Cool News
W. looks fantastic!
Harry here... I'm curious as hell to watch this movie, at many levels it seems like Stone is having a shitload of fun with the material... And he needs to have fun after the run of very serious subject matters - and this film just can't get here soon enough for my tastes! I just wonder who he got to play McCain.
Click on W. to See Exactly what Oliver Stone has been up to!
-
+ Expand All
-
Do your duty for the good of the country and vote out 8 years of garbage. A vote for McCain is a vote for W. Fuck Bush. Fuck McCain. Movie looks great.
-
glad when he is out of office
-
period
-
Hilarious. Can't wait to see the pretzel scene. Looks like Oliver Stone filmed it like a melodramatic death sequence hahahaha! Who will play McCain? Why there's only one man that can Play McCain...McCain himself of course. It'll be just like JCVD!
-
Now if only it wasn't based on the multiple, disastrous actions of criminal administration that we can no longer prevent or do anything about, then I might be able to find it entertaining.
If this ignorant country votes McCain into power we deserve to fall apart. -
lending institutions giving out loans to people who couldn't afford them + falling housing prices + government policy dating back to 1977 to push lenders to give these loans + Dems blocking Fannie/Freddie oversight reform in 03 and 05 :)
-
Oh that's right- THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER is a The Green Hornet starring Seth Rogan. My bad.
-
I had my doubts, brother, but this looks like it's gonna be some mighty fine film making. Now, if only they had got Darrell Hammond to do his Clinton...
-
Just countering the liberal bullshit am getting sick of seeing here..
-
Are you fucking kidding? Just how much worse do you think things can get in this country? Bush and his administration had 8 years, during which they categorically fucked up in just about every way possible. How in the world is the U.S. a better place now than it was 8 years ago? Christ on a fucking crutch, how brain-dead do you have to be to still "believe" in this chimpanzee? And Woj, you're wrong about the economy: the primary factor in it's fucking has been the deregulation of lending and trading institutions. It's not that prices have fallen in housing and stocks-- it's that prices were always inflated, never realistic and this creates a Bear market for a limited time that cannot sustain itself. Five fucking years ago a ton of economists, including a bunch of Nobel winners, drafted a petition warning that Bush's economic strategies would severely fuck the country in... five years. Lehman brothers executives were giving themselves bonuses of 10 million dollars a month. Jackass.
-
Was Bush's brain transplanted into McCain? Are they both cyborgs with the same prime directives programmed into their cerebral cortex? This blanket statement made over and over is just silly.
The Republican party as a whole has a certain ideology. If you are a member of that political party, you generally tend to lean towards those ideologies and will tend to support policies that support them. So, SURPRISE! A Republican McCain might just actually share views of Republican Bush. I could go and say that 4 years of Obama is just like 4 years of Carter based on the analogy. Not pretty, is it?
If you disagree with Bush and McCain, just say voting for McCain is voting for more Republican ideology. It now becomes a valid critique of McCain. Because, really, McCain is NOT Bush. He's been in politics longer than Bush, he's been more respected than Bush, and I guaranfuckingtee you that even if he carries similar views as Bush, they are GENERALLY in regards to the desired results of a political ideology, and probably not on the method of achieving that ideology. For Example: General Petraeus. McCain wanted to use him to achieve closure in Iraq; Bush, initially, did not. Sorry it's a lame example, but I'm not going to hunt down details at 9AM.
I really despise Bush. I really do. And McCain is by no means the greatest political mastermind of all time. But I respect the man a whole lot more than Bush, and I find it distasteful to forever label him as nothing more than a Bush clone. -
if this movie truly is as tongue-in-cheek as I'm sensing it to be, I'll definately check it out. I think it may be an interesting change of style for Stone.
-
This Country was bought and sold a long time ago. You mean nothing to these people. Your money is why they do what they do. When will you come to terms with that. When????
