# Bailout approved



## pichao (Apr 13, 2008)

The bailout has just been approved. I hope that will have a healthy effect on my stock portfolio...

What are your thoughts, gentlemen?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Thank God*

Thank you,

Yea I saw it. Thank God. If anything, will motivate things going forward. Still , this country is seriously in debt. And trouble. If we do not get Bush out of the office. He is speding a billion a day for this thing he got us into.
And guided us to 3 trillion in debt.
What an a s s.
He makes me sick.
Oh, sorry.

Have nice day.
Stay out of big caps !!!! mid cap or small.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Some satisfaction*

At least neither of my senators, one Democrat and one Republican, voted for this swindle of the American taxpayers. Unfortunately, the three stooges running for the highest office all did vote in favor.


----------



## the law (Sep 16, 2008)

Socialism at its worst.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

the law said:


> Socialism at its worst.


I cannot decide if it was socialism, bribery, or an outright swindle. No wonder the Congressional approval rating is setting records for all time lows.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Time to clean house. The American people need to follow California in setting term limits for all elected positions. Government needs more transparency than it currently has and the people need more control over the elected officials that are supposed to represent our interests.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

...and the rich get richer and we all, get fleeced! After loading it with each congressman's pork, it passed. I'm sure we shall all sleep better tonight!


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

the law said:


> Socialism at its worst.


This.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Even the New York Times was able to correctly predict this outcome, as early as 1999:



> Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been *under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration* to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
> 
> In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
> 
> ...


How many of you have seen Barney Frank pushing for even more government-sponsored "affordable housing" legislation? He helped create this disaster in the first place. Now he's doubling down and wants even MORE easy credit, which, of course, is like tossing gasoline on a fire.

Well, here's a little tidbit that may help shed some light on Mr. Frank's _intimate_ involvement in this whole Fannie Mae crime -- . And Herb was in charge of new "product initiatives," no less!

In other words, Herb and Barney colluded to stick all of us with a mess that cost $700 billion today.

And it will cost more. We will pay, and pay, and pay. And if things go Barney Frank's way, it would be even worse.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Frank's fingerprints all over...


> Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
> 
> Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.


Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest


> Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank's efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s. So did Frank's partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency's push to relax lending restrictions.





> A top GOP House aide agreed.
> "C'mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?" the aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank's political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley's wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain's wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation's housing and banking laws."


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Obama and other Democrats are so tied up with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac it's amazing. Yet, the bigwigs in Congress have the balls to stand up there and blame Bush and the Republicans. If they weren't Democrats, it would stagger the mind.



"Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick — Clinton Justice Department official — worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain — Sen. Obama — was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I think the bail out is wrong, unless lots of people go to prison and hand over the money with interest they stold. Predatory lending is, like always, simply wrong. Banks conning people into loans when they are not qualified is wrong, and then selling these loans to buyers under the pretense that these loans are safe investments. These bankers need to be sitting behind bars and all the money in wages, etc., needs to be payed back with interest. 

With out the right laws lawlessness will be law.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

There is more pork in this bill than can be found on a pig.

Rum makers in Puerto Rico get $100+ million for example.

And the Treasury department has no reason for picking $700 billion. They just wanted a big number.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

We tax payers get the shaft again. 

All that pork and the Dems. want to raise taxes and put many of us out of work. If you got a loan how are you going to pay it if you need to stand in the soup line?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

It seems everyone else gets an entitlement program...why not Wall Street?

This makes me sick...even more sick because those elected pikers in DC larded it up with so much pork. Have they no shame?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

I know it stinks but are you all prepared to bring down the American economy and the world with it just for a priniciple? I think Congress had no choice.

What ought to happen now the decision has been made is for the culprits to be hounded down and for legislation to be put into place to make sure this cannot happen again - whether it will happen remains to be seen.

My reading of the American subprime disaster is that Clinton and Bush are both very much to blame - you pro Bush guys cannot let him off that lightly!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> I think the bail out is wrong, unless lots of people go to prison and hand over the money with interest they stold. Predatory lending is, like always, simply wrong. Banks conning people into loans when they are not qualified is wrong, and then selling these loans to buyers under the pretense that these loans are safe investments. These bankers need to be sitting behind bars and all the money in wages, etc., needs to be payed back with interest.
> 
> With out the right laws lawlessness will be law.


I'm sorry but I cannot agree with anything you have just said.

