And “You hold that special hateful place in my heart for your repeated ” examples of hatred, jingoism, MCP crap and willful refusal to see anyone else’s POV (or even respond to it). Good going, lech, I can see why you chose your handle, you’re so like that. You don’t seem to realize (or care) how abhorrently you come across.
“Not technically a deregulation, but Bush admin not only failed in stunning fashion to respond to the excesses, they affirmatively abetted those excesses by blocking state govt from doing anything.”
And, not surprisingly, I agree with Slopey.”
Um right, of course you do cobble. Now explain why. In what respects did the Bush administration (and of course these were semi-autonomous banking agencies, not the Bush admin, but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good political attack) affect rates on subprime mortgages? Who did what and when? In what way did the President actually affect this in any way?
Also, slopefarm, the issue you raise is hardly as simple as you suggest. Federal pre-emption of state banking laws is quite a morass. I don’t think anyone who works in the area would boil it down to a statement anywhere near as simple as what you proposed. No one woke up and said “hey let’s keep states from capping interest rates on subprime mortgages.” It’s the end result of something much more complicated. Sorry to be so vague but it would literally take a whole book to explain it, and frankly I don’t think I could even give the subject much justice.
While I just put the blame on Bush in one area, the truth that most folks don’t want to hear is that the recent debacle may have just been the confluence of several factors – some beyond our control – to create a perfect storm.
For instance, some blame the Fed for not tightening up sooner. Bernanke argues, with lots of data to back him up, that the Fed did tighten short term rates at the appropriate time, but that long-term rates didn’t follow, as they normally would. He argues that long-term rates didn’t go up because the Chinese were dumping a ton of money into 30-year treasuries, to build up their reserves to protect their currency.
Folks always want a bogeyman, but sometimes it doesn’t play out so neatly.
rob, ‘manhole fire’ is a fire underground that shoots thru the manhole. In this case, electrical conduit probably.
“By cmu on October 26, 2010 1:17 PM
You don’t seem to realize (or care) how abhorrently you come across.”
Wrong that I don’t realize, right that I don’t care.
And “You hold that special hateful place in my heart for your repeated ” examples of hatred, jingoism, MCP crap and willful refusal to see anyone else’s POV (or even respond to it). Good going, lech, I can see why you chose your handle, you’re so like that. You don’t seem to realize (or care) how abhorrently you come across.
“By cobblehiller on October 26, 2010 1:03 PM
“Not technically a deregulation, but Bush admin not only failed in stunning fashion to respond to the excesses, they affirmatively abetted those excesses by blocking state govt from doing anything.”
And, not surprisingly, I agree with Slopey.”
Um right, of course you do cobble. Now explain why. In what respects did the Bush administration (and of course these were semi-autonomous banking agencies, not the Bush admin, but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good political attack) affect rates on subprime mortgages? Who did what and when? In what way did the President actually affect this in any way?
I’m all ears. Please, I’m listening.
HI! what is first named street of park slope after 1st street called? i just saw that manhole fire thread. what the hell is a manhole fire?
*rob*
Was there a government bailout after the tech crash?
Also, slopefarm, the issue you raise is hardly as simple as you suggest. Federal pre-emption of state banking laws is quite a morass. I don’t think anyone who works in the area would boil it down to a statement anywhere near as simple as what you proposed. No one woke up and said “hey let’s keep states from capping interest rates on subprime mortgages.” It’s the end result of something much more complicated. Sorry to be so vague but it would literally take a whole book to explain it, and frankly I don’t think I could even give the subject much justice.
While I just put the blame on Bush in one area, the truth that most folks don’t want to hear is that the recent debacle may have just been the confluence of several factors – some beyond our control – to create a perfect storm.
For instance, some blame the Fed for not tightening up sooner. Bernanke argues, with lots of data to back him up, that the Fed did tighten short term rates at the appropriate time, but that long-term rates didn’t follow, as they normally would. He argues that long-term rates didn’t go up because the Chinese were dumping a ton of money into 30-year treasuries, to build up their reserves to protect their currency.
Folks always want a bogeyman, but sometimes it doesn’t play out so neatly.
Should have the govt pricked the “internet bubble” in 1998 or 1999 before the market did it in 2000?