On Eddie D. - the NFP, and China Too

Bruce Krasting's picture


Edward De Marco is the acting head of the FHFA. He is responsible for what happens at Fannie and Freddie. A lot of people hate this guy and want to see him sacked. I like him. I think he is one a few people in D.C. who actually gives a damn about taxpayer losses at the mortgage agencies.


As per usual in America, this is a matter between left and right. Democrats hate De Marco. The Republicans are standing behind him.


The latest saga in this love-hate story is a letter that De Marco wrote to Senators Richard Shelby (R -AL) and Tim Johnson (D - SD). (Link) The issue is whether Fan and Fred should write down the principal on mortgages they own. De Marco said flat, “no”. The following is the critical sentence. Note that De Marco uses “I” when he says who made the decision. I give him an “A” for putting his head on the line.


I have concluded that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s adoption of HAM PPRA would not make a meaningful improvement in reducing foreclosures in a cost effective way for taxpayers.



I think this is a pretty simple issue. What is De Marco’s Congressional mandate?


conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity


There is more to the FHFA mandate, but it was the objective of the original legislation to minimize the risks to taxpayers. There is nothing in the laws that created FHFA after Fan and Fred blew up, that allows De Marco to use the former agencies as a tool of national economic policy.


There are valid arguments on both sides of the debt forgiveness debate. It there was a magic wand that could be waved, and all underwater mortgages were eliminated, it would have significant economic benefits. Unfortunately there are no magic wands, and there is no free money available to accomplish the write-downs.


Everyone in D.C. (including Obama) knows that there is no way in hell that Congress is going to come up with the loot necessary to achieve the mortgage forgiveness. But, as the law stands now, Congress/Treasury are forced to make up any losses at Fan and Fred.


So, in theory, if the Agencies went on a tear, and wrote down principle, they would suffer huge losses, and Congress would be obligated to cover those losses. No additional legislation would be required. Of course this would violate the terms of the 2008 laws that set up FHFA. Ed De Marco is standing in the way of the Administration's desires.


Who are the folks who are pushing De Marco to provide debt relief? One group that is been particularly vocal on this issue is Rebuild The Dream.


This outfit is run by a fellow named Van Jones, who just happens to have worked for Obama as a Green jobs czar. I find it it interesting that Mr. Jones has gone from Green, to mortgages. Possibly he’s just a political hack, who does what he is told (and paid for).



Speaking of hacks, Paul Krugman has weighed in on this (Link). PK is desperate to spend some more government money. He would love to see another $400Bn go out the door, and just put the bill on the next few generations. His thoughts (Link) on De Marco’s career path:


Because De Marco is civil service, he can’t be kicked into the street, but that’s irrelevant — he can be put into an equivalent-salary job at the Small Animals Administration, or something.


Democrats in Congress have been calling for De Marco’s head for some time. Elija Cummings and Maxine Waters have been making poor Ed’s life miserable.



Other Democrats have chimed in on the recent decision (The Hill – Link)


Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) blasted De Marco's decision as "short-sighted" and an “abdication of his responsibility.”


Elijah Cummings and fellow Oversight member John Tierney (D-Mass.) have accused De Marco of withholding documents that would reveal the benefits of principal reductions.


The Administration is doing everything they can to lean on Eddie. Timmy Geithner was quick to respond:


“I do not believe it is the best decision for the country,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wrote in a letter to De Marco.


There are some Republicans who have stood behind De Marco. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said De Marco made the right call.


“The administration put incredible political pressure on Director De Marco, and he deserves praise for standing up for the best interests of the American people,"


In the end, De Marco has one very solid supporter, Senator Richard Shelby (R -AL). With Shelby backing De Marco, his job is safe for a few more months.



Mr. De Marco's career as the head of the FHFA will come to an end with a week or so after the next election. If Obama is re-elected, he will fire De Marco and appoint someone who is friendly to a mortgage write-off, paid for with tax payer funded losses at the Agencies. Obama will do this in a recess appointment, and Congress will not have a say in the outcome.


There is so much riding on this election.