1) This so called "predatory lending", if it refers to subprime is a misnomer. Predatory lending is payday loans that charge hidden fees. These were mortgages made to people with less than stellar credit at rates higher than would normally be charged. Nothing wrong with that. Banks take a risk with these loans but the people taking the loans are adults and just as culpable. Imagine if banks had denied these people, especially had they been minorities. They would have been sued for racial discrimination!

2) The loans being sold were sold to big boys with big money! They knew what they were getting into. Very few retail investors bought these packaged loans. These were professionals rolling the dice.

Its always popular, especially in an election year, to go after the minority with money. Its certainly not politically safe to blame the borrowers who have put themselves in over their heads because of their own avarice and poor judgment. I don't expect politicians to talk about this but our media need to bring this part of the equation to the forefront. So far they have failed to do so.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

The initial signs are very poor that they're going to address the systemic issues. You have to keep in mind that Fannie and Freddie were the #1 source of lobbying donations. Nearly everybody in lobbying works there at one time or another.

Specifically:
In the bailout is a raise of FDIC insurance from $100k to $250k, but it's only temporary, lasting until the end of 2009 and the FDIC is *forbidden* from taking the larger insured amount into consideration to raise FDIC insurance rates. FDIC is already projected to need a $150B bailout this year. Does this sound like prudent fiscal planning?

Congress is going to do some high-profile investigations to hang this all on some scapegoat's necks. Conveniently many of the scapegoats will be guilty. (Henry Waxman is subpoenaing hedge funds with inquiries about naked short selling of financial company stock already.) But the old boy network is counting on that distracting the public and not changing the underlying game. Fannie and Freddie and the corrupting circle of money between them and Congress must be destroyed as they exist today or this will happen again.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I know it stinks but are you all prepared to bring down the American economy and the world with it just for a priniciple? I think Congress had no choice.


The idea that this massive socialization of yet another industry is necessary, or even remotely helpful, is nothing more than propaganda, fear and lies.

Prices rise and prices fall. That's what they do. And in so doing, they transmit vital information about economic reality, unless they are artificially manipulated by government.

The people and businesses that bought these overpriced investments (i.e., mortgage-backed securities and other collateral debt obligations) bought a bad investment. The prices of these investments were grossly inflated. They were grossly inflated because of government manipulation of mortgage credit. When that irrational and unjustified credit stops, the inflated prices are revealed for what they are -- fraudulent.

Barney Frank, his boyfriend Herb Moses, Bill Clinton, ACORN and Franklin Raines were all at the forefront of making mortgage credit easier than ever. This is the result. The obvious, predictable result.

The best result for the economy would be to let the holders of these crappy investments liquidate them on the open market. They will sell for pennies on the dollar. Some businesses would go bankrupt. Others would take their place. The bad investors would be eliminated, and the keen investors would profit. In the end, the true market price for these securities, and mortgages in general, would be found.

This bailout, if you can even call it that, interrupts and stalls this vital, important and helpful process. It therefore makes things worse.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm sorry but I cannot agree with anything you have just said.
> 
> 1) This so called "predatory lending", if it refers to subprime is a misnomer. Predatory lending is payday loans that charge hidden fees. These were mortgages made to people with less than stellar credit at rates higher than would normally be charged. Nothing wrong with that. Banks take a risk with these loans but the people taking the loans are adults and just as culpable. Imagine if banks had denied these people, especially had they been minorities. They would have been sued for racial discrimination!
> 
> ...


1) Most people who go to a bank for a loan go like they are going to a lawer or doctor- they are letting "experts" make decisions for them. Flexible interest rate when they are down means they can go up. Predatory lending is when they know the customer can only make that low interest rate payment and not something higher. Another predatory lending is to loan to -right out of college- kids who know almost nothing about job stablity who go for the most glamous condos after landing there first jobs (no banker in his right mind will give out those kinds of loans). The list of crimes go on and on.

2) Professionals who get caught up in the hype are without excuse, too. They were investing other peoples money foolishly instead being good stewards. As Phinn says markets go up and get over priced and then fall; every professional has been taught that. Just look at stock charts, realestate is the same way. These professionals look more like goones than professionals. And no, they don't deserve what they took in fancy wages, bonuses and gifts.

