-=> ED HULETT wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-

 EH> On 04/24/2010 02:50 AM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ED HULETT wrote:
 -=>> ED HULETT wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-

 EH>> On 04/23/2010 06:27 PM, WAYNE CHIRNSIDE -> ALL wrote:
 WC>> Well well, it seems General Motors has paid back ALL
 WC>> it's TARP funds with interest and 5 years early at that
 WC>> so the U.S. taxpayer no longer owns GM as was
 WC>> recently maintained here.

 WC>> Another bit of good news.

 WC>> Only a year ago the TARP bailouts were project to cost
 WC>> 500 Billion, now the projected figure is 87 billion
 WC>> with most of that accounted for by Freddie and Fannie.

 EH>> Ahem, GM used the TARP money that was put in an escrow account
to "pay
 EH>> back" the smaller amount that was called a loan. So, basically, all
 EH>> they did was take taxpayer money to pay back taxpayer money. Plus, the
 EH>> US government is still 60% owner of GM with the Canadian government
 EH>> being a 12% owner. GM says they plan to fix that by issuing an IPO and
 EH>> go public... again... as if 72% government ownership isn't already
 EH>> public.

 EH>> Fannie and Freddie are the quasi government agencies that were at the
 EH>> center of the housing bubble collapse.

 WC> Nope, that's the propaganda now being sold.

 EH> Sold by whom?

 WC> Freddie and Fannie were the result of bad derivative packages sold to
 WC> investors.

 EH> Look up derivatives. You will find that you are arguing semantics.

 WC> Fannie and Freddie were thus a result of Wall Streets misbehavior and
 WC> irresponsibility
 WC> as in the Abacus Investments derivative packages now in the news sold by
 WC> various investment
 WC> firms such as Goldman Sachs.

 EH> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

What a convincing rebuttal.  

 EH> Just keep on believing that.

 WC> Then Goldman Sachs and other investment firms shorted the very Abacus
 WC> Investment
 WC> accounts they'd promoted to their clients betting against the very
 WC> investments
 WC> they had promoted.

 EH> They did? Where did you get that information? BTW, you might want to
 EH> contact the SEC with that to help their case against GS.

Uh they've enough problems to contend with dealing with their people 
downloading porn rather than keeping an eye on the economic sector on 
Wall Street.

They couldn't even be bothered to look into charges about Bernard Madoff
despite YEARS of being told it was a ponsie scheme, during the last 
administration BTW.  

 WC> Since those deriviative investment packages largely consisted of sub-prime
 WC> loans of course when their lack of any value it impacted Fannie and
 EH> Freddie

 EH> Uh, it was federal law which mandated that investment banks take on
 EH> sub-prime loans with Fannie and Freddie being formed by the federal
 EH> government to buy those loans as part of that law to help investment
 EH> banks stay solvent.

Nope it was the LACK of federal law and the LACK of banking oversight
produced by the Republican Congressman from Texas introducing the repeal 
of Glass Steagall.

Had Glass Steagall NOT been repealed in 1999 investment banking would have 
remained forbidden to the banking industry and banking and investment firms
would have remained separate entities with derivatives limited
to investors willing to take on risks equivalent to the commodities 
market where where you can go broke rahter quickly even after POURING 
money into it.

That's for speculators, not people relying on their 401k's or
hedge funds and mutual fund accounts.

Or it WAS until the repeal of Glass Steagal, now it's
akin to paramutual bettings only with much greater risk.

With Glass Steagall in place.
The banks being unable to gamble with banking clients  
accounts, 401k's and hedge funds these derivatives would 
never have been able to initiate the banking meltdown as they'd have
to have made FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE mortage loans rather then to be so eager
to bundle sub-prime mortgages into derivatives on 32 - 1 margins
in anticipation of huge profit at equally huge risk.

All this on account of the repeal of Glass Steagall.

 WC> Large banking institutions engaged in speculation with investors monies
 WC> in derivatives is the cause.

 EH> It was federal law that forced them into that practice. The "Community
 EH> Reinvestment Act" to be precise.

 WC> Bill Clinton is partially to blame while the Republican Congressman from
 WC> Texas who first proposed the repeal of the Glass Steagall act is dead
 WC> center
 WC> to blame.

 EH> Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

 EH> You parrot left-wing talking points well.

Actually these are FACTS it appears you cannot be bothered to verify.

 WC> Bill Clinton could have vetoed the repeal of Glass Steagall but his
 WC> financial
 WC> advisors
 WC> advised him they would be good for the economy, he's recently come out and
 WC> admitted
 WC> his mistake.

 EH> Poor Slick, he was a victim of the bad old Republicans and poor advice.

I didn't say that, his finanacial advisors were members of his own cabinet.

The Republican Congressman from Texas didn't advise Bill Clinton,
rather he was persuaded NOT to veto the bill after Republicans pushed the
legislation through Congress.
It was his own cabinet advisors that led Clinton astray
and he's admitted to the error.