-
Every Election and they carry through with less than 10% of it at best.
-
But it gives everybody something to talk/bicker about every 4 years!
-
Sep 27, 2008 8:33:46 AM CDT
Last Election's Issues Gays, Terrorist, Abortion
by dracula_wants_the_amulet
And Stem Cells. Really. Did McCain support the Buy more Shit or Terrorist Win Plan, Did he also like the Tape and plastic wrap idea incase we were attacked. This Country is Fucked. It's ideals are fucked. Right now Theres a bail out plan that could place more than 200 thousand dollars in every adults hand in this country. We are Fucked!
-
Sep 27, 2008 8:36:44 AM CDT
Frankly, this trailer makes Bush look like an insane lunatic.
by blackmantis
I'm not saying the characterization is incorrect, but it doesn't seem like the "balanced" portrayal Stone is making it out to be.
-
Trailer looks really great. Seems better then anything Stone did in past 10, maybe even 15 years.
As to who should play McCain, it's obvious that Harry doesn't watch BSG. -
if Stone had an ounce of credibility left.
Hey kinda like Harry and this site. -
or as i like to call it, the war monger hour. i watched like the first hour, then switched over to Joel Mchale's The Soup, because i so needed to wash the past hour out of my head. one guy being a war monger on Iraq, another guy being a war wonger on Afganistan. I couldn't stand it. This country is financially circling the drain and these bozos still want to waste trillions of dollars on war. So my choice of who to vote for come November is clear, either Nader, Green Party or Libertarian. Will it be a wasted vote? Probably. Will I be able to sleep at night? Affirmative!
-
But I liked the original "Talking Heads" spot better. It was just perfect. Stick with the original.
Poppy-throws-haymakers bit is overplayed in this extended trailer. And the pacing and beats are not as good they were in the original cut, IMO. -
Just announced ..
-
from the old trailer for Varsity Blues, where Dawson yells at his dad "I don't want your life!" i hope W. says that at least once in this movie.
-
Newman, Heston, et al. This is a TERRIBLE year for film--especially for the giants.
-
Ehh, I got nothin'
-
I'm watching Butch Cassidy right now...holy fucking shit, and I had no idea...just was flicking around on cable. RIP to a legend.
-
out there. This thing looks ridiculous. Over the top and cartoonish, maybe that's why most of the talkbackers here are into it - because it's like anime on steroids. In other news RIP Paul Newman - now there's a legend and a talent.
-
Nothing he does can be considered serious. Vote NObama 2008. RIP Paul Newman.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tqQz28NR_c
That version is perfect! Don't fuck with a great thing, Lionsgate!That's the one you should be using in theaters.
The music in the extended version is too dominant and again, the pacing isn't as good. Imo. Great ending montage, though. -
We need this movie now. It will win the election. Everyone that watches this movie will know it for truth. We then can go grab all republicans and burn them. We will laugh at their agony and suffering. Then we can go eat their children. They aren't really people after all.
-
... we are fucked. Either we get a black guy who thinks the world owes lazy people everything or we get an old white guy who can't talk unless he is hooked to his secret robot machine.
When it comes to Bush, he didn't do these things to be evil, he did them because he was and still is the biggest idiot the world has ever seen. I can't believe Cheney and company let him get away with everything. -
That's what Patton told me.
-
W. does not look interesting at all. It looks like a big yawn. I can't stand GW Bush, and even I think Stone's movie is going to be wretched. Not to bring an economic discussion onto a movie forum, but I just wanted to respond to The Only Woj; EVERYONE is complicit in our economic situation. From government legislation and policy, i.e. "the ownership society" (which funnily enough was lifted entirely from Margaret Thatcher's same policy in Great Britain) to Alan Greenspan at the Fed keeping interest rates low for waaaay too long, to lax lending practices of banks, to people foolishly getting in over their heads with debt at the Main Street homeowner level, to investment banks trying to be too clever by half by packaging debt into opaque and complex financial instruments, chopping them up and selling them around the globe with questionable AAA ratings from Moody's and S&P. Everyone stood in line at the trough, and we're now suffering the hangover.
