This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

What are We? - Stupid?

Bruce Krasting's picture





 

I was disappointed with the Christmas Eve ditties from Treasury and
FHFA re: the Agencies. To be honest, I was appalled. The two releases
contained significant information. The timing was obviously an attempt
to slip in some bad news while everyone is drinking eggnog.

Of course that backfired. The blogs, and yes, the MSM disintegrated
those that sent the emails out on Christmas Eve. The smell that these
announcements have created is not likely to go away anytime soon.

If you are reading this you know the story. Treasury ponied up for
another $200b for Fannie and Freddie and the management of these
entities are getting serious paychecks.

The former clearly establishes that Fannie and Freddie have been
nationalized. I don’t care what they say any longer. The numbers speak
for themselves. The $400 billion the taxpayers have signed up for far
exceeds any theoretical value for these two important institutions.
Sadly, ‘the people’ own these things at this point.

The notion that the Agencies are private sector companies with
influential shareholders is over. These entities are no longer big shot
players on Wall Street. There is no earnings prospect for these
behemoths. There is no upside. There is no justification for
multimillion dollar salary packages.

The Agencies fund themselves with lines of credit from Fed and
Treasury. The Fed is buying 1.45 Trillion of their dodgy paper. Why in
the world do we need to pay someone $6mm per year to run that mess?

A question for Mr. Geithner; What are the salaries and bonuses being
paid to the people who run FHA? These are government salaries. FHA is a
part of HUD. Compensation for Fannie and Freddie Exec’s should conform
to those guidelines. Not the other way around. We need to end the myth
that F/F are private sector entities. They are not.

We are not stupid Mr. Geithner. We watch what you are doing very
closely. There are a significant number of us who flat out do not trust
you. You have given us good reason in the past and you have proven
again that you are not trustworthy. You tried to ‘Sneaky Pete’ some
important information past us. In my view you owe us an apology and
explanation, or better still, a letter of resignation. This
Administration has promised a much higher standard than you have
delivered.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 12/29/2009 - 13:13 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 12/29/2009 - 04:02 | Link to Comment UnBearorBull
UnBearorBull's picture

This maneuver works best when it is followed by a 'terrorist' event the next day. With wall-to-wall coverage of that the masses have missed this completely. And the raising of the debt ceiling. And wasn't there some health care bill?

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 16:55 | Link to Comment Bear
Bear's picture

Moral Hap Hazard ... After F/F announced (in Nov) that they would lease all the properties that were to be foreclosed and let the current residents stay in their home at a reduced rental lease rate. Really! Now people can stop paying mortgages to the Banks and stop paying rent. Where is the incentive for F/F to even go to the bother of collecting rent.

THIS IS THE WEALTH DISTRIBUTION FAIT DE COMPLETE ... THE MASSIVE TRANSFER OF WEALTH FROM TODAY'S HAVES AND TOMORROW HAVES TO TODAY'S HAVENOTS

 

 

 

 

And no one noticed ... Obombocare is a drop in the bucket compared to this debacle.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 16:46 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 15:28 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:14 | Link to Comment exportbank
exportbank's picture

It's been a "Vegas" style economy for a long time and like most things in life - going up the ladder is better than coming down. Telling people the reality of the financial problems won't get you re-elected.. Let the good times roll.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:11 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 13:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:52 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:49 | Link to Comment bonddude
bonddude's picture

Inured to the bullshit by now !

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:05 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 11:51 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 11:14 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 11:00 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 10:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 10:20 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Put the bitches on a federal pay scale already!!!

35k a year plus a fat cushy retirement plan that will never be funded or honored.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 09:38 | Link to Comment unemployed
unemployed's picture

 

 With FHA default rates as high as they are,  the US should be changing management everywhere,  or simpler get government out of housing lending.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 09:11 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 08:51 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:46 | Link to Comment litoralkey
litoralkey's picture

 

One of the main reasons that Ireland's economy crashed and burned was due to the energy efficiency mandate from the EU.

The EU subsidized the demolition of over 170,000 old cottages in Ireland to improve the country's fuel efficiency.  The undesired effect was a bubble in home prices as the lower cost sector of the demand curve was removed from the market.

Same shiate will happen in the US when the Democrats push through requirements for mortgage applicants a slew of the the green initiatives forcing EnergyStar compliance for siding, windows, roofs, insulation and heating cooling systems in the US.

 

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 21:32 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 08:22 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

Ya know, why aren't there serial killers for the public interest?

