs the pot to make a buck. Nothing more

The Acorn thing only comes out because it is a dog whistle/buzz word to many on the Right. Throwing it in with the 99ers is just a ploy to get people to dislike it without looking into any fact themselves. (There was nothing wrong with Acorn. Everything alleged by Right wing media has proven to be untrue.)

Facts........I should look into them? Perhaps you should find something more balanced so you can make a point rather than discredit your argument.

Thank you Elaine, for sparing me the 10 second research to reveil your points.

krounded....do you not see the corporations behind the 'occupy' crowd, do you not believe that NBC has outed multiple and undesirable (relative to your ideology), orgs who are contributing, stoking and encouraging these kids? Yes, I am talking about published accounts of Communist China, United American Communists, American Socialist movement, SORROS and lately a sub-group of Islamic fundamentalist wackos...all, endorsing this movement. Now, since all the left ever points to is the Koch Brothers with support of the Tea Party, I will ask you this......by comparison, who has provided more stimulus and JOBS to the American dream....The Communist / Jihadist / ChiComs....or the Koch Brothers?

Hmmmmmm? After all, isn't that (jobs, etc.) what this is all about?

Freedom fighters are good, but to be supported by those who have no freedom, is rather odd and out of place...wouldn't you agree?

do you not see the corporations behind the 'occupy' crowd, do you not believe that NBC has outed multiple and undesirable (relative to your ideology), orgs who are contributing, stoking and encouraging these kids? Yes, I am talking about published accounts of Communist China, United American Communists, American Socialist movement, SORROS and lately a sub-group of Islamic fundamentalist wackos...all, endorsing this movement.

I'm sure there are plenty of interests trying to latch on the 99% movement. It's as sure as the sun rising. The Tea Party had their corporate backers and some corporations will try to worm their way into the 99% crowd as well.

I'm not sure where you are getting this crap about sub-groups of Islamic fundamentalist and the rest other than the far Right websites that like to broadcast such nonsense. With their track record, I'd wouldn't believe a thing they write.

On one hand we have Tea Partiers. After noting that they can no longer afford the things they used to, they blame taxes and government - Even though taxes are at the lowest percentage rate since they have been working. That is an epic misdirection of energy.

On the other hand we have 99ers. After noting that they can no longer afford the things they used to, they blame corporations and Wall St. - Correctly noting that there are more fees, higher interest rates and more tricks in the business world than ever. Even with goods being quite cheap due to foreign labor, they cannot afford these good because their pay checks are too small. All the while CEO salaries are going through the roof throughout a recession brought on by these very "job creators".

I think I know exactly who to believe in that equation. I don't care about who is trying to co-opt the movement until I start hearing lies coming out of it like the Tea Party lies. People have the power to make choices that limit the influence of corporations in their movement. The Tea Party exercised none or little. It remains to be seen what the 99ers allow or do not allow to happen.

In the mean time, the 99ers at least have the issues and who caused them straight.

krounded, your heart might be in the right place in trying to show support for the OWS movement, but you aren't well informed.

I could say the same of you Elaine. Believing stuff on the Brietbart or American Spectator sites is no better than believing everything on a far Left site.

Political groups are always going to try to align with these movements. However, I see more actual corporate interests aligning with the Tea Party than the 99ers. That's scary because business does not have the well being of society as their reason for existing.

All the while CEO salaries are going through the roof throughout a recession brought on by these very "job creators".

So what? So are the salaries of Hollywood stars and Sports stars. It's legal, good for them. It affects me not, unless I VOLUNTARILY go to a movie or a game...my choice.

Is this illegal? And just exactly how has this impacted your Monday through Friday life? Honestly.

Hey, WallMart is doing it's best to give you, the consumer, the very lowest prices on earth for your consumer goods. What's the beef?

Is this illegal? And just exactly how has this impacted your Monday through Friday life? Honestly.

Hey, WallMart is doing it's best to give you, the consumer, the very lowest prices on earth for your consumer goods. What's the beef?

Some of what transpired during the economic melt down was illegal. Some people are going to jail over fraud in the housing market. That affects me because I lost my job at the beginning of the recession. The next job I got was at way less money affecting my ability to buy food, clothes and shelter. What is not illegal is greed. Instead of people sharing in the profits made by corporations, the wealth is going to the top 2% or so. That is stalling the economy and making it difficult for people to buy things and for others to become employed. We have a lack of demand influencing all business decisions and the health of the economy.