-
Sep 27, 2008 10:38:14 AM CDT
Did anyone see the trailer for this in front of Burn After Readi
by danyaromulus
With Amazing Grace in it? It was really intense. Now I can't find it on the Internet anywhere. Anyone?
-
that this country only contains about 30% radical, rightwing shitheads. Reading these AICN political talkbacks here lately you'd think that percentage was more like 80%. Of course, much of that's due to the same fuckwits posting and reposting their uninformed pseudo-political tripe over and over again.That stated, will anyone actually watch W? After the last eight years I'm pretty much ready to purge W and his cohorts from my consciousness for a good long while.
-
that looks so crazy, like some after school special. I'm gonna laugh my ass off
-
I'm there!
-
Sep 27, 2008 11:21:08 AM CDT
If you care about our veterans and this country of ours...
by fassbinder79
...Don't vote for John McCain.
McCain voted against our troops MANY times in the senate.
John McCain voted AGAINST 20 million dollars for veteran care facilities.
John McCain voted AGAINST $322 million for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq.
John McCain voted AGAINST $1 billion dollars in new equipment for the National Guard.
John McCain voted AGAINST Jim Webb's G.I. Bill.
John McCain voted AGAINST $430 million for veterans outpatient care.
Barack voted FOR all of these troop support initiatives.
They deserve better than McCain.
We deserve better than McCain.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT -
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
-
Same link, better results (I hope) http://tinyurl.com/3l2uz
-
love the use of the Talking Heads song too
-
I don't even know what to say to you, man. Does the concept of population density figure nowhere in your thinking at all?
-
It's fucking really great. It's strangely haunting. Don't know why Lionsgate hasn't released it online yet.
-
I don't know what to think about this country anymore except that Americans are idiots. Demeocrats are a bunch of hippies with degrees students trying to get one. They actually think Obama will change things even though he has consistently voted on que with his party 90% of the time. They also blame republicans for the current crisis when it was demeocrats and republicans who voted for the war and legislation to help the poor-with very bad credit mind you-get home and auto loans. No need to speak about Republicans because they voted and kept an idiot in office for 8 years. If i had to choose between the to horrible choices I think I might go with McCain, but thank god I don't have to vote for either of them because there are other people running. But ssshhh. don't tell anybody that they don't have to vote for the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right.
-
Pure liberal garbage from the get-go and Harry likes it to the cheers of AICN lefties ? This shocks me more than Gotham-entangled John Stewart saying he doesn't know anyone like Sarah Palin.
Shocked. -
I was lukewarm on this movie, but damn this trailer actually makes me want to see the movie now.
-
A Republican too embarrassed to admit he voted for Bush twice.
They'll also use the phrase "now I'm no fan Bush, but..." -
but with a way better cast, production values, 2 more hrs, and, you know, actually funny.
-
like he did with JFK, filled with all the production's research notes? Though I'm pretty sure it would just be a bunch of photos of Bush with mustaches and dicks scribbled over them.
-
i thought this looked like absolute shite up until i saw this new trailer. now i'm actually super stoked to see it. wow. this could be really, really good.
-
Looks like fun
-
W is almost out of office. He's a lame duck. Nice timing there, Oliver.
-
With or without quicktime. Stone has got that Bush is Strauss' Gentleman with Cheney et al as the "wise men". Last shot of Brolin screaming caused me to feel more sympathy for Bush than I have since his 7 minutes in that nursery school on 9/11. Bravo Mr. Stone.
-
Hate Bush. McCain blinks and fidgets and cough/laughs so much I think his brain is on the fritz.
-
The question that W. answers at the beginning about history was asked to him by Bob Woodward, the same reporter involved with the Watergate scandal exposure, not some hot Asian woman.
