Comments Posted By scooter
Displaying 1 To 4 Of 4 Comments
WHY CONSERVATIVES SHOULD EMBRACE FINANCIAL REGULATION
You are correct that both sides have to own up to this one. However, this article focuses on the financial collapse created by mortgage defaults and the payout of the swaps/insurance issued on those mortgages. It seems to me that if historical mortgage qualification standards had remained the SOP, the volume of defaults would've remained relatively unchanged from times past. Unfortunately, they were not and mortgages were being handed out like candy.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that businesses are in fact greedy but greed also translates into an unwillingness to loose money, hence the swaps. Following that thinking, the issuing banks would not have approved risky mortgages if they had to keep them on their books. This brings me to securitization. Since the banks could sell their mortgage products to Fannie and Freddie, who would in turn securitize them and issue them into the global financial markets, the issuing banks experienced no risk but had to remain competitive. However, excessive mortgage default risk had neen introduced into the financial markets and the traders had to deal with it - Credit Default Swaps These CDS's simply amplified an impending disaster.
I think the solution lies in why were mortgages so readily available. What allowed banks to become so risk adverse in approving mortgage applications? After all, if people had stayed current on their mortgages none of this would've happened. On a side note, it is interesting to chronologically follow the price of gas and the foreclosure rate.
Comment Posted By Scooter On 17.02.2010 @ 13:23
Think FairTax, it's transparent and simple. It reduces the number of taxable units (people) and makes tax avoidance much more difficult;
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
Comment Posted By Scooter On 29.01.2010 @ 13:12
Obama's ivy league legal education shined in that speech. The subject everyone wanted to hear him explain was why he CHOSE to attend such a divisive church for twenty years.
With the slick nuance of a lawyer, he related to comments of his white grandmother - whom he had no choice of association - moved on to rationalizing larger race relations. While much of his rationalization was true, it only served to distract from the subject we all wanted to hear about, his choice to commune with god through such a divisive minister.
I suspect he cannot tell us why he CHOSE that church because it would reveal he used that congregation to launch his political career from the south side of Chicago.
He said these are all things we need to discuss as a nation. Well hells bells, I have been discussing many of the same ideas with my conservative friends for years. However, if a liberal is ever present during those discussions, the liberal will end it with their political correct multiculturalism. So, how are we to discuss this stuff when some of Obama's own supporters will not allow it?
Comment Posted By Scooter On 20.03.2008 @ 12:10
hour four should be a wakeup call to the civil liberties absolutists, the FBI arrested the kid's dad, instead of the kid, good reason, wrong suspect, the guy that had been in a detention camp was here to detonate a nuke and did so and the guy in the detention facility has enough of a terrorist connection that he knows about the number of nukes in the US. Maybe the US government is doing the right thing in some of these cases.
Comment Posted By scooter On 15.01.2007 @ 23:18