Walmart (I don't shop there) may provide people with cheap goods, but the profits on those goods are not going to rank and file employees in the way of raises so more can be purchased and stimulate the economy. The profits are going to the top pockets and also to influence the political system in ways detrimental to American citizens. Sometimes it does not matter how cheap something is if a person has no money with which to buy it.

Instead of people sharing in the profits made by corporations, the wealth is going to the top 2% or so. That is stalling the economy and making it difficult for people to buy things and for others to become employed. We have a lack of demand influencing all business decisions and the health of the economy.

Very rare for employees to share in the profits of corporations unless of course the employees are shareholders. The housing bust, which started the recession was due to three parties, banks, the public, and the government. Some activity was indeed illegal, but one shouldnt wait for people to go to jail in order that the economy pick up. Waiting for government action is a waste of time.

Successive governments whether Republican or Democrat changed the charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that their portfolios of loans reflected government policy, that is, maximum participation in home ownership, even if some people couldnt afford it. Some people get offended when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are brought up in the equation. Read the history of Fannie Mae and you will see that in the latest charter change, 2007 55pct of their portfolio was to be made up of low income applicants, some with good credit, others with poor credit. The public is to blame, in part because some people bought houses as a way to make easy money, not realizing that house prices sometimes go down, especially when they go up 10oct per annum. Yes many lost money because others gambled. Banks were able to make dubious loans because the government agencies were more than happy to take the loans off their hands, so banks had no responsibility anymore.

Until the housing market is allowed to settle, its gonna be a long time before the deleveraging by consumers stops. People are not using the tax cuts to spend, they are paying down debt, building up their credit, being cautious. It could take ten years for the country to boom again. Think outside the box, even if it means starting your own business.

Very rare for employees to share in the profits of corporations unless of course the employees are shareholders.

Good point I forgot to make. Shareholder (including 401K participants) are also getting ripped off. Research and development also takes a hit.

Some activity was indeed illegal, but one shouldnt wait for people to go to jail in order that the economy pick up. Waiting for government action is a waste of time.

99ers certainly are not waiting for this. The only people who are waiting are those much celebrated job creators. They are not really waiting. They are investing elsewhere in places where more people are gaining a disposable income. They are also gambling on exotic investments rather than productive ones that require employees.

Some people get offended when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are brought up in the equation. Read the history of Fannie Mae and you will see that in the latest charter change, 2007 55pct of their portfolio was to be made up of low income applicants, some with good credit, others with poor credit.

But how much leveraging did Fanny & Freddie do? Likely less than the multitude of banks did.

Think outside the box, even if it means starting your own business.

Not everyone can start their own business. It also takes capital. Something that is still in short supply .... along with customers at this point. I know my own personal options. I'd like the economy to do better as a whole. Who wants to be a rich person in a poor country?

But how much leveraging did Fanny & Freddie do? Likely less than the multitude of banks did.

How do you think Fannie and Freddie managed to lose over 150 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money. Humongous leverage, the warning signs were there, but no one in the govt ( who could blame them) wanted to stand on the tracks of an oncoming freight train and yell stop. Up until the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, govt people, including Barney Frank said they were in good shape. So as far as leverage is concerned they were allowed to be seriously undercapitalized, more than the banks were.

Not everyone can start their own business. It also takes capital. Something that is still in short supply .... along with customers at this point. I know my own personal options. I'd like the economy to do better as a whole. Who wants to be a rich person in a poor country?

Sorry, maybe a restaruant takes capital, consulting jobs, salesmen, marketing take almost no capital, I know, I did it. I also helped by step daughter (36) and her husband switch from government job ( he was special forces in Albania, she, defense intelligence officer for DIA, they met in Iraq) to becoming personal trainers, which took almost no capital. I let them live in my house for 5 months until ( thank god) they made enough to move out. As far as being rich in a poor country, really cant comment since the U.S. compared to 150 other countries is waaaaaay better off. Notice I didnt say all countries, I only said 150, left it open for people to find a better place to live than here. I did live and work overseas, not in third world countries and U.S. is still a great place to live.