Don't go building strawmen then claim points for refuting that 
which I never said, that's dishonest and deceitful.

 EH> Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Another of your profound rebuttals?

 WC> BTW The Glass Steagall Act was first enacted after the Great Depression to
 WC> prevent
 WC> PRECISELY this sort of irresponsible lending by banking institutions.

 EH> Do you even know what Glass Steagall is about?

YES, do you?

I can explain it to you if you like.

 WC> It took a mere eight years after the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act
 WC> for the house of cards to come crashing down.

 EH> Glass Steagall has nothing to do with sub-prime loans.

No it does not, it separates speculative investment firms from the banking
industry.

That is NOT to say it's REPEAL had nothing to do with sub-prime mortgages as
sub-prime mortgages gave investment banking the funds on 30 - 1 margin
to engage in the practice of selling worthless derivatives, than shorting them.
Thus the financial collapse.

Sub-prime loans were the SOURCE of the funds along with mutual funds and 401k
the banks would not have been able to otherwise engage in investing in 
woorthless derivatives had not Glass Steagal been repealed.


Rather more complicated than can be rebutted by your extended ha ha's
and numerous exclamation points.  


 WC> Actually only two years as the first down was Enron then WorldCom
 WC> which should have alerted to these bad practices as these were precisely
 WC> the sort of speculative packages sold as derivatives.

 EH> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

So you'd no idea that Enron spun off worthless assets to 
subsidiaries in order to cook the books resulting in its collapse?

You appear to find all of this rather amusing from your 
lack of rebuttal with any more depth than "hahahahahaha..." with bunches 
of exclaimation points

 WC> IOW's both the Great Depression AND the current massive recession had
 WC> almost identical causes.

 EH> Yes, too much government meddling.

To Little, Glass Steagall "meddling" as you call it by enforcing
the separation
of investment firms from banking firms held up for near seventy years
until repealed.

After that not eight years passed before the house of cards fell apart.

It's kind of like my taking monies from your savings account and 401K
and going off to the dog track and playing a few 6 dollar box
trifectas in hopes of hitting a big one.

 WC> The Great Depression was caused by buying on margin and the current
 WC> recession
 WC> by speculation on derivative packages engaged in by large banking at up
 WC> to 32 to 1 margin.

 EH> Total bunk.

You don't watch a lot of PBS do you?
Nor hit multiple and varied sources of information on the internet?

I hit BOTH Republican AND Democratic web sites and employ dialectic reasoning 
to arrive at my conclusions.

 WC> Just as the current recession hit investment banking was gambling with
 WC> derivative packages of dubious value at the margin of 30 - 1 actual
 WC> dollars, banking dollars, like those kept in checking anbd savings
 WC> accounts.

 EH> Who was supposed to lose WRT government mandated sub-prime loans? Were
 EH> the banks just supposed to eat their losses when the borrowers were
 EH> unable to pay their loan payments? It was federal law, CRA again, that
 EH> mandated banks give loans to people who had no real means to pay those
 EH> loans so the federal government could "right a wrong"
where there was
 EH> none. Fannie, and then Freddie was set up to take on those toxic loans
 EH> in an attempt to keep the banks from going bankrupt.

 WC> It's rather easy to gamble with other peoples monies for short term huge
 WC> personal
 WC> financial gain.

 EH> Do you even have a clue what a sub-prime loan is and why banks were
 EH> selling them to Fannie and Freddie? It wasn't for "short term huge
 EH> personal financial gain."

 WC> The current "fix" proposed by Democrats is to reduce the
magin from 32 - 1
 WC> to 10 to 1 and to limit the size to which large banks can grow.

 EH> Oh yeah, limit freedom. That's always how Democrats think.

Limit irresponsible collusion between questionable investment firm derivatives
and the nations banking customers assets in savings. checking and 401k's.

That's how critcal thinking people think regardless of party affiliation.

You've something against the retirees wiped out in the derivatives 
fueled economic crash?

The crash FUELED by sub-prime mortgages bundled into derivatives
then shorted by the banking - investment firms that passed them off
to customers as sound investments?

 WC> This amounts to a reinstatement of a rather watered down version of the
 WC> Glass
 WC> Steagall Act that had been rather effective in preventing such enormous
 WC> financial meltdowns since the 1930's.

 EH> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Another _convincing_ rebuttal.

 WC> The banks after the repeal of Glass Steagall rolled themselves into
 WC> investment
 WC> firms buying on margin just like individual investors in 1929 and just
 WC> as in
 WC> 1929 this came back and bit the American economy in the a**.

 EH> You parrot the propaganda well.

Why don't you do a little research rather than just parroting Republican
taking points, Rush and Glenn Beck?

I'm citing verifiable facts and history, your lack of comprehension of these
facts
and history in no way indicates I've been the least bit influenced by 
propaganda, that's your your shtick.

And yes I do indeed read The Wall Street Journal among a great many other
sources.
http://online.wsj.com/home-page

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49