If there's one out there, do the patriotic thing and target CEOs.

 

Damn, is there such a thing as a capitalist revolutionary? For real, I'm starting to sound more and more radical even though I believe there's a peaceful solution that the majority of you will never take.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 11:37 | Link to Comment Steak
Steak's picture

C'mon dude, real life isn't some glorified episode of Dexter.  I know you have more insightful things to offer than pitchfork rabble.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 09:11 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

I believe there's a peaceful solution that the majority of you will never take.

Since this struggle is all about money, money is the weapon of choice.  That is one reason it is so important for TPTB to destroy the middle class.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 09:36 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

Oh yes, money is the weapon of choice.... it has been for over 5,000 years since Babylon.

The covetous American populace will make the same mistake as the Babylonians did.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 08:00 | Link to Comment brodix
brodix's picture

Are we stupid? Yes. Our knowledge will always be finite, while our ignorance will always be infinite.

 It will implode, but at what point does it stabilize and what will be left to build from?

 I do think a big problem is a basic delusion about money. The law of supply and demand does apply to it. We can only save as much as can be prudently loaned. The seeds of capital are worthless, if the soil of borrowers is fallow. Those with the wealth have done everything in their power to drain all value out of the economy, the environment and all possible social interaction. Now they have enormous wealth and nothing to invest in, other than getting their minions in the government to borrow it back in a last and greatest debt bubble. The larger problem is that we are all complicit. We all want more and more, with little regard for the side effects/blowback. Nature is relative, not linear. We have pushed this illusion of notational wealth on which much of our society is based to the breaking point and have no concept of a society not based on it. The fact is that money is a public utility, no matter how it's structured. It is drawing rights on community productivity for which we exchange our surplus resources and ultimately we, in total, can't get more out than we collectively put in. Those running the current system are gaming it to the point of destruction and that will be their downfall, but ,unless we begin to deal with the nature of the system, we will just repeat the same mistakes.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 04:46 | Link to Comment Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

I'm trying my darndest, but Millers and JD keeps refilling. I'll making a dent in it . r.o.r.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 04:06 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:19 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 11:13 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 07:42 | Link to Comment Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

You sound like you need to grab a name, come out from behind the curtain of anonymity, and come join the rest of us who are thoroughly bewildered.  As a general guide, it is helpful to recognize that many basic concepts have gone, well, topsy turvy. In this post, for example, when is a private company not a private company? When it is FreddieMac!  There are other basics.  Down is up, war is peace and lies are truth, for just a starter.  For those around Philadelphia, Michael Vick is a portrait of "courage." It goes on and on. But I think you offer the correct prognostication of where this is all headed: "So we will run this thing to the brink and right over the edge of a defationary or inflationary or hyperinflationary crisis. What happens from there and when do we get there? I truly believe nobody knows. Could be mild correction (slight political realignment to address the situation) or could be total meltdown."

Yup.

 

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 04:04 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 02:40 | Link to Comment Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

OK, so how do we fix this mess? Time to stop whining and com up with constructive ideas. Where to start? Do we change tack and vote in the GOP? Haven't we just been there? What about the small "o" change we can believe in. That's a washout. Look where that's getting us. Same meal, same heartburn. What about a third party such a Libertarian alternative or a new constitution, or is it too late. If so what is the plan for the aftermath? Is Ron Paul the answer or is he and the handful of like-minded libertarians going to be overwhelmed by the sheer size of the beast? Where Are We is simple. Where Are We Going? is the daisy.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:06 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 08:04 | Link to Comment Anton LaVey
Anton LaVey's picture

Do we change tack and vote in the GOP?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Now, THAT was funny!

What part of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" don't you understand?

You have a choice: get the heck out of the U.S.A. or keep getting f*ck*d in the *ss, no matter which party is in power. Third parties, most Republicans and Ron Paul don't count: most Libertarians and Paul supporters are bat-sh*t crazy and will never get in power anyway.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 09:09 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

most Libertarians and Paul supporters are bat-sh*t crazy

Care to enlighten us?

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 10:39 | Link to Comment Anton LaVey
Anton LaVey's picture

Vote Ron Paul and get a theocracy that will make even Iranian mullahs and Talibans blush with envy.

See here, for instance: http://www.freedomunderground.org/newsite/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=23794

Choice quote from the article:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. [...] This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

Batsh*t crazy does not even begin to define it. Delusional paranoid theocratic batsh*t crazy would be more like it.

