Stimulus: Job created, in Washington

Obama Cabinet Secretary La Hood is already talking about charging citizens of this country for every mile that you drive. He said that gas tax revenue is not bringing in enough money.

So, people. This is what you get when you voted for Obama.

Taxing by the mile you personally drive your car. This is done by chips. The State of Massachusetts is trying to implement this.

Vote out all democrats.

Your personal freedoms are going to be restricted. Your money will be taken and given to others.

Will Americans allow this to happen. Thank, Al Gore.

It has begun.

Vote

BO stated that 90% of those 3.5 million jobs created or saved will be in the private sector. Just wondering how $3 billion to the the Interior department will create private sector jobs?
.
Just how is a "saved" job measured objectively?

Obama Cabinet Secretary La Hood is already talking about charging citizens of this country for every mile that you drive. He said that gas tax revenue is not bringing in enough money.

So, people. This is what you get when you voted for Obama.

Taxing by the mile you personally drive your car. This is done by chips. The State of Massachusetts is trying to implement this.

Vote out all democrats.

Your personal freedoms are going to be restricted. Your money will be taken and given to others.

Will Americans allow this to happen. Thank, Al Gore.

It has begun.

Vote

Interior Secretary Salazar has no idea how his Department will spend the $3 billion, but is absolutely sure the spending will create 100,000 jobs.

How can a responsible official be clueless on the spending, yet certain of the jobs created by the spending?

Just how is a "saved" job measured objectively?

Posted by: Terry | February 20, 2009 3:38 PM

The same we "we're safer" because of Iraq.

Obama Cabinet Secretary La Hood is already talking about charging citizens of this country for every mile that you drive. He said that gas tax revenue is not bringing in enough money.

Posted by: vote tear | February 20, 2009 3:41 PM

Ray Lahood is a Repuglican and seeing as how you're a Repuglican mouthbreather too and one who spent the last eight years cheerleading for Bush while he destroyed the middle class in favor of the rich, why don't you take it up with him yourself, Teresa?

BullR,
.
From Iraq we can objectively say
.
- Saddam is gone - that is a good thing.
.
- There is a democracy in the heart of the middle east - that is a good thing.
.
How will businesses measure a job saved? It will probably be all loon business (MSM, educational institutions, etc..) that report 1000's of jobs saved.

From Iraq we can objectively saySaddam is gone - that is a good thingThere is a democracy in the heart of the middle east - that is a good thing.
Posted by: Terry | February 20, 2009 8:40 PM

So I guess we can call Iraq a great sucess of democracy because we have sucessfully ocuppied it with 130,000 troops and the daily paying off of local sunni and shite groups not to kill each other and us?

They've been fighting each other for over 1300 years over there, Terri. We could stay there for 100 years (like the clowns you support want to) and when we left they would still fight with each other.
There's going to be a civil war there, it just remains to be seen how big it will be. This and the influence that Iran has in the area now are some of the things that the war-mongering neocons that you supported should have thought of before they trumped up their reasons for invading Iraq in the first place.

Try again, Terri...

Terry,

Give me back Saddam, a stable Iraq and the trillions of dollars wasted trying to create what you claim to be a democracy any day. Iraq was a mistake, plain and simple.

Educational institutions and the media are "loon" businesses?

Millions of loony professors chose their professions because of ignorant retreads like yourself.

The world thanks you for your ignorance.

Please join us for Global Warming Theater:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/Videos.html

X-factor, Bubba, and all you other flatliners,
.
What I mentioned above were two positive outcomes of the Iraq war. Listed below are famous quotes on why we went into Iraq:
.
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
.
To all you flatliners, why in December, 1998 did the US bomb Iraq for 4 stright days? Isn't that an act of war? An invasion of a soverign country?
.
Look at the bill that President Clinton signed in 1998:
.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
.
Listen to Sec of State Albright during Dec, 1998 (go to bottom of link for WMD discussions)
.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/albright_12-17.html
.
Clearly by the quotes and the above links, the democrats thought Saddam had WMDs, not only in Dec 1998, but also right up until the incasion in March, 2003.
.
What happened to those WMDs? When was it discovered that this event occurred?
,
Back to my original question - how will you measure a job saved? Since there is no objective measure of a "job saved", employers like MSM and educational institutions, which lean very left, will probably pad their "job saved" statistics in order to make BO look good.