Thousands of people start grocery stores, most make a marginal living, some make very good livings, and of course, some fail miserably. There are always niche markets out there, relying on the govt, again, is a waste of time and is aggravating in the extreme. To allow a group of politicians from either party to determine one's fate is scary. So for every negative you can come up with, I can come up with a positive. The alternative could be being a poor person in a relatively rich country, which the U.S. still is.

Walmart (I don't shop there) may provide people with cheap goods, but the profits on those goods are not going to rank and file employees

BINGO....here is the point of all things anti WalMart.

Millions of American consumers get to buy stuff for less. Millions of Americans get a cost savings on goods and products....but the infentissamial number of "rank and file", (liberal speak for Union employees), don't get to milk the profits form WalMart for their retirement programs. Oh, my God...

Missions of average citizens are financially rewarded for shopping at WalMart ...but .00000002% of Union employees don't get the BENEFITS they feel they are entitled to...therefor, WalMart is evil.

Do you see the point here?

How do you think Fannie and Freddie managed to lose over 150 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money.

Still less than private lenders.

• More than 84% of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
• Private firms made nearly 83% of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/private-sector-loan-losses-vs-fanniefreddie/

I let them live in my house for 5 months until ( thank god) they made enough to move out.

So someone helped. Not everyone has that either. It's not a negative. I'm not trying to say no one can start a business. I'm saying not everyone is in a position to. And when you do take failures into consideration, it is very helpful to have a vibrant economy so people can make a living without owning their own business.

Millions of American consumers get to buy stuff for less. Millions of Americans get a cost savings on goods and products....but the infentissamial number of "rank and file", (liberal speak for Union employees), don't get to milk the profits form WalMart for their retirement programs. Oh, my God...

Try not to assume things that I've not said in relation to unions Native. I'm not talking about unions.

What is wrong with retirement programs? Most people have 401K's. Is that also milking someone out of their God given profits?

Are you sure people are rewarded by purchasing cheap goods at Walmart? When those products wear out too soon or do not work as intended, it may not be worth the cheap price.

I'm not even sure Walmart is evil, but it does tie into the race-to-the-bottom that is so firmly embraced in some mindsets. I'd rather shop at Sears and buy American made products.

Try not to assume things that I've not said in relation to unions Native. I'm not talking about unions.

Sorry, but after all, that IS the single issue embraced by liberals with respect to their loathing of WalMart. If you don't fit in here...my apology.

Are you sure people are rewarded by purchasing cheap goods at Walmart? When those products wear out too soon or do not work as intended, it may not be worth the cheap price.

Yes, they are rewarded. We all buy the same crap, most is reasonably decient quality. WalMart simply sells it for less. So you and I have extra money in our pockets after buying our 'fruit of the loom's'.

All products wear out...and I am ashamed to say, that GM products wear out far faster than Japanese products. A simple search will reveal the embarrassing recall and service records. I am not proud of that. Notice, I did not invoke Union labor into this sad but true comment?

Yes, they are rewarded. We all buy the same crap, most is reasonably decient quality

I'm not a fan of Walmart because they positioned themselves in rural America and drove out most competition while paying poor wages so all anyone could afford was to go to Walmart.

In some places Walmart can charge anything they want now. There is no other choice in some places.

I don't loath Walmart. I just prefer to spend money elsewhere. (Besides, there are no Walmarts near my home.)

• More than 84% of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
• Private firms made nearly 83% of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

You do realize that Fannie and Freddie bought all those loans from the private lenders, yes? 90pct of all new loans these days are either guaranteed or bought by those entities, we should also include FHA and Ginnie Mae to the mix as well. Almost 100pcat of the loans you mentioned above were resold to Fannie and Freddie. That made it extremely easy for the private lenders to get the loans off their books, not care what quality of the loan was because a quasi govt agency was buying all of them. Yes the banks behaved very badly, made things complicated for the average buyer, who spends more time picking out a dress or a car than reading the terms of a loan. If the government had not allowed Freddie and Fannie to buy these loans the banks could not have, due to capital requirements, made all of those shoddy loans. It takes three, in this case, to tango, public, govt, banks.

You do realize that Fannie and Freddie bought all those loans from the private lenders, yes?

So they got garbage pushed off onto them the same way anyone else did that bought into that mess.