And your last paragraph should be aimed at the school system for not haveing finance and economy theories taught beginning in 3 or 4 grade. These classes are not required anywhere from k-12 and yet the student will be working for the a huge part of his life for money without understanding money and how it works. This is a failure of the schools system in the USA. Money is the most important subject in school to learn about because you will be spending 8 hours a day 5 days a week for forty years to earn it. Schools are so dumb because they know nothing about it so have no wisdom to be know why it needs to taught above all other subjects.

Anyway, those are some of my opinions.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> 1) Most people who go to a bank for a loan go like they are going to a lawer or doctor- they are letting "experts" make decisions for them. Flexible interest rate when they are down means they can go up. Predatory lending is when they know the customer can only make that low interest rate payment and not something higher. Another predatory lending is to loan to -right out of college- kids who know almost nothing about job stablity who go for the most glamous condos after landing there first jobs (no banker in his right mind will give out those kinds of loans). The list of crimes go on and on.


So people walking into a bank are to check their common sense at the door?


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> WA said:
> 
> 
> > _1) Most people who go to a bank for a loan go like they are going to a lawer or doctor- they are letting "experts" make decisions for them. Flexible interest rate when they are down means they can go up. Predatory lending is when they know the customer can only make that low interest rate payment and not something higher. Another predatory lending is to loan to -right out of college- kids who know almost nothing about job stablity who go for the most glamous condos after landing there first jobs (no banker in his right mind will give out those kinds of loans). The list of crimes go on and on._
> ...


That struck me as well: if you're signing a legal and financial contract, you really do need to understand what you're signing. The entire concept of 'freely entered contract' depends upon it. If we're going to infantilize citizens to the point of not holding them to contract then we have a much bigger problem than just the credit crisis.

However, WA does have a point, the loan originator who knows that the person can make the intro rate for 3,5, or 7 years but will not be able to pay the higher rate when it floats is failing their fiduciary duty and should be held personally liable.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

radix023 said:


> That struck me as well: if you're signing a legal and financial contract, you really do need to understand what you're signing. The entire concept of 'freely entered contract' depends upon it. If we're going to infantilize citizens to the point of not holding them to contract then we have a much bigger problem than just the credit crisis.
> 
> However, WA does have a point, the loan originator who knows that the person can make the intro rate for 3,5, or 7 years but will not be able to pay the higher rate when it floats is failing their fiduciary duty and should be held personally liable.


Is a loan originator a fiduciary?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

_So people walking into a bank are to check their common sense at the door?_

No doubt your right about that. On the other hand I never took my students on a ski hill way more complicated than they could ski and give them a few hints and then, worse, leave them. Not only did some banker hand out loans they knew they shouldn't have they conned people to buy these unsafe loans. So, either side they are not their brothers keeper.

There are lots of conns in the loaning business. Some of the loans today is legalized loan sharking, which an honest man/women won't hand out or sell. No economy ever needs legalized loan sharking. Hopefully most bankers are honest good people, but this debacle, into the billion$, appears to be showing a number of shady bankers. Will they be proscuted? A few. The rest will think crime pays.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> _So people walking into a bank are to check their common sense at the door?_
> 
> No doubt your right about that. On the other hand I never took my students on a ski hill way more complicated than they could ski and give them a few hints and then, worse, leave them. Not only did some banker hand out loans they knew they shouldn't have they conned people to buy these unsafe loans. So, either side they are not their brothers keeper.
> 
> There are lots of conns in the loaning business. Some of the loans today is legalized loan sharking, which an honest man/women won't hand out or sell. No economy ever needs legalized loan sharking. Hopefully most bankers are honest good people, but this debacle, into the billion$, appears to be showing a number of shady bankers. Will they be proscuted? A few. The rest will think crime pays.


I would hope that your students would simply unclip and walk away as would be prudent. As for being their brothers keeper?


----------



## mandatory (Jun 2, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> I
> 1) This so called "predatory lending", if it refers to subprime is a misnomer. Predatory lending is payday loans that charge hidden fees. These were mortgages made to people with less than stellar credit at rates higher than would normally be charged. Nothing wrong with that. Banks take a risk with these loans but the people taking the loans are adults and just as culpable. Imagine if banks had denied these people, especially had they been minorities. They would have been sued for racial discrimination!


Pretty much. Banks were FORCED by the government to loan to people who bad credit (specifically Blacks and Hispanics who seem to have poorer credit (I'm sure because of no fault of their own)).