It's called economic modeling and the numbers are supported by several leading economists. There is also a great deal of uncertainty in the job figures because eight years of tax cut mythology has led us into unchartered economic waters. You won't get definitive numbers from any source because by it's very nature, economic modeling is precarious.

Bubba,
.
Tax cuts led us into six years of economic growth - the 5th longest economic expansion since 1850. Other times Supply-Side economics has been used - JFK/LBJ - 3rd longest economic expansion, Reagan - 2nd longest economic expansion. Supply-side tax cuts work becuase it is the top brackets that create jobs.
.
Our current recession has nothing to do with the Bush Tax cuts of 2001 & 2003. It has to do with an over-regulated mortgage market.

The top brackets pocketed it or paid down debt.

They created jobs? Have you seen the unemployment figures for the last year?

An under-regulated mortgage market is what started the down turn. Not just sub-prime either. People over-leveraging themselves with second and third homes because they could take out no-doc, low-doc and stated income loans based on FICO scores and a pulse. I live in a vacation destination community of 7000 residents. We currently have over $100M worth of second homes, vacation homes, trophy homes and golf course gems in foreclosure.

I can't imagine how much bigger that number would be if the mortgage market were less regulated.

Bubba,
.
Did you see the unemployment figures during President Bush's FULL EIGHT YEAR TERM?
.
If the mortgage market was less regulated, these loans would never have been made to the folks who couldn't afford them. What was the incentive for the bank to make a loan like this with a higher probablity of default than a std loan? It was gov't interference - pure and simple.

Trickle Down Terri is actually calling for LESS regulation?!?!

Are you off your meds again son?

Terry,
Oh please, Terry. Don't play dumb. You know how the game worked. These crap loans were sold to big financial institutions who bundled and repackaged them in derivatives and other complex vehicles, making billions before the bottom fell out. Pure and simple, my ass.

Terry,

dt's right. The banks saw the big bucks in bundling bad debt and sold it off to institutions all over the world. On top of those are the SWAPs which guarantee them. Hence the very large and very messy financial entanglements -- a giant house of cards.

"What was the incentive for the bank to make a loan like this with a higher probability of default than a std loan?"

Competition, greed and lesser regulation. The backbone of the free market system you espouse. Wells Fargo comes out with a 90% LTV, low doc loan for anyone with a FICO score over 750. Countrywide, not to be outdone, rolls out the 95%LTV, low doc for FICOS over 700. Bank Of America sees the obvious angle of catering to the elite, who can obviously afford these loans, and rolls out the 100%LTV, stated income loan for FICOS over 675. And on, and on, and on. These loans were not only common, they were marketed, packaged and loan officers were incentivized to sell them. And an unregulated mortgage market is what allowed it to happen.

dts & KB,
.
Yes the banks did re-sell those loans. The banks that made those loans were smart to sell those mutts. But no matter how much glossing wrapping & nices bows you put on a box of crap, you still have crap. Some dumb institutions bought those derivatives w/o doing their homework.
.
Why would a bank make those loans in the first place? Did they have 100% guarantee that some other finanical institution would buy these packaged derivatives?
.
What was the guarentee in the whole mortgage system - Fannie & Freddie - too much gov't, too much regulation.
.
Bubba,
.
If you ran a business (use your imagination), would you extend credit to someone that you thought had a high probablity of defaulting? Greed has nothing to do with it, unless the Countrywides of the world think there is a someone there to catch them - enter the gov't.
.
Too much gov't, too much regulation.