-
Wow, I'm surprised. Interesting use of the Talking Heads; Stone used them in WALL STREET, too. It will be interesting to see the reaction to this upon release.Oh, and Banks is the hotness.
-
AICN will give this film a resoundingly positive review, as will most liberal critics, but not for anything but the subject matter.
-
Sep 27, 2008 2:09:27 PM CDT
Present political climate aside, that trailer makes W. look...
by julius dithers
sympathetic. I thought this movie was supposed to be a screed against Bush? Stone made you feel sorry for Nixon at the end of that movie. Perhaps instead of using likable actors such as Anthony Hopkins and Josh Brolin, Stone should have casted Kevin Federline as W.
-
Doesn't all this whining start to get old for you Republicans? You know that you have been in control for 8 years, right? Get over your fucking selves. When news first broke of this movie I admit that I was critical and didn't see the point of it or who the audience was. But after several trailers I have to say that this looks fucking amazing. If you feel that you are too conservative to appreciate a little satire, than you are in desperate need of an operation to remove that stick from your asshole.
-
lookin more like a real life horroralistic documentationarialism there.
-
Sep 27, 2008 2:23:59 PM CDT
The Talking Heads song is the soundtrack to Bush Jr's life
by deadelephant
My biggest fear about this movie is that Stone will frame W as an idiot who was forced into a position that was way over his head. By the end of this movie we will leave the theater feeling sympathy for the sociopath. I guess kinda like the child molester in the end of Happiness. But on a serious note W, and his gang all belong in a cell where they can rot together. I hope when Obama wins (get used to it) they don't let any of these war criminals off the hook. This administration has destroyed this country from its very core. My Friends, Rome is burning, & if McSame / Polar Bear Palin win, they will keep squirting kerosine on the fire.
-
Oh wait, I'm sorry, it looks like a fucking Warner Bros cartoon. Instantaneous bomb, I guarantee. Do you think we'd still remember All The President's Men if the Nixon administration was portrayed by the cast of Laugh In? That's what we have here: a piss-poor attempt at satire that can't dig itself out of propaganda. There's no filmmaking here, no story, nothing being -said-, just 'wow we hate this guy and he sucks and everyone around him sucks'.
-
Sorry, guys, I couldn't resist.
-
Sep 27, 2008 2:41:25 PM CDT
Am I gonna be visited by the Secret Service for that joke?
by julius dithers
Shit.
-
Nice baseless judgment. You haven't seen the movie, so how the fuck would you know?
-
Lunch We Can Believe In.
-
It's like every liberal blogger's fantasy version of what happened in the White House. And what's with the Home Alone scream at the end of the trailer? Just. Plain. Cheesy.
The best thing about this was the Talking Heads track; if it wasn't for that it would have looked even more motrarded than it did.
And will it be necessary to post every new W. trailer version on this site, regardless of how small the change? I suspect it will. Fuck I can't wait for the election to be over so we can get back to discussions of movies (real ones) here. -
Harry, you and the other psychotic Bush-haters are batshit insane. No, really, you guys are losing it mentally. Please try to find a more diverse social community.
-
I am not standing up for Bush. Theres a long list of things that he could and should have done differently.
But to blame him alone for the economy is
weak. There are many facets to blame. One of the biggest, is the piece of legislation Clinton signed, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
Sometimes bad choices take time to unfold. Maybe his intentions were good, but it snowballed into the wall street mess we have now.
So while you hippies are complaining about Bush, remember to bash the Great Clinton too. -
Really? Like Farenheit 9-11 did, right?
They can influence policy at times. Take China Syndrome: a movie that created so much fear about nuclear power plants that the US ignored, to their detriment, that source of energy. Or Bambi- which sparked anti-gun sentiment. Or even the facical An Inconvienient Truth, which despite it's completely one-sided argument, has influenced the energy policy discussion.