I'm not sure of the time line. So I'll go look it up.

So they got garbage pushed off onto them the same way anyone else did that bought into that mess.

That is the prime (pardon the pun) business of Fannie, Freddie et al, to buy loans or guarantee loans made by banks. Without those entities loans would disappear. Originally Fannie was a full govt organization, but to "remove" it from politics it was sold off to the public, but with an implied govt guarantee, which allowed them to package loans and sell them to investors. Or course the politicians never really "removed" themselves from Fannie and Freddie, since the govt could and did change the charters and mandates of both. Now of course they are once again owned by the govt having lost, so far, over 150 billion dollars of taxpayer money, and still going. As far as leverage (having been in finance for 40 years) Fannie and Freddie, had they been banks would have been seized years ago, they had almost no capital to speak of, since the govt pushed them to keep making those loans regardless. Look it up, its a matter of public record.

That is the prime (pardon the pun) business of Fannie, Freddie et al, to buy loans or guarantee loans made by banks.

Well sure....so they could not really help but to be involved. They were converted to government control Sept 2008. They also had stock holders that got screwed, not just tax payers.

The government bailed out everyone. Why would they stop at their own children? I guess I just don't get how Fannie & Freddie are any worse than the banks that originally made the loans, insured them and bundled them.

The government bailed out everyone. Why would they stop at their own children? I guess I just don't get how Fannie & Freddie are any worse than the banks that originally made the loans, insured them and bundled them.

Well it seems that they bailed out everyone, some people at Lehman might disagree with that statement:) I was not suggesting that Fannie and Freddie were worse than the banks, problem is that the banks are the ONLY ones getting the blame, my point was and still is that the government had their hand in this mess, both red and blue, it was good politics, so it seemed at the time, for more people owning homes. Yes the banks were greedy, they did lots of bad things, but they had help, thats my point. Politicians like to deflect like anyone else, thats why they point only to banks, not themselves, never themselves.

Well it seems that they bailed out everyone, some people at Lehman might disagree with that statement:)

Yes.......they sure would! Share holders in Bear Stearns too. :-)

The government played a role to be sure. The day they started rolling back Glass-Steagall and some other regulations, it started. Fannie & Freddy played the bank's games right along with them.

The government played a role to be sure. The day they started rolling back Glass-Steagall and some other regulations, it started.

Everyone seems to bring up the Glass Steagall Act. As a former stockbroker that regulation was etched into my brain as a trainee broker many years ago. Funny thing is, is that that regulation had been shredded by the time they repealed it in 1999. I worked for an American brokerage firm, I was based in London at the time and an American insurance company was allowed to purchase it in 1982, they got a "waiver". Bank of America bought Charles Schwab back in the 80s ( they later sold it back to Charley) and got an exemption since Schwab & Co didnt offer investment advice and thus was not a brokerage firm:) I could go on and on. But in the end, yes, things were allowed to go on regardless of regulations. Keep in mind that the Glass Steagall Act didnt reckon on many types of firms that cropped up, like private equity firms, hedge funds, new instruments such as CDOs, credit default swaps etc. So really we didnt have de regulation as such, we didnt have any regulation of those things in the first place.

BTW, thanks to the government I made quite a bit of money on poor old Bear Stearns, when the govt announced that JP Morgan was paying 2 bucks a share for Bear Stearns, I knew that the short sellers would quickly cover their shorts since there wasnt much more to be made on a 2 dollar stock. It was like buying a stock with a built in floor, guaranteed by the Federal Reserve. It didnt hurt that JP Morgan later upped the price to 10. Some people complain about govt interference, if ya cant lick em, join em I say:)

Everyone seems to bring up the Glass Steagall Act. As a former stockbroker that regulation was etched into my brain as a trainee broker many years ago.

Very interesting Lampell. You got to see some of the inner workings close up and personal.

Keep in mind that the Glass Steagall Act didnt reckon on many types of firms that cropped up, like private equity firms, hedge funds, new instruments such as CDOs, credit default swaps etc. So really we didnt have de regulation as such, we didnt have any regulation of those things in the first place.