Greed has nothing to do with it? Greed and an under regulated mortgage market led to these creative loans in the first place. You think Angelo Mozilo pushed over 400 loan products because he knew that gov't had his back? Speaking of greed, he raped and pillaged his own company to the tune of $150M, selling off stock before it's collapse. To think that these companies intentionally wrote bad loans because they knew they were backed by the government is asinine. They wrote them because they were allowed to and their responsibility to their shareholders demanded that they stayed competitive.

I happen to own my own business, which has suffered immensely under the great Bush recession. I am not in the business of extending credit but if I were, I would happily make a loan to a probable default based on a sizable amount of money down, guaranteed title to equitable capitol, a guarantor and an appropriately high interest rate. Just like the mortgage market used to be prior to it's deregulation.

Thanks for playing.

Bubba,
.
Your example of your business changed the assumptions, since you would do it only with "a sizable amount of money down". You want that loan colateralized. Sound rational. Why would Chris Dodd's buddy, Angelo Mozilo, make these loans? Do you really think it was blind greed to give a NIJA loan (no income, job, or assets). That would be blind stupidity. These finanicla institutions did it knowing that Fannie & Freddie had their backs.

A good article explaning regulation and the mortgage meltdown
.
http://businomics.typepad.com/businomics_blog/2008/09/sub-prime-mortgage-crisis-caused-by-lack-of-regulations.html
.
For those of you that think Mr. Conerly is some crackpot - he has PHD from Duke in Economics and his articles are required reading at MIT and Wharton.

I actually had to read it twice to find where he supports the idea of regulation being a problem. The CRA is/was never a problem. It was designed to prevent redlining, discriminating against sectors of a city or area. I believe the term came literally from bank execs drawing red lines on their area maps instructing their loan officers not to make loans in areas on the wrong side of the tracks. This was a common practice in the early days of loan origination. Flat out discrimination. The CRA addressed it.

"your example of your business changed the assumptions, since you would do it with "a sizable amount of money down"."

I didn't change anything. In fact that is part of the risk assumption that every loan ever made has taken into consideration. Couple it with LTV, DTI, capacity to repay, possibility of a guarantor, credit history, employment history and underwrite it with an appropriate interest rate.

These parameters were thrown out the window over the last 15+ years. Somehow everyone was sold on the ownership principle that everyone deserves to own a home. And I'm not being partisan, Clinton is as much to blame as Bush.

As for Conerly, I've only read a couple of articles and am happy to say that I saved a lot of money attending a conservative, mid western jesus camp.

Bubba,
.
You never address why a financial institution would make these risky loans or another finacial institution buy the loan in the 2ndary market. They did it knowing they had safety net in Fannie and Freddie

They made them because they were deregulated, thus allowed to make them, and there was a great deal of money to be made from them. There was also a great deal to be made off of mortgage backed securities. The subprime loans which were already a problem were also backing securities which were given a AAA rating and were bundled and sold, often to Fannie and Freddie. It is the lack of federal regulation that allowed all of this to happen. Not the other way around.

Bubba,
.
Thank you for making my point.. "were bundled and sold, often to Fannie and Freddie". Freddie and fanniw, which were GOV'T Sponsered Entities - that is they had the backing of the American tax payer. Without that backing, they never would have been bought.

Fannie and Freddie bought them just like other companies in the dark as to what they were actually buying. And they were small players in the overall game. I pointed them out so you could see how blind, even government agencies became to the crisis. The mortgage market was deregulated to unforeseen levels. Mortgage backed securities were given AAA ratings even though the mortgages they were attached to were garbage. And they were garbage because deregulation allowed them to happen in the first place. Had the government not succumbed to deregulation pressure, those loans would never had been made.

They weren't garbage because of deregulation. Look what you said above:"Mortgage backed securities were given AAA ratings". This is another failure in the mortgage meltdown - the rating agencies. What changed in their way of doing business? Were they less regulated than they were eight yaers ago? If so, state how the this deregulation of the rating agenices caused their evaluatuions of mortgage backed securities to be faulty?

Not the deregulation of MBS's, the deregulation of the mortgage loan market, the backbone of the MBS industry. The SEC didn't even start regulating the ratings agencies until 2007, long after it was apparent there was a problem with their ratings of MBS's. Until then, they were unregulated.