I don't think people take movies into account in the voting booth, though. Especially such a transparently left-wing smear such as W. -
Do you all really define yourselves primarily by the party that you vote for? "Left-wing smear," "liberal bullshit," "psychotic Bush-haters are batshit insane." Get a fucking life.
-
Christ even the Republicans have all but disowned the master of disaster.
I wonder if it will be as good as the orsum and pant wettingly hilarious looking FOX News meets the Spartans - An American (CHRISTMAS! O'Reilly) Carol. -
Sep 27, 2008 3:31:36 PM CDT
Looks Funny and Sarcastic. why all the Clinton H8 by the Right?
by eoneon
Clinton left office w a surplus,Bush has us in a war we can't afford,costing our deficit into the trillions. Clinton signed the Family Medical Leave Act which protects your job. I'm an independant w,left leaning views and will probably vote for Bob Barr. did anyone see that during the debate McCain would not look in the eyes of Obama? does he have something to hide? Oh,and btw McCain was like 790 out of 796 in his graduating class. Obama was magna cum laud. i live in AZ but will definitely not vote for McCain who wants a 100 yr war and tax cuts for the richest Americans. all our jobs are going overseas so the CEOs can put more money in their pocket. scary times indeed. McCain hardly showed up to vote,he was too busy spending time in one of his many houses. sorry,i'm not the ranting type. peace be to all who seek it. namaste
-
While McCain runs on lies, greed, and corruption. And of course, the fact that he's old and white. No, this isnt liberal bullshit. It's truth. I am a good American, I believe this nation can be great. And I believe Barack Obama wants America to attain that greatness, while McCain truly has the interests of Big Business in his agenda. PLEASE VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA.
-
STFU Repubs! You have you're own propaganda movie to jerk off to.
At least Stone had the sense enough not to put Keith Olberman in his film.
-
your
-
I basically hate Bush, but the more I think about it/him, he's not the kind of guy you can really HATE. He is a simpleton, a good ol' boy, who let the likes of Rove, Cheney, and the PNAC, stick their fingers up his ass and control him, leading him to make the decisions I see as evil. Did anyone see him stop by the NBC Sports desk to yuk it up w/ Bob Costas during the Olympics? He was loving life, kicking back, no pressure, jocular, likable, thats Bush. So, for Stone to treat this as Nixon, or some sort of chamber drama, would not fit. While the war/torture/economy/patriot act/justice dept. firings/botched intel, etc. are obviously a tragic legacy, they are left behind by some likable shmuck, who Stone seems to 'get', and portray accordingly. I think its been said before, but that one moment in the trailer, while David Byrne sings, "How did I get here?" And Bush shrugs.. thats him! That really sums it all up.
Also- for all you Repug idiots, I want to let you know, its ok to turn on McCain now. George Will and a number of INTELLIGENT conservatives already have. So, if your looking for a way to retreat, and do so with honor, as you all like to say, then nows the time. Dont you guys see a bit of the Gipper in Obama anyway? -
I'd love to see that girl is some longer dark red hair. Is that the same chick that was in "slither"?
The car wreck scene in the trailer looks well done. Wonder if Stone can treat us next with film that features Sponge Ted Square Liver Kennedy car trip into the water, and how it cost a young woman her life....get on it Stoner! -
Starring Will Smith as Barack Obama, Kerry Washington as Michelle Obama, Ronny Cox as Biden, Michael Hogan as McCain, Tina Fey as Palin, Kathy Bates as Hillary and Bill Cosby as Reverend Wright.
-
Regardless of how the film turns out, this trailer pretty much hits you right between the eyes. Amazing. This is my most anticipated film of the fall as of right now.
-
Time to un-fuck it. Vote Obama. Oh, W. Looks to be a good movie.
-
Sep 27, 2008 6:55:57 PM CDT
Poor Stone. I bet he thought he featured the worst of the Bush y
by g100
But as is crystal clear to all but the most deluded Loyal Bushie now, there is NOTHING Bush can't fuck up and fuck up in a more spectacular fashion than almost anyone else.
