jackie hayes

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 07:06 PM) Answering my opinions with your opinions is doing the exact same thing that I am doing. All I did was ask for the same proof that you did. The lack of that pretty much tells me what I need to know. If all conjecture and nothing backing it up is your way, you are awful good at it. It's my opinion that Gramlich warned against subprime mortgages? It's my opinion that the Comptroller of the Currency exempted national banks from local and state legislation on predatory lending? It's my opinion that the GOP controlled Congress until very recently? Or is it merely my opinion that 2006 (when McCain supported S.190) came after 2001-2003 (when, you say, it was too late for any Dem reaction to be meaningful)? If you want to insult me (and I understand that, as an admin, that's your right, glacial daverfication and all that), at least say something coherent. And since we're sharing what we'd like to see each other do, I'd like to see you make one argument that consists of something more than parroting whatever extreme right-wing talking head you sought out that morning. You don't think my statements contribute anything, that's fine. Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 12:55 PM) And yet you still haven't backed up ANYTHING you have posted, as usual. Yeah, I realize posting counterexamples isn't as persuasive as, Iz all Fannie & Freddie, blame Demz, Hassett sez so!, but I'll stick with my way. Thanks. Btw, is the Dow up 25,000 points today, too?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) So if you aren't making any claims, why are you arguing? Its the same old arguement. You challenge something I say with another opinion. I go dig up stuff to back my opinion. You nitpick with more questions. I post more stuff, and then you nitpick more. If you want to challenge me to "prove" something, I would love to see you "prove" something for once, with something other than asking more questions. You made a claim, I asked you to back it up, pointing out that the only examples of early action on subprime mortgages came from Dems. You didn't back it up, you simply repeated the claim. As for the Dem action on subprimes, you claimed it came too late. Now, I was talking about things that happened in 2001-2003. Then, you made the claim that McCain was trying valiantly to avert disaster by signing up for a Fannie and Freddie regulation bill in 2006, but was thwarted by the evil Dems. That, I pointed out, is wrong on many levels. Not to mention the fact that you apparently believe this was some example of foresight, when those Dem actions years earlier were way too late. And then, to back up your claims, you cite Kevin Hassett, a GOP shill who makes the same claims, but also doesn't back them up at all. Way to go! You don't want to back up what you say, fine, don't. But I'm not going to go spouting off just to maintain parity in the area of baseless claims.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) So what exactly have you "shown" to be true? You made the initial claim, not me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) And as for the line about McCain and the Dems, go back and read the Economy thread. I posted an article about this a couple/few days ago. Oh, yes, Kevin Hassett. So I can just link to an Al Franken blurb to refute that? The Dems were sure powerful if they were able to kill something without having a majority. They even killed the House bill, then exercised mind control over Oxley to make him believe the WH did it. Pretty sneaky... And of course, Fannie and Freddie are the one and only cause of the subprime mortgage crisis. No proof needed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) The same people who got the subprime mortgages and loans balked after their arms started adjusting and they saw their 20%+ car loans, userous payday loans etc. They started complaining to their elected officials who tried to do something after the fact. So your argument is that Dems were completely in support of subprime mortgages WAY long ago (not that you've shown this to be true, of course), then were opposed to it in the early-2000s, tried to do something then, but that doesn't matter even though subprime mortgages increased from about 3% to about 13% over that period? Is that about what you're saying?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 09:42 AM) Seriously that is pedantic. In that case you can't use "local" and "state" efforts, nor the term "administration" because some probably opposed it. Initially it was sold by many as a chance to end the centuries of racism in the USA and give the poor and minorities more chances to have mortgages from people who usually wouldn't make risky loans. The oppositions came more later on than early on. Then again John McCain was one of the people trying to pass more regulations and getting shot down by Dems, as I posted the other day. No, not pedantic at all. There were Dems at the state and local levels passing actual laws, which were preempted by Republicans at the federal level. Gramlich at the Fed, calling for actual regulation. You make the claim that everybody was rah-rah about subprime mortgages, but there were people pushing against them -- all Dems, as far as I can tell. If the Dems were as happy as Repubs about subprime mortgages, why were those state and local laws passed? As for McCain, he did favor some increased regulation for Fannie and Freddie. If you mean that, then blaming Dems is weak. S.190 died in a GOP committee in a GOP Senate (no filibuster). Oxley, a Republican, has explicitly blamed the WH for the failure of the House legislation. If you mean that McCain tried to regulate subprime mortgage lenders but got "shot down by Dems", please provide the details.