On Those Payroll Numbers


A fellow sent me this summary of the July Non-Farms payroll report. Will someone please tell me what the "good news" is in this? I don’t see it. What am I missing?

This morning, Barrons chimed in on the NFP report. I thought it was interesting that it quoted Zero Hedge when it pooh-poohed all the hype from the MSM (and the White House).



Here, courtesy of Zero Hedge, we might be able to provide a clue as to how the BLS managed that little trick: It added 377,000 jobs for seasonal adjustment. That just happened to be the largest such adjustment in July for the past 10 years.


Moreover, the always interesting but not particularly reliable birth/death model chipped in 52,000 additions. Together, these happy statistical enhancements added up to something like 429,000, which even by our rudimentary math dwarfs 163,000.


The link to the ZH analysis (Here).




A Big Change in China


I urge any of my readers who have not yet read John Hempton’s latest missive on China to do so. (LINK)


The first part of the article reads like a stock report on luxury goods manufactures. (Hempton is short). But read to the end of this piece to understand how the Bo Xilai murder scandal (and the soon to be executed wife) has changed the lay of the land in China.


Quite frankly, this article scared the crap out of me.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mediocritas's picture

Although I'm a supporter of principal reduction in theory, (have been since 2008 when this all blew up), I don't think for a second that it can actually be implemented correctly or fairly and I think that any attempt to do so would likely do more harm than good.

The theory comes from recognizing that we had a Ponzi scheme and that the only tried and true way to make good (at least partially) on the damage from an exhausted Ponzi is to rewind it as much as possible, identifying Ponzi transactions and moving money back to where it was before the Ponzi began. Along the way, ring-leaders must be identified, pursued and imprisoned, and a strong defense system established to ensure that it can't happen again.


The sad fact is that when it comes to the US Ponzi, this fix is impossible without revolution. The perpetrators are deeply entrenched in the power structure of the USA. Hell, they ARE the power structure and they aren't going to go after themselves. When the usual suspects talk about principal reduction, they're not talking about it as a subset of Ponzi correction, nope, they're simply acting in their roles as good little whores for the financial sector. When they say principal reduction they automatically assume this goes hand in hand with a bailout of banks to cover the writedowns which makes the problem worse rather than better.

If there's a write-down, Treasury will fill the gap to make banks good. The $$$s to do that will come from ever more TSYs being bought ever-more by the Fed and ever-less by the rest of the world (note that when foreign CBs buy US TSYs on condition that the Fed do the reverse, this should be seen as the Fed buying TSYs via proxy). Outside of the manipulations of CBs, all this action does is erode private sector confidence in the reliability of the USD and the ability of the US economy to ever recover, extending the gloom for the US people years into the future. (In fact, this pattern applies to the entire OECD, not just the US, due to the multinational reach of financial corporations).

Secondly, by expanding "high-powered money" to fund write-downs, banks will find themselves with expanded reserves, reduced risk due to lower default, and a significant chunk of the remaining default risk transferred to Treasury. Cashed up and freed of that risk, banks will then be able to return to the high-roller tables, and they will. The subsequent pockets of speculation-induced inflation will further erode the atomic units of an economy, the things that actually define an economy (individual purchasing power). Nothing new here, this is the exact script that has already been acted out from 2009 to today. Bank bailouts to enable principal reduction will simply be more of the same and "economists" like Krugman either don't get it or are just sock puppets.


Principal reduction is good in theory if it goes with implosion of banks, bankers and politicians in prison and recapitalization of the real economy (rather than the banking sector). In other words, unwinding of the Ponzi that sees relative purchasing power subtracted from the financial sector and returned to the real economy. It's not going to happen.

hockeypuck777's picture

"Principal reduction is good in theory if it goes with implosion of banks, bankers and politicians in prison and recapitalization of the real economy (rather than the banking sector). In other words, unwinding of the Ponzi that sees relative purchasing power subtracted from the financial sector and returned to the real economy. It's not going to happen."

Concur.  So now what do we do? 

Mediocritas's picture

Educate to embrace reality. It's all we can do. Ourselves, then others.