It was my understanding Glass-Steagall prevented regular banks from acting as investment firms. When this wall was demolished, everything was up for grabs. Even though the act did not mention these newer investment vehicles, it paved the way for allowing the riskier investment side to affect the average banking customer. I suppose if it had still been in place, not as much money would have been involved and at least some small amount of protection to the larger economy would have been retained.

It was my understanding Glass-Steagall prevented regular banks from acting as investment firms.

Yes that was the original intention of the law, to separate commercial banks from investment banking. As I had mentioned before, by the time of its repeal numerous banks, brokerage firms had found ways around it, but of course repealing it opened up the floodgates even more.

In order to have the "perfect storm", as we can call the financial debacle, many things contributed, including some things that some might not realize could affect the financial world. The day I was licensed as a broker, 1975, was considerd a black day in broking (not because I got licensed). That was the day that commissions became negotiable, fixed commision disappeared. What happened was that trading volume exploded, in 1968 when I started as a clerk, 20 million shares a day was huge, nowadays that would be the volume on the opening bell. Why was this important? Several reasons, brokers had to generate more volume to stay afloat, and more importantly brokerage firms starting trading for their own book, more and more to make up for the lost revenue, and today iteration gave birth to high speed trading, which causes immense volatility. Firms started taking on more an more risk, all because of a law that was well intentioned, lowering commissions. I could list dozens of other reasons things imploded but the above you wont read about in books.

Several reasons, brokers had to generate more volume to stay afloat, and more importantly brokerage firms starting trading for their own book, more and more to make up for the lost revenue, and today iteration gave birth to high speed trading, which causes immense volatility.

Very interesting and I can see that happening over time. Of course I only saw the results rather than the underlying reasons.

Now we have trading firms moving their computer centers as close as possible to the exchange to pick up a milisecond in trade time. Unreal!

So the change in commissions created an environment where the quantity rather than the quality of trades was what made the money?

So the change in commissions created an environment where the quantity rather than the quality of trades was what made the money?

In the old days the retail houses, Merrill Lynch, Bache, Paine Webber made most of their money being order takers, making a good commission each time a client bought or sold shares, the broker was just the middleman. When commissions dropped to almost nothing, the retail houses, and the institutional houses had to generate income, not from clients entering orders but from trading for their own account, making a few bucks here and there, betting on the market. They werent middle men anymore. Individual stockbrokers no longer make their income from commissions but from fees to manage clients money. HIgh speed trading is just accelerated trading for ones own "book". When a brokerage firm trades for its own account it can and has led to what is called "front running" where the broker buys stock for himself before he fufills his clients order. It is technically against the law, but hard to prove, so many brokerage firms do it, again as a result of lowering commissions, and lets face it, if you have a few bucks with a bank they will let you trade and piss away money for no commission at all:)

When a brokerage firm trades for its own account it can and has led to what is called "front running" where the broker buys stock for himself before he fufills his clients order. It is technically against the law, but hard to prove, so many brokerage firms do it, again as a result of lowering commissions, and lets face it, if you have a few bucks with a bank they will let you trade and piss away money for no commission at all:)

Sounds like the commissions game really took a turn for the worse and took the industry with it (although you did point out there are other factors). The good old days sound like the way things ought to be.

I used to date someone at CBOE. They had "elevator" trades there. That would be a trade a couple of guys would think up in the elevator so they could both make money, then go to the floor to complete it.

Thanks for the insight Lampell. It's interesting to get the behind the scenes info.

used to date someone at CBOE. They had "elevator" trades there. That would be a trade a couple of guys would think up in the elevator so they could both make money, then go to the floor to complete it.

I wound up trading options, and became my firm's "expert" in listed options on the CBOE because when i worked in the back office, I was a margin clerk, the guy who would tell the brokers how much buying power their clients had. One day the guy who did the calculations on unlisted options quit, and the manager looked around, pointed at me and said, hey you, you are now the options margin clerk:) I became a stockbroker later, and since I knew how to calculate the margin on options, I was the "expert", btw options are one of the oldest types of derivatives.

One day the guy who did the calculations on unlisted options quit, and the manager looked around, pointed at me and said, hey you, you are now the options margin clerk:)

My friend was a back office guy too. He was the reconciliation/pseudo arbitration point person. I guess the real arbitration is a step beyond what they could make right at their level. Sounded like a mess to me.