A pity Stone can't also add Tina Fey in a postscript scene as Palin out Banning Books and Hunting Witches with Preacher Muthee as the Economy collapses around Bush's ears. Perhaps a DVD Extra Mr Stone ? -
Sep 27, 2008 8:49:30 PM CDT
"he needs to have fun after the run of very serious subject matt
by amy chasing
Trust Oliver Stone to choose this subject matter to have fun with.
-
What a trailer! Beautifully edited. Of course the film may or may not be brilliant but regardless this looks like the most exciting thing Stone has done in a long, long time. Volatile material, an angry Stone at the helm: I'll be there front and center on opening day.
-
And like all Ollie Stone movies, it's based on nothing but his wild-eyed fantasies.
And for the fucking idiot contingent here, including Harry, if Obama is elected, it will be the worst thing to happen to this country since Woodrow fucking Wilson. -
I wanted to see the Baz Luhrmann "W." movie.
-
We should join forces and lie on a giant plate.
-
Forget that I want to see David Lynchs' version. Or maybe David Cronenbergs'.
-
If anyone actually researches his record and point of view, rather than being dumbfounded and awe struck by his charismatic speeches about "hope" and "change", but in reality contain no substance what so ever. If this may gets elected the United States as we know it will end. Individual freedoms will end. The American economy will collapse under the burden of ever more useless entitlements that the Liberals are so fond of creating. I am sure that JFK is turning over in his grave with the American public fawning over this unqualified Marxist being the Democratic candidate for President. The Naiveté and ignorance of the American population never ceases to amaze me.
-
end of story.
-
They recognize that the end of Bush is the end of their repugnant, idiotic ideology. Six years of total fucking control, and you piss it all down the drain. You wont be missed.
-
Probably. I'm sure he'll weep waves of Liberal tears and flood out the theater...
-
No he won't. Clinton was up by 20 points and only won by 5 in 1992. Kerry was up by 12 and look how that went. Even this year in PA, Obama was polling 12 points higher than what he got when Hillary beat him.Right now, O is up by 5-6 points in most polls. (still tied in some others) If he isn't up by at least 10 points in all the states that he needs to carry, he'll lose. Not to mention the Bradley effect.
-
With Reagan it was all about the message not the man. He was able to articulate a post-Great Society message that was perfect for that time. With Obama it seems like there is no message other than Change and the creepy thrill of electing the universe's first chocolate President who will wash away all our sins.
-
This is the biopic GWB has earned.
-
want proof? Why haven't the CEOs of all these businesses under arrest? Why aren't there daily hearings concerning who is responsible for this? Why are the dems quick to offer a bail-out? Why? coz all the heads of the bailed out firms were heavy contributors to democrats. Biden and Obama got MILLIONS from Fanny and Freddie.
If any republican were the cause, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would be demanding murder. I know the truth hurts, but hey, Dems demanded poor whites, blacks, and illegal immigrants get homes they never could afford.
Luckily, we get a chance to amend this by electing McCain and Palin, two people KNOWN for taking on corruption. -
Then lets look at McCain's staffers. Since you KNOW he takes on corruption.
One of them was Fannie Mae's head of lobbying, and spread tens of millions of dollars around Washington in the form of lobbying contracts. A number of McCain staffers were on the receiving end of those contracts, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the lenders to rep their interests. And McCain's campaign manager served as president of a lobbying association that fought to protect Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the sort of regulation that McCain is now proposing.
Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.
And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.
For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."
Yes, the truth IS a bitch isn't it ? -
if nothing more than witnessing the sweet satisfaction of pissing off Hollywood know it alls who hate McCain/Palin but are oblivious to thier own goldenboys skeletons lurking in the Obama/Biden walk-in closet.