I know it's a pretty lame answer but I don't think there's anything "Hollywood" that can be done about it, no high-octane quick fix, which is frustrating. It's a problem that evolved into being over generations and the fix is going to also take generations.

I think that Robert Steele is essentially correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele), that the legal and political systems of the USA are not the primary problem (they need minor revision but the Constitution is solid), the problem is that the wrong people currently occupy positions of power and attempt to pervert the system to corrupted ends. Those mostly unelected people have only been able to take the prize because the wider populace has been professionally distracted and convinced to pursue false dreams rather than embracing reality. FarmVille vs a real farm.

Enough economic pain and the situation will naturally repair itself. In the aftermath of shattered dreams, people are forced to return to reality and start to give a shit about the decisions being made upstairs, enough to force some spring-cleaning. Our lords and masters know that, which is why they're trying to stretch the pain out slowly over decades to preserve their power (via continual erosion of general purchasing power). A sudden shock would trigger an overhaul and they know it.

Pejorative Requiem's picture

This argument will be entertaining to watch as the foreclosure inventory continues to rise. If a property can't sell at $150,000, and Fanny holds a $220,000 mortgage on that property, I wonder what figure is on the banace sheet?

Loan Gunman's picture

Whether BO wins or loses the election, he will still be in office for two more months.  Won't he be designating the new Director of FHFA win or lose?

jonjon831983's picture

The change in China referenced blog post is interesting enough.  Nice tie ins with luxury goods + changing political landscape.

CheapBastard's picture

and yet another reason not to vote for Barry. Nice work Bruce! I'm not much in the mood to suck up another Trillion as a taxpayer for house buyers and bankers who made bad decisoons. I have enough to pay for my own bad decisions with no one to bail my butt out.

GMadScientist's picture

Fair enough. You'd rather bail-out the banks directly later than "home-owners" now.

G'head tell me Romney won't save a bank when mark-to-market takes it to Davey Jones' locker.

Corporations are people after all, "my friend."


Fred Hayek's picture

Come on. There are more choices out there than "Vote for Barry" or "Vote for Mitt". There's voting for the libertarian candidate. There's voting for the green party candidate. And there's voting for none of them. He knocked one of the five choices. That doesn't necessarily mean support for any one of the other five choices.

GMadScientist's picture

He made a statement about the efficacy of voting with respect to fixing the flow of money from taxpayers to banks. I called him on its disingenous core.

I'll be writing myself in for every office in protest.

stevealways's picture

Another, point the Fed bought Fannie's and Freddie's and garbage MBSs, to hide the losses. 

True, its political motive to get votes.  But, there is another motive, is by writing down mortgage losses, you hide or buy more time to delay Fannie's insolvency.  Demarco said no because he wants to state fully and fairly Fannie's balance sheet.  These loans have in many cases have already been rewritten a number of times. You write them down, the holders are probably still not going to get paid the reduced balance.  What people don't get is yes the banks were greedy; but so were the millions of people that lied on their mortgage applications with income they didn't make.  You couldn't have one without the other.  And Fannie was the primary cause of this mess, because they set the secondary market standards which 20 years ago used to be the gold standard, Fannie   All the banks and Brokerages that packaged these products were following Fannie's lead, which is to have no standards - they were accepting no income verification as meeting standards as long as the inflated loan to values were there.  Fannie is the most insolvent bank in the world probably.  Demarco knows it, and knows if he allows them to write down loans it will just delay certain losses.

Chuck Walla's picture

And Mignon Clyborne has a directorship on the FCC why?  Oh, A democrat congressman's daughter. OK.

Hohum's picture

Mr. DeMarco may be right, but if the homeowners denied principal reduction turn in the keys, it could be a whole lot worse for the taxpayer.

fonzannoon's picture

they are going to turn in the keys anyway. wake up.

q99x2's picture

I vote that the US secede from Washington DC.

In the US the elites are confident that they will be protected by DHS but what happens historically is that a small portion of the elite class uses military organizations like DHS to eliminate their competition first and use the populace to back their attack on their competitors. I think we see a little of that starting now in the US. Banksters are going to fry, (they are such an easy scapegoat at this time), and a few financial and political elites are going to attempt a grab for even more power and wealth.