They were going wild at 9-11 because a lot of trading was pushed to Chicago. His nerves were a little too shot to go the broker route though. But he had an amazing memory and could tell you what any option sold at at any time of the day by memory. Some sort of savant I think.

Very interesting work. He was at Lynch during the hey day. It never ceased to amaze me how much money went through there and how much he knew about what was going on.

#8.1 Elaine - fantastic post!

#8.4 NativeCon - spot on. Am requesting friend.

Krounded - #8.12 “Not everyone can start their own business. It also takes capital.”

Not true. Anyone can start a business. It does take capitol but sometimes just $50 can get you started. Starting a business begins with having a passion and not just the desire for a paycheck and benefits. There are agencies that support small business who will assist in writing a plan and direct you to funding.

What is lacking is the imagination to see what they can do that could help people (so there are purchasers), know what their interest is, know the subject well, and be able to make a proposal that is appealing to investors. It actually takes work, initiative.

You will find that even when ‘successful’ it is uphill and not always profitable enough to live-it-up, for the first 5 years. There will be few benefits so take care of yourself. So anyone starting a business has to realize that they must commit to the long haul, to become established enough, to be even modestly financially successful.

This country was built on small business, entrepeneurs, and it is Still the backbone of this capitolist country. I say don't be a taker, be a doer. Go for it krounder. You must have a vision to work on or you wouldn't even have mentioned starting a business.

Krounded – “The 99ers are pretty organic.” Beg to differ. There have been journalists linking them to organizers for the communist party, and giving names and titles.

Tea partiers would not fit in with the 99ers. They would insist on accounting and prosecution, orderly protest, which is ongoing. If you say 99ers were “trying to do things by standard practice” and it was not fast enough for them, then they are exhibiting childish impulse control issues.

One blessing of our Constitutional Republic is that it moves slowly to make sure all voices are heard and issues debated before coming to a conclusion. Pelosi pushing through obamacare with an admonition that no one could read it unless they voted for it was the first red flag that this was unconstitutional. The ndaa is now going through a revision behind closed doors. Real example of ‘transparency’? Who knows what will be added. They will sneak it through on a holiday when the masses are playing and not paying attention (like the signing at the turn of the year)…and then it will be too late.

I respect your postings here. You bring good issues to this and seem open to learning.

Months have passed and I'm very late here, but I just want to get this view off my chest.

I believe that Obama supports OWS as a form of blackmail. Until he receives mega-buck-donations from businesses on wall street, he will not let OWS leave. They are a flock of the communist party, his people. With the start up of Obamas CPAC he is encouraging Wall Street to donate to his CPAC or OWS will continue indefinitely. And yes, it is a diversion for the public to focus on. Let us just ignore them. Their parents retirement funds are there.

Thank you Elaine...I am having issues with NV and links lately. I appreciate you looking it up for me.

NJ Person....well, can we all go home now?

Excellent post. How is this not obvious to all? This is an amalgam of frustrated 'trust fund' spoiled brats, combined with disenfranchised human beings, combined with single issue sub groups, combined with Union, Socialist, Nazi, Communist infiltrators, and yes...some real passionate people wanting HOPE AND CHANGE, again...But most are for the common purpose of....well, pick one...there actually is NO common purpose, just dozens of personal and overall quite unimportant issues, typically dealing with feeling being 'put upon'.

Kids, Commies, Students...Unions.....GO TO DC. That is where the action is. Hey, they have cop cars in Washington also...they make great toilets too.

Here's a "goodie" --- From the horse's mouth (apologies to equines) http://occupywallst.org/

This shows how "leaderless" this group really is.

NJ,

You had to post that link. I was looking at their forums and it seems filled with hate from the subject matter. I don't know how many people in OWS:NYC are even open to a discussion of ideas. It gave me a headache over the minute or two I looked at the site. <shudder>

tomwcraig -- I, too, shuddered as I looked at it. Contrary to what we are told, this group is very well organized and has leadership. Who are the leaders? Who are the organizers? Shhhh ... That's a secret! There's no way that I believe these "gatherings" are impromptu and the protesters use hand signals to communicate. There's a very large, global, hidden, wealthy funding behind this whole thing.

According to the website http://occupywallst.org/ ....