"What changed their way of doing business?"

Short answer: greed. Yep, more greed for you to chew on. Ratings agencies, S&P, Moody's etc. compete for fees for these bundled debts. They could earn 6 to 8 basis points on deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Multiply that by 10 + deals a day and you're talking millions of dollars of daily fee income. A former S&P official is on record that they would routinely grade bundles of investments that they never even reviewed. AAA ratings are for the extremely risk adverse, thereby generating enormous sums of investment capital from people who trusted the century old ratings agencies. And when the ratings agencies are getting fee income from the very companies they are rating, well, it's not hard to see a conflict of interest and a gratuitously high rating. It's like when your wife asks you if she looks nice in her dress.

If the mortgage market were not deregulated over the years which allowed these bad loans in the first place, and if the SEC actually had been regulating the ratings agencies and the MBS market more closely, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I don't know if there is a more glaring example of the failure of a free market system.

So we have never had "greed" before? Get serious. If you believe that this was a failure of the free market, that's fine. The free market is supposed to allow for failure. It should allow banks to fail, it should allow rating agencies to fail, it should allow GSE's to fail, it should allow homeowners to fail. Failure is all part of the free market system.

Where did I say we've never had greed? I simply deconstructed everything you've questioned on this post.

Glad to see we agree that the free market ideology that insisted on deregulating the mortgage market is the reason for it's failure.

You are the one that brought greed into this as the reason for the meltdown as the reason the banks made these NIJA (no income, no job, no asset) loans in the first place. You arguement makes no sense since there was no rational reason for these loans to be made with the exception that everyone believed there would be the gov't safety net.
.
We don't agree the "free market ideology that insisted on deregulating the mortgage market is the reason for it's failure". Nice try. It was the over-regulated market led by the Banking Queen Barney Frank that got this snowball rolling.

It's intrinsic to a free market ideology that less regulation of any industry will result in greater competition, greater investment capital, and unfortunately, greater levels of greed, deceptive business practices and unethical or illegal activity. This all happened because these loans were allowed to be made in the first place as I have painstakingly described above. Reread my posts or have somebody explain it to you in more pedestrian language.

As I have stated in my post above, these loans would not have been made if their wasn't agov't safety net waiting to catch them - as the bank bailouts prove.
.
I'm sorry you can't comprehend this, but this format does not allow me use a connect-the-dot picture - something you might understand.

Since you either can't read, comprehend or have even a grade school understanding of the issue, I'll slow it down for you.

The loans we are discussing, which are mostly sub prime or high risk, and written by banks, mortgage companies and financial institutions, don't even meet the criteria of Fannie or Freddy and therefore are offered absolutely NO protection from any of these quasi-government agencies. The percentage of loans that Fannie and Freddy participated in that blurred the line between subprime and conventional is so miniscule that it is hardly worth mentioning. The MBS market is where they got in trouble because the ratings agencies were UNREGULATED! The deregulation of the banking industry allowed risky loans to be created in the first place. Since you apparently realized this midway through the conversation, you revert to the idea that the bank bailout is why these loans were made.

You honestly believe that the mortgage industry as a whole predicted the complete collapse of our capitalist system and that the government would have their back? They all planned on a government bailout in 2008 on loans they were writing in 2003? Your spinning on this subject would be funny if it weren't so sad.

You also need to look at the timeline of the housing bubble and mortgage market collapse. Fannie and Freddie were already being heavily regulated by 2003 and were not big players when the great Bush free market experiment started to implode.

You know when you're at a poker table and after a few hands, you can't figure out who the mark is?

Bubba,
.
We've been over this a million times and you are still wrong. Let me knwo when you have studied economics at the undergraduate and graduate level, let me know when you have built econometric models.
.
You are just another blowhard that is just reading what someone else has written and can't think for himself.

I just handed you your arse on this post. The majority of it was off the top of my head.

You should apologize to whatever school(s) you've attended. You've really let them down.