When cracks in the current strategy of dealing with the financial problems begin to develope then look out even the elite are no longer safe.

bankruptcylawyer's picture

bruce..excellent article. 

Orly's picture

Wow.  What an historic week in the 4X market.  Nothing short of amazing.

It seems the Euro, after Draghi's last stand, has gone "underground" in the mindset of traders.  The character of trade in the Euro has been relegated to a shadow of high-yield currency pairs with bogus talk of further stimulus, grabbing at anything, anywhere to maintain these levels.  The Euro reeks of desperation.

The fate of the Euro is out of Draghi's hands now and everyone knows it.  As it happens, to lose your street cred in these markets can be quite disruptive, so that now the entire 4X market is hinged on the movement in the AUDUSD vs. USPJPY pairs; yield v. safety.  It is a chaotic dynamic, which doesn't bode well for the markets in general but the most important element involves the USDJPY pair "channel quanting."  But I digress...

Since Draghi did not deliver on actual action coming out of the ECB, the EURUSD pair is running scared, piggy-backing on the movements in other currencies; flapping in the breeze of global reassignment as everyone jockeys for position for the coming deflationary cycle.  Movement in the EURUSD is now dependent upon movement in the AUDUSD.



Last week, I had the opportunity here to express my opinion on the seemingly changing standard of the Australian dollar as it relates to its role in the overall grand scheme of things.  I said, "What I am sensing is that the Aussie is changing from a risk-play and a trade on Chinese demand for raw materials into a genuine safe-haven currency.2658947

In a rebuttal, Itch (love the nick...) said that the giant moves in the market over the past two weeks were, "Simply to freak people out, the spot markets have become a game of who blinks first. With so many retail traders, most of them falling for the scam of high leverage, all it takes is a swift 100 pip move to get margin calls on thousands of accounts."  2660017

I can tell you why I have slipped over to Itch's side here.

No sooner had I said that the attitude of the AUDUSD pair was growing up and moving on to the prom than none other than MarketWatch puts out an article saying the very same thing:  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/australian-dollar-may-be-set-for-sea-ch...

Now personally, I use MarketWatch as the greatest contrarian indicator of them all.  They are the most rah-rah bunch on the web and their articles are so skewed to the upside it's not even funny.  The headlines alone make for dripping upside bias and it makes me wonder if they have any real credibility at all.  In fact, to have MarketWatch post one of my ideas makes me feel...dirty.  :/

Everyone knows that Fox and Murdoch are the driving force behind the whole 'red is bad, blue is good' dichotomous paradigm, so it is safe to assume the he and his organisations are the mouthpieces for the Powers That Be in regard to finance as well.  So when this idea is splayed on one of his sites- disrespectfuly complete with an artist's rendition of Queen Elizabeth II in hair curlers on a dollar note as the lead photo, by the way- I took notice.

There can be no doubt that the composition of the Australian dollar vis-a-vis the risk v. safe-haven has apparently changed over the past several months.  Now, I think I understand why.  Many moons before you and I hear this stuff from MarketWatch, private clients are hearing it from the major investment banks and the muppets are being systematically herded into the chute of long AUD.  There's the answer.  It seems the steering has been going on in earnest since the end of May of this year because the charts show that the Euro has performed poorly, while the AUDUSD has shot the moon.

Ergo, it is quite possible that a major culling of medium-sized money is coming in long AUD.  Medium-sized money runs and hides tail at the first sight of an Imperial Cruiser...and I'm not talking about the little ones here, kid; the big ones- Star Destroyers- that's what's coming.  So it makes sense that the now little-money will run and hide back into US Treasury bonds, sending yields historically low and yen crosses into the abyss.  All problems solved.

Careful study of the movements in the AUDUSD v. EURUSD over the past week would lead one to believe that the run-up in the Australian dollar has all been commodity-based on the heels of Chinese demand plus outside forces that have sent the currency to bubble levels.  Nothing in the actual character of the currency has significantly changed but its relative value has increased dramatically.