"We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society." ---- My interpretation of "we don't need..." is that Santa will step in to build this better society. Santa employs elves .... oh, but wait .... that's seasonal work! I wonder if they've thought about the other 11 months of the year when there's no paycheck.

Note the Stop and Frisk program: when did race become an OWS priority? Note that dozens were arrested.

"According to a New York Civil Liberties Union study, the NYPD is on pace to stop and frisk over 700,000 people in 2011, or more than 1,900 people each day. More than 85% of those stopped and frisked are Black or Latino, and more than 90% of them were doing nothing wrong when the police stopped them." ---- Ok, sure. Uh, huh! Cops frisk people for absolutely no reason other than they're black or brown? Utterly ridiculous and false.

I agree with you, but some states like California won't be turning Red until they are bled dry by the Democrats. I live in Oregon which is blue around 3 cities: Eugene, Salem, and Portland. Those 3 cities pretty much cancel out the rest of the state which is rural and in some places even more rednecked than the South. Heck, one of the biggest events is the Oregon Jamboree, which is held every summer in Sweet Home, OR (which is where my wife, myself, and her family reside for the most part).

Right now, I am outside Bellefonte, PA about 9 miles from Penn State's main campus helping my family out on our dairy farm. I'll be here until February. This area is quite Republican except for State College, PA which is quite liberal. PA is about 50/50 in terms of Conservatives vs Liberals, so it is a swing state. You never know which way it will go. I know that the 5th Congressional District (Rep. Glenn Thompson - R) will remain Republican. I'm betting if Casey is up for re-election in the Senate, he may find himself out of a job despite how popular his father was as governor. I'm not sure what will happen in the late John Murtha's district around Johnstown; but it is quite possible that the Democrat that replaced him could be out. As for other districts, I have no clue what could happen, although I think the 9th Congressional District will remain Republican with Shuster.

tomwcraig

What part of the state is Sweet Home in? I lived in Eugene back in the 80s and its definitely blue!

Sweet Home is about halfway between Eugene and Salem, but about 20-25 miles East of I-5 on US 20.

tomwcraig - you saw the future and you were right. "the kickback scheme known as The Stimulus."

Is that a football score? LOL

Only football game that mattered:

PSU 34, Northwestern 24

JoePa 408 victories ties for 2nd place overall for NCAA wins, but ties for 1st in Division I wins with Eddie Robinson of Grambling. The guy with the most NCAA wins is still coaching at St. Johns (MN).

NativeCon

Football as an analogy?? You couldn't be more off base!!

How about this anology:

Viet-Nam war protesters in the 1960's, and today's OWS protesters.

In the 60's protesters were against U.S. aggression towards a small nation that only wanted independence.

Today, that same aggression has turned inward towards America as a very small segment of the populace controls almost all the wealth, and has engineered the near collapse of the American economy.

A football analogy is an analogy "dumbed down" to conservative standards for easy sound-bite consumption.

Elaine: I just said it better.

Elaine #13.3

"It's well known on the Vine how pleased you are with yourself"

"I just shot down your lame attempt at an insult."

Wow Elaine... twopersonal insults right out of the gate??

I take that as a compliment.

Thank you!!

AZPADDY,

Football is a very useful analogy when it comes to politics. Frankly, there have been quite a few former football players that became Congressmen: Steve Largent (Hall of Fame wide receiver for the Seattle Seahawks), J. C. Watts (Oklahoma great), and Jon Runyan (former Philadelphia Eagle lineman) are just 3 that I can think of at the moment.

Frankly, I think at the moment, the OWS movement is running as if this was a pick-up game, where nobody has any idea what they are doing. The problem is that they are going up against the Pittsburgh Steelers or another championship football team. And this is within their OWN MOVEMENT, before you even get to Congress and Wall Street corporations. Read owlsview's article about the OWS protests.

A football analogy is an analogy "dumbed down" to conservative standards for easy sound-bite consumption.

Paddy...'dumbed down'? I think you just offended football fans all across Newsvine. The analogy is correct and understandable, even by people like yourself, who evidently do not appreciate football. I will be happy to provide an analogy using 'ballet or fan dancing' if you prefer, but the net result will be the same, and the moral will remain. So...tell me, did you "GET IT", or was it something beyond your comprehension?

BTW....you have been reported for a personal attack on the author of this thread.