Feel free to disagree.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 11:54 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

First off, I am atheist.

If RP was a theocrat, he'd be endorsed by major religious orgs.  Can you name some that have?  The ideas of limited government that inform RP's ideology are incompatible with your views. 

This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.

I agree completely with this statement.  Note the clear distinction between the state and their god.  Returning America to its libertarian roots is completely consistent with high levels of individual liberty and non-interference by government in private affairs.  Limited government and religion can coexist, as they did in early America.  The statists need to destroy religion, as religion was the basis for the greatest bulwark against the nanny state, namely that ancient collective survival system known as "community". 

Why do people who try to make cases that can't be made always try to make up for the lack of evidence with strong language?

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:59 | Link to Comment Anton LaVey
Anton LaVey's picture

So you are a libertarian atheist, hmmm...? If Ron Paul becomes President, welcome to second-status citizenship for you!

As for endorsements, see here: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2250

Want more? There you go, straight for the horse's mouth: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/34098

(Read the very 1st comment on that page to see what I mean)

More on Paul Balyeat, who endorsed Ron Paul? You are welcome: http://www.mhrn.org/newsarchive/joev6.html

Batsh*t crazy? I stand by my words. Ron Paul President = kiss separation of Church and State bye-bye, because it ain't coming back.

By the way, anyone who does not realize the 'Left' has not been 'collectivist' since, well... pretty much 1945 - 1950 in most Western countries and 1989 everywhere else really is batsh*t crazy.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 19:48 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

I said: If RP was a theocrat, he'd be endorsed by major religious orgs.  Can you name some that have?

You aimed me at a liberal blog that claims RP was endorsed by stormfront, which features links that lead to other pages that lead back to itself, and a video that doesn't work.  I'm speechless.

Then you point me at one blog entry by "Col. George W." that purportedly reproduces a letter written by a Montana state senator, a blog post that has been viewed a total of 1827 times since Feb '08, that is an endorsement of Dr. Paul, but which doesn't mention religion in any manner.

These are major religious organizations?  Is that IT?  Is that all there is?  Is that the best the left can come up with to oppose Dr. Paul?  I feel better about him now than I did before.  And you are really well informed by the fringe left-leaning blogosphere, so that tells me a lot about you.  But I didn't need to surmise that at all, as your last sentence above tells it all.

Can't you post without swearing?  Are you 16?

anyone who does not realize the 'Left' has not been 'collectivist' since, well... pretty much 1945 - 1950 in most Western countries and 1989 everywhere else really is batsh*t crazy.

Calling us that doesn't prove anything, other than your age.

Tue, 12/29/2009 - 07:09 | Link to Comment Anton LaVey
Anton LaVey's picture

OK, here are two more. I deliberately chose conservative web sites, just to prove that, even for 'hard-core' Republicans, Ron Paul has some seriously weird supporters. For your consideration and viewing pleasure:

Now, take a long, hard look at these two links (and the websites). If you still think Ron Paul is a valid politician, it means you really don't want to face the truth.

I rest my case, and I will not comment in this thread. Feel free to disparage me.

Tue, 12/29/2009 - 13:37 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

So more links to sites that are mostly about what other people think about him?  Sites that selectively pick (no real surprise) what quotes to include, and what to leave out?  They left out this one, and so did you, by your linking to it:

Q: Can Paul confirm that the donation widgets appearing on Stormfront are the result of the site owner’s actions, not the campaign’s?
A: Yes, absolutely. The donation widgets are freely available to the general public, and anyone can put them on their website without the knowledge of the campaign. We are not advertising on Stormfront. 

And there's also this:

"Until three days ago, neither Dr. Paul nor anyone else in the campaign had any idea who Don Black was or is. We’ve never met or communicated with him. We did not solicit his support.  It is certainly unfortunate that the campaign’s donation banner is on his site. We’re not rushing to spend a lot of time reading what’s over there, but what you’ve described is certainly repugnant, and completely anathema to everything Dr. Paul stands for."

If you only read what you want to hear, then you'll only know what you already know.  And you seem to be only reading sites that already say what you want to hear.  Perhaps it is you who don't want to face the truth.  If you want to remain trapped in the two-party system, and continue to believe that it can be used to serve your interests, then you should do that.  Your rested case is thin indeed, so bowing out might be the right thing for you to do.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 13:44 | Link to Comment G. Marx
G. Marx's picture

As for endorsements, see here: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2250

Oh please, the authoritative left plays this hand time and again, by pointing to nut jobs who endorse someone and then use that as proof that the person in question endorses said nut jobs. Show me a quote where Ron Paul explicitly accepted the endorsement of white supremacist.