This is the currency mid-game, where everything turns upside-down and back is forth.  Economic crises are on the horizon, some of them severe, as deflationary pressures intensify.  Watch this one- it's going to be edumactional- and get ready for whipsaws like you wouldn't believe!

Or not...


GMadScientist's picture

I look at the AUD through the prism of their housing market (and bubble) and exposure to China.

They'll need to turn the little wench out pretty dramatically eventually.


Orly's picture

It may be just as helpful to look at Australia with the idea that the government has been able to weather the last couple of downturns in global economics pretty well.  Debt to GDP is well under control and interest rates seem to be sailing right along.

Since the Australians have been able to do this well so far has driven confidence in their currency.  Not to mention the fact that their money actually pays something has been very attractive.  Plus, Goldman prolly has a buy on the currency. But it seems that holders in the Aussie don't quite understand what's next.  Once the next deflationary cycle gets going in earnest, I would expect much of them to panic and bail.

The question is whether it will be a giant sucking sound or a slow trickle, weighing the one hand their previous fiscal conservation v. the implosion in Chinese demand with their housing market slowing to a crawl.  I would bet that the truth lies somewhere in the middle with strong sell-offs on panic-stricken days coupled with bouts of strong buying on rebound days, exaggerating moves in the EURUSD.

Keep in mind that there are very few places the big money can hide in such a market and the Australian dollar may still retain its share of real fans.  The problem is that there probably won't be enough of them to buoy the currency indefinitely.


DeadFred's picture

Loved reading your post

Lednbrass's picture

I agree with most of what you said but for the "Everybody knows Murdoch blah blah blah".  I can only assume that you are either young or were asleep in the late 80's when things started getting really hostile- and quite often in the opposite direction politically.

Orly's picture

I see you're still a believer in the red/blue thing.  Good luck with that.

Politics mean nothing.  Follow the money and there you will find the true answers.



Lednbrass's picture

Not at all- and if you look only at what I said instead of interpreting I think you will see that.

I merely pointed out that the casting of the "other" in US politics as the demonic forces of hell and not just the opposition began sooner than you attribute to it (in the mid to late 80's), and did not involve the boogeyman of Murdoch as he had no real power at that time.

Orly's picture

Divide and conquer has been a fond tactic of the men in charge for centuries now, so it wasn't invented by Rupert Murdoch or Prescott Bush.  Alexander of Macedon would probably have said that it is "old hat."

Mohammad was an invention of the Pope in Rome.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/222227/How-the-Vatican-Created-Islam

My point here is that Murdoch is the current elite mouthpiece and his programming should be treated as that- programming.  Propaganda.  He is relaying the message the power wants us to believe, therefore it is a contrarian indicator.

I'm sure there is a term for it when people believe that the only history in the world has occurred during their lifetime.  There is more to life than has occurred since your inception and much, much more to occurr after you're long dead.

I'm sorry but someone had to tell you.  Please don't shoot the messenger.


Lednbrass's picture

Oh brother. Are you naturally obtuse, or do you wake up early to practice?

YOU are the one who made the statement that "Everyone knows it began with Murdoch..." and I pointed out that it did not. Then in the above post you turn around and argue the same thing that I did- which is that it began before that. What the fuck? Are you able to read? I made a simple statement and you read all sorts of things into it which I did not say - then turned around and claim I am arguing the point you yourself made? Do you have drug and/or alcohol issues? I hope so- if not a substance problem the only other option is mental instability. Well there is a third option- that because of the names I used you assumed (with well known and entirely predictable consequences) I was saying something entirely different from what I did and made a massive error in judgement based on your own assumptions instead of the text in front of you- thereby being the exact person you "think" you are arguing against. You reacted with Pavlovian predictabililty based on the names I used to illustrate the point and not the substance-which was the method and tone of discourse.

Read what you said, read what I said- but above all READ instead of ASSUME. I seem to have made an error and thought I was dealing with somebody who had some level critical capacity based on your initial post-clearly I was wrong.