Play nice Paddy....it's expected in Football, either that or simply accept a penalty.

NativeCon

The football analogy would be appropriate - if our nation's politics were a game - but it's no game.

Everyone understands the very simple premise of a game of football, but not all grasp the fundamentals of a nation made up of varying ideas and philosophies.

I've worked with ex-jocks who liked to use the football analoigy, and it falls short, every time.

It comes off as condescending and irrelevent, in my opinion.

("Irrelevent": Not pertaining to the subject at hand.)

AZPaddy,

You're the one being condescending right now. Think about it, football is a game of strategy that becomes tactical on the field. You create a play that your opponent tries to defeat with their own play. Isn't that what WAR and POLITICS both boil down to? Creating plans to defeat your opponents to get what you want or think is best?

tomwcraig

There are certain limited aspects of football, basketball, hockey etc. that can pertain to government and / or politics, but in a very limited fashion, as these games are very limited in scope, as strategy goes.

You can draw on much more relevent analogies when discussing nuances of national politics, I think. It just takes a little more effort.

Please, AzPaddy, what's so simple or limited about a Mike Blitz? Or, how about a Corner-Post-Cross passing play? Maybe, you would be better off explaining a Halfback Dive? In each play, you have 11 moving parts on your side and have to anticipate what the other 11 people are going to do. It's very much like small unit tactics and strategy, with the overall goal to win each game (battle) to become champion (overall victor in the war).

tomwcraig

While I'm impressed with your knowledge of pigskin plays and strategy, I'm afraid a foreign diplomat might counter that with soccer plays and leave you wondering what the hell happened when your diplomatic objectives were not met.

Oh well....to each his own. I'm happy with a Harvard law grad in the white house instead of a Heisman trophy candidate.

So, you think I wouldn't know the difference between offsides with American Football and International Football? American Football offsides: Player lines up or before the snap crosses the line where the ball has been set. International Football offsides: offensive player receiving pass moves ahead of last defender before ball is passed. Oh, and please don't even try to fool me with a midfielder strike.

When it comes to governmental affairs, the proof isirrefutable.

President Obama is a proven winner, and there are no football legends in government.

Not in the Obama administration. He's too smart for that.

I like football too, but I realize it's just a game, and most games like football, baseball, hockey etc., are hardly comparable to governmental affairs. Try a chess analogy if you want a more relevent game.

That's the problem with today's conservatism: Conservatives try to compress society into a "one size fits all" form of government, with zero tolerance for differing ideas and opinions.

We've seen one nation after another fall because of that kind of thinking.

Elaine

Ummm.....was that supposed to prove me wrong? That there ARE footbal players in the Obama administation??

President Obama being a fan and trying to fix the theft in the BCS of college football hardly refutes my comments, but hey....whatever floats your boat. Knock yourself out.

Knight to E-3 is the best analogy you are going to get from chess. You move only individual pieces without any sort of teamwork, which is why team sports other than softball, baseball, and cricket are good analogies. You have multiple pieces moving at the same time! You have to have strategies for each position in relation to not only other positions on the same side; but in regards to what the other side does!

Elaine

Either you're adding claims to my comments I never made in order to declare some kind of victory (Santorum-like), or you've totally misunderstood what I've said.

I never made the claim that the Obama administration contains no football fans, just no ex-football players or any current players.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Amen kjmgirl. In a nutshell.

NativeCon - I had to pass Chess comment around to my chess friends. Well said.

"I've reported you AZPaddy. You've obviously forgotten not to insult fellow viners".....said the insulter.

Elaine

Careful what you report:

You. in #13.18: "Any other brilliant observations?"

And again, in #13.3: "It's well known on the Vine how pleased you are with yourself"

What's good for the goose.......

Yeah....I was wondering when you might get around to that, being that someone started talking about Football.

No problem, Elaine. delete if you like, it's your article.

And it isn't going to to Get Any Better Before It Worsens even More.

And, to think that we have nine more months of this GARBAGE. Imagine what a billion dollars worth of the garbage will do to those who listen to it...brain washing incorporated...I think I will have to disconnect the TV's...that's the answer!

What bothers me is: Where is Obama's money coming from, and why?

Here's a place to chase down some answers: Follow the Money

Wolf - excellent site. Thank you.