And nobody complained about these bad loans because everyone was making money as home prices shot through the roof (because everybody could get a loan...)

I do find it odd that every chairman of the Federal Reserve since its inception has been Jewish despite the fact that Jews are 2% of the U.S population but seem to have a disproportional control on our monetary system. Then again, they also have the most powerful lobby (AIPAC) and the tiny first world country of Israel gets the most foreign aid.

_MANDATORY: I don't know much about this subject so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. Is it a fact -- verifyable by any one of us -- that the government made banks extend bad loans to minorities with poor credit? If so, fine, though I'm not sure why you bring race up in the discussion. If not, then please refrain from using this language.

As for the Fed chairmen being Jewish: I am expecting -- on this thread -- a clear and prompt explanation as to what that has to do with anything._


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The above comments are reprehensible.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think pt4u67 and I are at opposite sides of the political spectrum, but I agree 100%.

I call on Mandatory to delete his own post because of the offensive, anti-Semitic content it contains.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I call on Mandatory to delete his own post because of the offensive, anti-Semitic content it contains. "

Pardon me for dropping in on this discussion but this tangent caught my eye. He stated his opinion based on the facts as he understands them. That is not anti-semitic. Anytime someone mentions a jew there is someone else to make some accusation as to motives. If this devolves into the typical internet stereotype conversation we will see Hitler comparisons in short order. Get real folks, there is no reason that jews should get any special preference. If the facts say they were is a certain position at a certain time, then they were. Labels will not change that. On the other hand if the facts stated are false, then provide an accurate update or alternate opinion.
For example, my opinion is that I have not seen the banks "Forced" to make bad loans. They do have a tenancy to raise rates until the risk appears acceptable so they can sell the paper.
See, I did not have to throw around a worthless label to respond to part of the post.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Anti semitic*

Gentlemen

I agree with Country Irish as well. Pardon me for jumping in too, but have been following this. 
He is stating fact/knowledge. I do not see this as anti-semitic nor do I feel this in reading his note. Slowly and clearly.
Again, I believe this man was stating fact. And I do not believe was being harsh in his statement.
Have nice day my friends


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

If you think that throwing around the canard that the Jews control the monetary system is not anti-Semitic then I think your understanding of history is sorely lacking.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Jack*

Jack

I disagree with you Jack. I do not see this mans note suggesting that at all. I just feel he was discussing his opinion and some fact that he understands may be true.
I would hope this day and age Jack. That this has stopped and decreased in this society today.And I think it has.
I truly believe this gentleman, did not mean this, and even suggest that.
Again, I agree with Country Irish statement regarding statement made about Jews, and referencing fact. Is this anti - semitic, I don't think so.

Have a nice day my friend


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Once again we're defending pretty obvious, thinly-veiled racism. Gotta love this place sometimes.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

DukeGrad said:


> Jack
> 
> I disagree with you Jack. I do not see this mans note suggesting that at all. I just feel he was discussing his opinion and some fact that he understands may be true.
> I would hope this day and age Jack. That this has stopped and decreased in this society today.And I think it has.
> ...


In my opinion, Mandatory's offense was not to have identified that each Fed Chairman has been a Jew (although I do not think he is coirrect about the ethnicity of every chairman), but to have perpetuated the stereotype that Jews seem to have a disproportional control on our monetary system.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

DukeGrad said:


> Jack
> 
> I disagree with you Jack. I do not see this mans note suggesting that at all. I just feel he was discussing his opinion and some fact that he understands may be true.
> I would hope this day and age Jack. That this has stopped and decreased in this society today.And I think it has.
> I truly believe this gentleman, did not mean this,


Nonetheless, we must look at what he actually said, not what we wish he had said in determining what he meant.



mandatory said:


> I do find it odd that every chairman of the Federal Reserve since its inception has been Jewish despite the fact that Jews are 2% of the U.S population but seem to have a disproportional control on our monetary system. Then again, they also have the most powerful lobby (AIPAC) and the tiny first world country of Israel gets the most foreign aid.


I think that Mandatory's intention in repeating this stereotype is clear. If not, perhaps Mandatory can explain why he put it befor this list.



DukeGrad said:


> and even suggest that.
> Again, I agree with Country Irish statement regarding statement made about Jews, and referencing fact. Is this anti - semitic, I don't think so.
> 
> Have a nice day my friend


I have had a fine day, thank you very much.