The best term I have seen to describe what you mention in the last part of your post is "temporal provincialism"- the belief that the time we live in is the best of all times and that we who inhabit it know more than people have ever known.  It is the outlook of someone with a limited or non-existent knowledge of the timeline of human history who is convinced that what they have experienced is "the best" with no knowledge of anything outside their own narrow experience. Those under this belief do not find it necessary to know what occured in the world before them because it was nothing but the scrabblings of some benighted proto-humans toiling in darkenss before the delightful modern era in which they live was graced with their personal presence.

Having knocked out hundreds of history books in my time, I am quite comfortable with my grasp of the subject.


Orly's picture

"YOU are the one who made the statement that "Everyone knows it began with Murdoch..." and I pointed out that it did not."

Really?  Where in my post, exactly, did I say that?

And then you go on to say, "Read what you said, read what I said- but above all READ instead of ASSUME. I seem to have made an error and thought I was dealing with somebody who had some level critical capacity based on your initial post-clearly I was wrong.

The critical capacity here would be that I did not say what you ran on about, and so, therefore, your entire point is moot from the get-go.

Keep digging, please.


Lednbrass's picture

"Everyone knows that Fox and Murdoch are the driving force behind the whole 'red is bad, blue is good' dichotomous paradigm"

The only point I was making is that the entire thing started before Murdoch and you seem to agree, so at this point it is nothing but a semantics argument unlikely to benefit either of us.

Orly's picture

In other words, you lose.

Say you're sorry.

GMadScientist's picture

How dare they point out extra-legal "freedom fighting" death squads and the birth of "heads we win tails you lose" in the FIRE sector?

You're a clown who doesn't even know who fucked your own country.

Orly's picture

Wow.  Somebody really pissed off this guy, huh?

I'm sorry to hear that, Leadnbrass.


Lednbrass's picture

GMad you ignorant slut.

Look you drooling sock puppet- it has nothing to do with who fucked the country. Orly's contention was that the real casting of the "other" guys as The Enemy and not the opposition began with Murdoch- I merely pointed out that in the US things started getting really ugly some time before that.

That you lack the fundamental intelligence to discern the subject being discussed should preclude you from your response- it was of the method of discourse, not the issues. Your grunts clearly indicate that you cannot comprehend that.

nah's picture

fantastic richez and bullshit numbers isnt alot to worry about till we get to peak oil

engineertheeconomy's picture

Where is this imaginary ocean of high grade crude? Most people are already painfully aware that we're past the peak and going down a steep grade

sessinpo's picture

The imaginary ocean is hiding behind your imaginary peak.

disabledvet's picture

As the raging bull running on three years in these here parts (correctly so i might add) can't say i understand why the market rally's such as it did on the jobs report per se. As i've said before tho Tom Keene constantly emphasizes the importance of revisions in the jobs numbers and as i understand it every revision has been to the upside. the only one arguing this is a great recovery is the President. You won't here me say that. The monetary policy foundation for recovery has never been better...counter cyclical in the extreme. Massive muni debt crisis dead ahead...as i've been warning for some time i might add. not to toot my own horn but

Fred Hayek's picture

You can't see why?
Three words -- Plunge Protection Team.

lindaamick's picture

The whole Mortgage writedown thing is political spectacle.  There is no side (Dem or Repub) that will support this.

Bailouts and Socialism for that matter belong ONLY to the elites. 

Individual taxpayers getting any kind of break...NO WAY.

Everybodys All American's picture

The facts point to only the Democrats wanting mortgage write downs. I'm against all bailouts, but you will find this is being used to garner votes and it obviously works or they wouldn't do it. The government operates on a continuing resolution and not a budget since Obama has been elected. What this means is there is no retraint at all as long as the Fed monetizes debt. The GSE's debt would be no different and would be monetized. This is not a solution.