Want more? There you go, straight for the horse's mouth: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/34098

Again, you are using the words of others to criticize Dr. Paul. Where has Dr. Paul endorsed the ideas and religious agenda of Paul Balyeat?

You have not, or did not, offer the words and/or actions of Dr. Paul as a proof of your conclusions. You're reasoning is faulty and rife with logical fallacies. It appears to my eye that you are either being duped by an organized effort to discredit Dr. Ron Paul via FUD, or are part of such an organized campaign yourself.

Dr Paul has a long and disingushed career, both public and private, surely you can find concrete evidence to support that which is clearly your rather bizarre conclusions based on what others have said and done, not what Ron Paul has said or done.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 04:39 | Link to Comment your neighbor
your neighbor's picture

Cant fix it. It needs to crumble and be rebuilt. The peeps need to be awaken. One way to wake them is to have shortages. Can we make that happen? Sure, me, you and the other neighbors just need to empty out the stores of certain vital items. Keep emptying out the stores over time. Soon, we get local media coverage.... then its viral and everyone will panic and wake up.

This way it will crumble under its own weight rather than waiting for the controlled crumble that TPTB will ignite when they are ready. 

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 11:30 | Link to Comment Steak
Steak's picture

Color me previously naive and currently cynical, but voting for Obama was supposed to be the big electoral throwing out the bums, at least in my mind.  I am now convinced that anybody hoping to "make a difference" as it were cannot do so through political participation on the Federal level.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 13:54 | Link to Comment jailnotbail
jailnotbail's picture

Anyone who bothers to investigate the evidence can hardly come away from it without at least a strong suspicion that the 2000 & 2004 elections were stolen. And that's the problem with stealing elections, it's impossible to commit the perfect crime because there's always evidence left behind.

The more sophisticated and elegant solution is to steal the candidate, or rather promote and finance a candidate scoring high on appeal to the best of the electorate's motivations, yet completely compromised and devoted to the agenda to which he's styled to represent a rejection.

There are a lot of people who don't get this yet.  They think that Obama is "weak" or that he has a  "nonconfrontational style" which limits his political effectiveness, or that he is being betrayed by his staff and advisors.

 All exercises in denial by supporters who invested the president with illusions carefully cultivated in the mass mind during the campaign, and cultivated with the intent to realize their full effectiveness, by using them not just to get the president elected, but to provide him with the cover he would need to execute an agenda so cynically opposed and inimical to the platform and image he was elected on that it was a deception beyond the imagination of the average American.  When the wheels are coming off the longest running fraud in the country, and it looks like not just this year's bonus, but maybe bonsuses as far as the eye can see are at stake, it's time for radical solutions.

And we fell for it. Because we're chumps. Because some of us grew up in a time when it was possible to effect dramatic political change.  Because we had vague memories of Kennedy and Camelot, or something.  But that's all over now. It's really to late to do anything but at least go forward to whatever awaits us clear-eyed with an understanding of what we're dealing with.

I'd suggest that former Nixon Administration Attorney General John Mitchell's  advice to the press at the outset of that president's regime is appropriate here: "Watch what we do, not what we say."

At this point I've come to regard voting and elections as behavior shaping techniques designed to structure a psychological context in which the voter's understanding is shaped  so that he believes that his participation in the process constitutes his freely given assent to the it, implying he has judged the process to be legitimate and to represent his interests. Acceptance of the process means acceptance of the results, when one's chosen candidate doesn't win, or when the winning candidate goes apparently off the rails, because   of the "checks and balances" and because there's always the next election to set things right.

The only "checks and balances" of any significance in Washington these days relate to transactions our officials have with their Swiss banks, and if there is a "next time," it will probably be the last time.

So voting? It's mostly irrelevant at this point, though just on principle I won't be bothering anymore. It only encourages them

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:45 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 02:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 01:57 | Link to Comment charles platt
charles platt's picture

I admire Mr. Krasting's continuing capacity for moral outrage at a time when so many (including myself) have sunk into weary cynicism that is but one step away from that most miserable condition: Fatalism.

At this point I think the only plausible hope is for things to get so bad, some true populist candidates will emerge in November ... or maybe 2 years from November.

Mon, 12/28/2009 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!