Buzz


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Jimmy, I know you're a person of good will, but I think you're missing the boat on this one.

Here are some examples of sites where this is being repeated:

_Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913, EVERY SINGLE CHAIRMAN of the Fed, without exception, has been Jewish. That tradition has continued in the appointment by President Dubya of Ben Shalom Bernanke (Yes, that's his real middle name) as successor to Alan Greenspan.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Federal Reserve in maintaining the Judaic control not only of our American economy and politics, but the economy and statecraft of the entire world._
https://www.whitecivilrights.com/new-federal-reserve-chairman-yet-another-jew_254.html

_Federal Reserve: A Private Jew Bank Strangling America! _
https://www.realjewnews.com/?p=177

https://www.nogw.com/download2/^8_fed_control.pdf

_What if all five members of the Federal Reserve Board were Moslems, and not Jews?
A hypothetical question, for sure. A question straight out of fantasy land, since in the United States of Israel, only Jews are allowed to control America's money.

Of course, it's just a "coincidence" that ALL five members of the Federal Reserve Board are Jewish. Yep, just one of those things that happens all the time._

https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/ec...deral-reserve-board-governors-all-5-jews.html

_THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 2 July 1921 
The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem by Henry Ford
Jewish Idea of Central Bank for America
According to his own statements and the facts, Paul M. Warburg set out to reform the monetary system of the United States, and did so. He had the success which comes to few men, of coming an alien to the United States, connecting himself with the principal Jewish financial firm here, and immediately floating certain banking ideas which have been pushed and manipulated and variously adapted until they eventuated in what is known as the Federal Reserve System.

When Professor Seligman wrote in the Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science that "the Federal Reserve Act will be associated in history with the name of Paul M. Warburg," a Jewish banker from Germany, he wrote the truth. But whether that association will be such as to bring the measure of renown which Professor Seligman implies, the future will reveal.
_

_Jew Facts
monitoring human parasites

Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is a Jew Ben Shalom Bernanke is a Jewish-American economist and current Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve. He was previously Chairman of the U.S. President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), and member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. On October 24, 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Bernanke to succeed Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. SOURCE

United States Attorney General is a Jew -- Michael Bernard Mukasey is an American lawyer, presently the 81st Attorney General of the United States, and follows Alberto Gonzales, who resigned from office. Mukasey also served for 18 years as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, six of those years as Chief Judge. He has received several awards, most notably the Learned Hand Medal of the Federal Bar Council. Mukasey is the second Jewish U.S. Attorney General. -- SOURCE

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security is a Jew -- Michael Chertoff has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals, as a federal prosecutor, and as assistant U.S. Attorney General. Chertoff was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, the son of Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff, the former leader of the B'nai Israel Congregation in Elizabeth, and El Al flight attendant Livia Chertoff (née Eisen). His paternal grandfather, Rabbi Paul Chertoff, emigrated from Russia. His grandfather was a noted Talmudic scholar. -- SOURCE _

https://jewfacts.info/

I could go on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that a preoccupation with the supposedly excessive power over society, particularly the financial sector, is one of the paramount earmarks of anti-Semitism.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Comment*

Gentlemen,

Jack, maybe I am missing something something here. I apologize for that. Again, it does not "read" that way to me.
It would be best to have him explain.
Again, apologize to all of you, not reading that, and maybe I am wrong.

Jack, thanks for all the information regarding this. After 25 years in the military, I do understand this. And I live and breath it.
Again gentlemen, I AM SORRY

I am hoping he explains.

Nice day my friends


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> Jack, maybe I am missing something something here. I apologize for that. Again, it does not "read" that way to me.
> It would be best to have him explain.
> ...


Well, Mandatory did state, _"I do find it odd that every chairman of the Federal Reserve since its inception has been Jewish despite the fact that Jews are 2% of the U.S population..."_ I believe that William McChesney Martin, who served as Chairman from 1951 to 1970, would have been surprised to learn he was a Jew. Perhaps I am wrong and Martin was a Jew, but I would like to see Mandatory's evidence of Martin's ethnicity.

I would prefer to hear Mandatory explain his intentions rather than have others explain on his behalf.

Have a _really_ nice day!

Buzz


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> I agree with Country Irish as well. Pardon me for jumping in too, but have been following this.
> * He is stating fact/knowledge*. I do not see this as anti-semitic nor do I feel this in reading his note. Slowly and clearly.
> ...