Bailouts are what is ruining this country in my opinion and Republicans have at times been guilty of this as well. It should not matter whether you're rich or poor. Obviously the poor have far greater needs for assistance and these continued bailouts take away from the very poor. The class warfare thoug that the Democrats play solves nothing and has no place in doing what's right or wrong for the country's future. The bigger question is where and when do the bailouts stop. Will the market do it or will we the people.

hockeypuck777's picture

The Market will do it.  We the People will not. Congress will not.  Banks will not.  President whomever is elected, will not.  The 99% are not the poor and middle class.  The 99% are not paying attention. Talk about "sheeple!"  Of the 1% that are (most of whom seem to be on this site!) half are on one side and half are on the other.  Deadlock.

andrewp111's picture

Well, the Democrats want writedowns now that the election is approaching, but why didn't the incompetent clown show on Pennsylvania Avenue replace DeMarco with a recess appointment years ago? Or even last year when Obama did 2 other illegal recess appointments? Maybe Obama and Timmay saw things at Fan and Fred as fine and dandy until Obama is in a little trouble 3 months from election day?

Seer's picture

Yeah, um, right...  Hand out trillions to the rich and THEN say fuck you to the poor.  That, my friend, is how the game has always been.

It matters little, however, as it's all going to crash and burn as the planet says "fuck you" to our growth paradigm.

BTW - No mention of Fannie and Freddie pushing back on the bum ratings?  Seems that this shit SHOULD be shoved back on the financials who peddled the BS in the first place.  But THAT won't happen now, will it? (see my first paragraph)

Everybodys All American's picture

Did you read?

...  Obviously the poor have far greater needs for assistance and these continued bailouts take away from the very poor. 

Alot of blame to go around and no one offers solutions.. Those bum ratings are deserved btw.

tony bonn's picture

"Everyone in D.C. (including Obama) knows that there is no way in hell that Congress is going to come up with the loot necessary to achieve the mortgage forgiveness."

fuck you asshole.....there was 800 billion for tarp and there was 24+ trillion to save banksterism in america and europe....fuck you to hell.....

and there is more money to bail out both banksters and europe......bernanke spends it every day....fuck you again....

trillions for banksters but not one red cent for americans....

Muppet Pimp's picture



fuck you asshole....fuck you again....


Hey TB, if you cannot see the immense value BK brings for us Muppets you are a blind man.  Fuck you for being an arrogant asshole and showing such disrespect.

CrazyCooter's picture

So, your anger at banks (justified) is now directed at BK (not justified) because he doesn't advocate giving even more money out? Seriously? This really smacks of "I just want my hand out too and fuck everyone else".

Look, certain banks get the 0% rate, everyone else has to pay. That means they can stand while everyone else falls. They scoop up all the chips. Any policy, such as debt forgiveness in the way it has been pitched, is just rounding up dumb ass voters so they can continue to do what they have been doing all along, scooping up the chips.

Quite the short sightedness to think the free food doesn't have a fish hook in it with a hungry fisherman at the end of the line ...



Seer's picture

"Any policy, such as debt forgiveness in the way it has been pitched, is just rounding up dumb ass voters so they can continue to do what they have been doing all along, scooping up the chips."

And this is different from how the BIG boys do it, how? (refer to campaign contributors [e.g. financials funding Obama's election campaign])

Yeah, I agree that doing stupid IS stupid, that two wrongs don't make a right, but somewhere along the line there's got to be push-back against the originators (no one put guns to the heads of the financial mobsters and forced them to create all the bad shit in the first place).

Everybodys All American's picture

You need to also take into account the policies in Washington that created the need for debt obligations. The Affordable Housing Act had a big impact on putting far too many non qualifiers into homes they themselves and banks knew they could never afford. I make no excuses for Wall St. in creating CDO's and other derivatives off of this monster. However, it was doomed to fail because of Washington DC housing policy which came from a desire to see more Americans at the lower end of economic scale own their own homes. Who would not consider that a good endeavor. If you didn't go along the Fed's bank regulators your bank would be accused of of bias or worse. Hence the no doc loans and the no money down deals began to become popular. I'm leaving a lot out but you get the gist of it hopefully.

hockeypuck777's picture

Own my home.  Good idea.  Leverage myself up to my eyeballs with zero down?  Not so good.