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 10:20 AM) There was no opposition. The Repubs got deregulation, the Dems got minority/poor home ownership. It was "win-win". There certainly was opposition to these mortgages. The administration preempted local and state efforts (made largely in Democratic strongholds) to regulate them. And there were a couple early critics who suggested federal regulation. But the only ones I know of were Democrats. If you mean that some Democrats cheered them on, fine. I imagine there were some. But to say that this was a general position held by Dems is just wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 23, 2008 -> 08:03 AM) I'm sorry, but why should Joe Taxpayer pay for these peoples' houses? If they can't afford a home, you, me, and everyone else on Soxtalk shouldn't be forced to buy it for them, to the tune of $5,000 of debt for every single taxpayer. Balta's point is that dear Joe will be paying for something he shouldn't be paying for, one way or another. Someone's getting an undeserved handout. I think the real reason we don't do something like this is that it would have larger indirect costs (distorts the housing market immediately, creates expectations for future rescues, tough to regulate/administer, some justice concerns). There may be some measure of mortgage relief, if the rescue includes the provision allowing judges to change mortgage terms during bankruptcy proceedings, but that approach mitigates some of those concerns (individualized approach, plus, more importantly, that reworking only comes with the cost of declaring bankruptcy).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2008 -> 09:02 PM) The irony is that many of these changes were sold as Democrats as ways of increasing poor and minority home ownership rates. It was supposed to be another way of bringing people into the middle class and freeing them from the vicious circles of things like rent and poverty in general. The two lowest quinttiles, by and large, have been the biggest victims and losers in all of this, because they were the ones getting the mortgages they couldn't afford, as much as anyone else was. Guess what, there are some people that just can't afford a mortgage, no matter how you dress it up. I'd like to see examples of Democrats trying to "sell" these sorts of mortgage arrangements. Who, what "changes", and over whose opposition?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2008 -> 05:45 PM) So the bailout plan is pretty remarkable. It's 3 pages long. It essentially gives the Secretary of the Treasury carte blanche to transfer $700 billion of your tax dollars to any business he wants. And it specifically says you can't challenge any of the decisions in court. Christ. For the Republicans...do you think it's a great idea for any part of the federal government to be given a $700 billion blank check? For the Democrats...can you think of a better way to spend $700 billion dollars? I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would do this as currently structured. Which of course is exactly why it's going to happen as written. It's a transfer of $2000 for each person in your family to a bunch of bankers who made bad decisions. A couple things. First, he can't use the money however he sees fit, quite. He can only use it for "mortgage-related assets". And second, remember the "assets" part. The upfront cost is $700 bil, but we will get some of that back, later. (Now, I've said things like this before, and got eyes rolled at me. I tend to think the difference between $350 bil and $700 bil is important, but if you don't, feel free to ignore me.) I'm not saying it's a good solution, or even the best quick and dirty one. Krugman has a good take: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/no-deal/

My only difference would be that I very much don't like McFadden this week. The injury doesn't sound good (especially for a guy who gets by on quicks instead of power). Even if he plays, you gotta expect he'll be limited, with Bush getting a lot of work. Not to mention that the Bills are looking like a pretty nice team -- tough D and good chance the Raiders are playing from behind. I'd rank him pretty darn low for week 3. I wouldn't even consider him with those other 3. The rest sounds right. Bush is a lock. I think Forte and Smith are pretty close. I could go either way on that, but my gut feeling is to go with Forte. Wouldn't object to either, though.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 17, 2008 -> 04:09 PM) I need opinions on an offer I received... I get: Chad "Ocho Cinco" Johnson and I give up Laveranues Coles. I think Ocho is a good buy-low candidate (as is Coles, really)... I just need some input. It's been sitting on my offered table for a day and a half and I want to act on it today. Seems like a toss-up to me. Take the trade. Coles is a fine, safe option, but you don't win by playing safe. I'm not worried about Johnson's production so much. He's caught 90 passes and just fewer than 10 tds every year forever. If he's healthy, he'll get back to his usual level (or close). Of course, he could also land on his shoulder wrong and miss the year. But, sorry, the bargain in terms of production is too much to pass up. Risk the injury, take the trade. 7-11 is the guy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 07:35 PM) On the bolded, this is not the case. No contract is binding that is in violation of the law. If a federal law is passed as I stated earlier, then any compensation occurring after the law passes can be subject to it. Any contract stipulations in violation of the law, even if the contract was written prior, are null and void. ETA: I should note that said legislation COULD stipulate that all current contracts are exempt. My bad, and apparently that's what happened. The FHFA legislation stated that the director could basically nullify whatever he doesn't like in the exec severance package. I'm a little surprised this would fly, and that the contracts didn't include more creative packages, but alright.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 06:15 PM) Those terms we set obviously sucked and need to be redone. As far as the contracts with executives, that is something I've thought about too. Not sure what the solution is for the current contracts, the Bush admin likes to dance around the law, so what the hell do it again and screw them. I'd say the capital requirements sucked much more than the lending terms. Hopefully, Fannie isn't private anymore, so we don't have to worry about these things so much.