To what end? Just a mere recitation of facts?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I could go on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that a preoccupation with the supposedly excessive power over society, particularly the financial sector, is one of the paramount earmarks of anti-Semitism.


Anti-semites have gotten much more sophisticated with their rhetoric over the years. Long gone are the days of the Blood Libel. Now they refer to the Israeli lobby.

Anyway you cut it, its anti-semitism.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

ATTENTION ALL: Please notice the addendum I made to Mandatory's post above. I'm posting this as well to draw attention to my change. I'll be checking back early tomorrow. And let's try to keep this in hand.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

> _MANDATORY: I don't know much about this subject so you'll have to excuse my ignorance. Is it a fact -- verifyable by any one of us -- that the government made banks extend bad loans to minorities with poor credit? If so, fine, though I'm not sure why you bring race up in the discussion. If not, then please refrain from using this language._


Yes, of course it's true.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

I believe that what Teacher is saying is that, no matter if you might think it is true, you must prove it true with some sort of evidence beyond "gut feeling". I, too, am eagerly awaiting the response to Teacher's request.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

If you're looking for a smoking gun, "thou shalt make bad loans to minorities," you probably won't find it. The government doesn't roll that way (anymore). Makes lots more jobs for lawyers.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The first hit on a google search:

https://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0



> In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

mandatory said:


> I do find it odd that every chairman of the Federal Reserve since its inception has been Jewish despite the fact that Jews are 2% of the U.S population but seem to have a disproportional control on our monetary system. Then again, they also have the most powerful lobby (AIPAC) and the tiny first world country of Israel gets the most foreign aid.


It's not only odd...it's wrong. Here is a list of the Federal Reserve chairmen since inception. I believe you will find that they reflect a range of religions...though the relevance of their religious heritages escapes me:

Charles S. Hamlin Aug. 10, 1914-Aug. 9, 1916 
W.P.G. Harding Aug. 10, 1916-Aug. 9, 1922 
Daniel R. Crissinger May 1, 1923-Sept. 15, 1927 
Roy A. Young Oct. 4, 1927-Aug. 31, 1930 
Eugene Meyer Sept. 16, 1930-May 10, 1933 
Eugene R. Black May 19, 1933-Aug. 15, 1934 
Marriner S. Eccles Nov. 15, 1934-Jan. 31, 19481 
Thomas B. McCabe Apr. 15, 1948-Mar. 31, 1951 
Wm. McC. Martin, Jr Apr. 2, 1951-Jan. 31, 1970 
Arthur F. Burns Feb. 1, 1970-Jan. 31, 1978 
G. William Miller Mar. 8, 1978-Aug. 6, 1979 
Paul A. Volcker Aug. 6, 1979-Aug. 11, 1987 
Alan Greenspan Aug. 11, 1987-Jan. 31, 20062 
Ben S. Bernanke Feb. 1, 2006-


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Pretty sure more than four of those are/were Jewish. But not all, obviously.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

If the claim is demonstrably false, and it seems it is, than the poster has something for which to answer.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

What, is there a rule against posting false, inflammatory statements--why not just ban everybody and close this section?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Turkey, why don't you calm down for a change. The post is clearly thinly veiled Anti-semitism. It's also demonstrably untrue. If the poster can prove that his comments are correct, he should. If the wants to explain how the comment was not intended to imply some sort of Jewish conspiracy controlling the money supply, he should.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I will also say, for the record, that you will find few people who are more opposed to the Fed than me. Not because I think it is some sort of secret cabal- Jewish or otherwise- but because I think it is a horribly flawed institution and its policies are largely responsible for the economic problems we are having right now.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Though I'm no fan of political correctness, I especially find the implication here that the truth can be a defense amusing.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Wow, it seems we have a little tiff still going on. I will try for quickie comments but hopefully everyone will recall that this is the Interchange and on this subforum I have seen everything from stark and dramatic wisdom to the most absurd foolishness one could imagine. Don't take anything on the Interchange too seriously. There are specialty boards out there for serious high blood pressure encounters.

On the matter of minority lending PT has posted an interesting revelation which seems to support Mandatory and nullifies my assumption. It seems that affirmative action comes in a monetary form. I stand corrected and have been educated. 

I have no idea what group the various Fed Chairmen claim affiliation with and posting their names is not really a help in discovering the details of their affiliations. It also doesn't matter because regardless of their other designations they were Fed Chairmen and as such must be regarded as screwups.

