The Goat Pen

IB from the top rope ala Randy Savage.

STAY DOWN HEDGE!!! STAY DOWN!!!!

Lastly (and most importantly) over 1,000,000 people who worked in banking/finance (colectively for multiple banks and lending institutions) have lost their jobs because of welchers who seemed to think that the bank couldn't lose.



I remember the good old days when we didnt lend to the welchers. their past credit history/current income/debt ratios prevented them from getting the loans.

you have to blame the lenders. their greed knows no bounds. their manipulation of financial instruments--in fact creation of financial instruments to suck every available cent from the thousands of ttransactions they do each day is the parasite of this economy. the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us.

when the bubble bursts they wont be left holding the bag

sardis wrote:"Lastly (and most importantly) over 1,000,000 people who worked in banking/finance (colectively for multiple banks and lending institutions) have lost their jobs because of welchers who seemed to think that the bank couldn't lose."

No, its because their employers, the banks, are stupid. Whether you think they invested in the people or in the property, these mortgages were stupid investments by the banks.

That is true, many of these promisary notes ARE stupid investments by the banks. But in several cases (most of the ones where the welchers welched), we had liberal, take-it-in-the-ass, faggot Congressmen like Barney Frank and others in the Congressional and Banking finance committees who controlled Fannie and Freddie lowering the interest rates so that the government became the ONLY lender in the market for properties. They did this because they HAD TO, it was the only banks could fulfill their federal regulations on loaning to the Democratic Party's largest constituency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

When you have so many people who are simply NOT credit worthy (and the banks know exactly, PRECISELY who is credit worthy and who isn't) the only way the least worthy of us get promisary notes from banks to buy homes, is when the government steps in and FORCES a bank to lend to those who aren't worthy. Thus, you have the entire workings of CRA, a scheme created by Democrats to get future Democrats elected.

Fact is sardis, there are people on this planet who are born, will live their entire lives, and die without once (at any point in their lives) of being credit worthy. These people should not EVER be given such large promisary notes from banks to buy homes, and they would not get them were it not for CRA. It has almost nothing to do with how much money they make or don't make. It has to do with how responsible they are. And far too many people are simply not responsible enough to make a damn mortgage payment, not when they feel they are entitled to so many other things.

"The bank does not want the house. Ever. "

So if you get a mortgage, pay it off for 20 years so that the bank collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in interst, and then stop paying, you're saying the bank doesn't want that house? Of course, that would never happen, you can sell the house yourself and pay off the few thousand left on the mortgage and keep the rest, but hypothetically it could happen that you just stop paying your mortgage with just a few thousand dollars left on a house worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that the bank will then get. But you're saying that the bank would not want that house (EVER). That's what you said. But you're wrong. Why did you lie, IB?

People keep repeating the same false premise over and over again. Banks that gave the mortgage had the stat sheet to handle every one of the defaults that occurred. But the packaging into securities for 100 times what the property was worth fueled a reckless boom and overleveraged banks. The actually value of the homes defaulted on would have easily been handled by 90% of the banks out there.

The securities debacle lead to an end in the boom, the dropping of home prices and the now millions who are upside down in their mortgage (MOST OF THESE ARE NOT POOR BUT MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS). Now, based on how much the banks have collected, they have collected more than the home is worth. Of course, if they didn't want the property, it would make sense to allow refinancing for a longer term even those that are upside down. But, banks have been unwilling to do so.

hedge wrote:"The bank does not want the house. Ever. "

So if you get a mortgage, pay it off for 20 years so that the bank collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in interst, and then stop paying, you're saying the bank doesn't want that house? Of course, that would never happen, you can sell the house yourself and pay off the few thousand left on the mortgage and keep the rest, but hypothetically it could happen that you just stop paying your mortgage with just a few thousand dollars left on a house worth hundreds of thousands of dollars that the bank will then get. But you're saying that the bank would not want that house (EVER). That's what you said. But you're wrong. Why did you lie, IB?

i just took the time to carefully educate you about what mortgages precisely are and what caused the 2008 financial mess

i did not expect you to say "Thank you for correcting me." i did not expect you to say "Thank you for helping me." i did not expect you to say "Thank you for putting in the time." instead, i expected you to not respond, since any words from you would prove to any and all here how pointless it is for me to try and carry on a conversation with a mental midget. clearly, you are a mental midget

your follow up example and question is so pointless and asinine as to not even be worthy of a response. all that was, was a carefully framed example of you being an indignant, beligerant, under-appreciating delinquint, who is too ignorant to understand that he was just given a proper finance lesson from his betters. i'm about to drop you into the bozo filter

Again, you wasted your time. Nobody cares what your pathetic life posts. You are a comic book.

Jungle Rat wrote:Again, you wasted your time. Nobody cares what your pathetic life posts.

and yet, you responded to one of my pathetic life posts, just two minutes after I posted it.

so obviously, you do care

No. I was just checking in. You just happened to post another stupid one right before I did.

I find it funny that IB commented on the perception of other posters.

I find it funny that he is asserting he is educating anyone on anything, let alone on the 2008 crisis.

I find it funny that anyone takes that fuckhead seriously.

I wish I could find it funny. It's actually quite sad.

That's funny.

WSJ editorial..I weep for this nation

......................The important security issue isn't convicting Dzhokhar but finding out what he knows that might prevent a future attack or break up a terror network. This is where naming him an enemy combatant would be useful. Such a designation allows for extensive, long-term interrogation without a lawyer. Especially because President Obama has barred enhanced-interrogation techniques, such long-term psychological pressure can be crucial to learning if the brothers worked with anyone else, if they received terrorist training, and more.

This is why Senators Kelly Ayotte, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are urging the Administration to label Dzhokhar an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court has ruled that even American citizens—Dzhokhar is one—can be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. If he cooperates, the combatant designation can be revoked and he can always be transferred to the criminal-justice system for prosecution.

The Boston bombing also ought to chasten Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and other libertarians who keep insisting that the U.S. homeland is not part of the terror battlefield.

"It's different overseas than it will be here. It's different in the battlefield than it will be here," Mr. Paul told Fox News earlier this year. "Which gets precisely to the argument I have with some other Republicans who say, well, 'the battlefield is everywhere, there is no limitation.' President Obama says this. Some members of my party say the battle has no geographic limitations and the laws of war apply. It's important to know that the law of war that they're talking about means no due process."

Boylston Street sure looked like a battlefield on Monday, and so did Watertown on Thursday night. The artificial distinction is Mr. Paul's focus on geography. The vital distinction for public safety is between common criminals, who deserve due process protections, and enemy combatants at war with the U.S., wherever they are.

As for due process, the greatest danger to liberty would be to allow more such attacks that would inspire an even greater public backlash against Muslims or free speech or worse. The anti-antiterror types on the left and GOP Senators who agree that the U.S. isn't part of the battlefield are making the U.S. more vulnerable..................

Who is he an enemy of? The police? Marathon watchers?

You can't name an American Citizen in the U.S. and enemy combatant and the younger kid is a naturalized citizen entitled to all protections of the Constitution. The Supreme Court (including this current conservative one) has been clear on that. The WSJ, McCain etc are just fucking wrong on this.

You could potentially fuck up a conviction trying to do what they are saying.

artificial limbs as art

pretty cool to me

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/24/world/eur ... ?hpt=hp_c3

" i'm about to drop you into the bozo filter"

Good luck with that...