As for the anti-semitism aspect. Who cares? First "Semite" is not the same as being a jew. It is a misnomer since this is a regional designation which supposedly refers to those migrating from the Fertile Crescent area. No one really knows that for sure and there are other theories. Jews are Semites as much by happenstance as by any possible direct heritage . Your average Turk or Lebanese is more likely to be a Semite than any other group in the world if the Fertile Crescent migrations are even close to being accurate. Thus using the term anti-semitic is just label slinging. No substance there.

It might also be noted that jews are not a race. Did you know that at one time the Dutch were thought of as a different race than the British. I can not recall a citation on that but have come across the claim several times over the years in very old accounts of history. Thus the claim of race is no more valid than the claim of racial slur UNLESS your are European, Native American (presuming North and South Americans have the same source), African, or Asian and are speaking of one of the others of this short list.
If you need to find some point to differentiate, then try the national angle. 
The bottom line is that it does not really matter if one attaches labels one way or the other. You might as well be saying one has Kooties (sp?). They are meaningless labels designed to intimidate. 

Finally before anyone labels me antisemitic for pointing out my understanding of things, I must say I really like the Lebanese. Maybe that makes me a Semiphile. If that is so, is it supposed to be good or bad? ;-)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Country Irish said:


> As for the anti-semitism aspect. Who cares? First "Semite" is not the same as being a jew. . . . Thus using the term anti-semitic is just label slinging. No substance there.
> 
> It might also be noted that jews are not a race. They are meaningless labels designed to intimidate.
> 
> Finally before anyone labels me antisemitic for pointing out my understanding of things, I must say I really like the Lebanese. Maybe that makes me a Semiphile. If that is so, is it supposed to be good or bad? ;-)


Do you expect us to believe that you don't know this is pure sophistry?

If you don't like the term "anti-semitism" to refer to prejudice against and hatred of Jews, make up your own term. Now tell me that you don't think there is anything wrong with it.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Have to agree with Jack on this one. You can play semantics on this one as much as you want, but regardless of the origin of the term semite, when people discuss anti-Semitism they mean prejudice against people who are religiously or ethnically Jewish.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> Wow, it seems we have a little tiff still going on. I will try for quickie comments but hopefully everyone will recall that this is the Interchange and on this subforum I have seen everything from stark and dramatic wisdom to the most absurd foolishness one could imagine. Don't take anything on the Interchange too seriously. There are specialty boards out there for serious high blood pressure encounters.
> 
> On the matter of minority lending PT has posted an interesting revelation which seems to support Mandatory and nullifies my assumption. It seems that affirmative action comes in a monetary form. I stand corrected and have been educated.
> 
> ...


Oh, yes, the old, "I'm not an anti-Semite, I love Arabs," defense. This is a very sad post, indeed.

Buzz


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Country Irish said:


> Wow, it seems we have a little tiff still going on. I will try for quickie comments but hopefully everyone will recall that this is the Interchange and on this subforum I have seen everything from stark and dramatic wisdom to the most absurd foolishness one could imagine. Don't take anything on the Interchange too seriously. There are specialty boards out there for serious high blood pressure encounters.
> 
> On the matter of minority lending PT has posted an interesting revelation which seems to support Mandatory and nullifies my assumption. It seems that affirmative action comes in a monetary form. I stand corrected and have been educated.
> 
> ...


The fact that lending to minorities went up was not germane to the conversation; nor is the (untruthful) assertion about the Fed chairmen.

ADDENDUM: I just reread the post and see that minorities had in fact been brought up before. However, the request about the Fed chairmen stands.

TO EVERYBODY: Anybody on this board who isn't smart enough to figure this out shouldn't even be able to post online. If I don't get a satisfactory explanation from mandatory soon, he's gone. I'm fricking sick of people getting away with very thinly veiled racism, anti-Semitism, etc. In the future, I'm not even going to give warnings in most cases.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

This was an interesting discussion of the bailout (I still don't know what to think - - ) until Post X.

I agree with Teacher, Jack, and PTU. While the original post taken LITERALLY is not offensive, the implied connotation is obvious. Nasty post.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Teacher said:


> I'm fricking sick of people getting away with very thinly veiled racism, anti-Semitism, etc. In the future, I'm not even going to give warnings in most cases.


+1, and THANK YOU.


----------