I think both partys are using us to play with our money. Whoever vehemently sides with one of these jokers is a fool. I'm writing myself in... -
Wasn't it Clinton and the liberal left politicians who demanded that we relax laws on the “type” of people banks would loan too thus creating some of the crazy loans for suckers to eventually default on? The financial crisis America is now in is because of the demand of an equality utopia in all facets of life (in this case material items) that liberals have pushed since Reagan. Almost all of these institutions going under have contributed to Obama’s campaign, so again- why isn’t our democrat controlled congress asking for the heads of CEOs? Perhaps it’s because they are in the pocket of Barack Hussein Obama. And what does Barack want to do- socialize everything. Sounds like a perfect storm for Socialism. But wait- isn’t socialism good? It worked for Russia...
"Those who want to go directly to hell, they can follow capitalism. And those of us who want to build heaven here on earth, we will follow socialism" - Hugo Chavez
Ah yes- liberalism rules! -
But they DO belong together.
-
G100, get a clue. Are you seriously opening the door about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac relationships and their ties to McCain? And then trying to lay blame and charges on him?Because if you want to open that door, you'd better be prepared to look down at Obama's SHIT COVERED SHOES and his SHIT EATING GRIN and recognize the fucking foul lobbyist stench that empty suit Odumba carries around with him on a daily basis...
-
Wow, that was a fucking hoot! BTW - If McCain wins, we're fucked.
-
They both voted for the Patriot Act. Both want to stir up conflicts with other countries. Both support welfare for the rich with this unconstitional 700 billion dollar bailout (which BTW further devalues the US dollar.) Vote third party.
-
...doesn't know one fuck about Marxism or the history of Marxism or, shit, anything at all. Calling Obama (a Centrist) a "Marxist" automatically labels you as either a fucking Right-Wing ideologue nitwit or some Libertarian Ayn Rand used-douche guzzler.
-
Socialism would be Socialising losses and Privatising profits like.... Nope, can't think of an example of rampant socialism involving hundreds of Billions of Dollars bailing out private firms lately, can you ?
Give ME a fucking break. Have you been asleep for the past month ?
And the horseshit about the CRA that the right wing bloggers are trying to peddle and pathetically blame for the Economic Cataclysm infecting the whole Economy ? 100% complete Bullshit.
Half of all subprime loans were made by institutions that are not subject to "Political pressure" like the CRA. And another substantial share of subprime loans were made by subsidiaries of banks that do not fully come under CRA. The number of riskier loans banks were forced to accept by CRA were not enough to be a problem by themselves.
If the sub prime loans were such bad news for the Banks and others then they wouldn't have kept issuing them again and again and again. They were making the Banks and those who used them in pig in a poke financial "products" (CLO's & CDS's) unbelievable amounts of cash in the boom times and the fact that they were a huge gamble mattered little when the Gravy Train rolled into town.
Lehman Brothers paid $8.7 BILLION in staff bonuses in 2006.
Doesn't sound to me like they were stumbling under the weight of unprofitable risky loans "forced" on them by Politicians.
And why the complete silence from McCain the Republicans and all the Firms involved in the bailouts over the C.R.A. ? Wouldn't they be screaming from the rooftops IMMEDIATLY if it was the fault of some fruity conspiracy that FORCED them to take out bad loans and repackage them as worthless securities ?
Tell you what here's one overview of why the sad little right wing bloggers excuse for Wall Strweet fucking over Main Street U.S.A. simply won't wash...
The revisionists say the problem wasn't too little regulation; but too much, via CRA. The law was enacted in response to both intentional redlining and structural barriers to credit for low-income communities. CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.)
The law imposes on the covered depositories an affirmative duty to lend throughout the areas from which they take deposits, including poor neighborhoods. The law has teeth... Studies ... have shown that CRA increased lending and homeownership in poor communities without undermining banks' profitability.
But CRA has always had critics... Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?
The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. ... In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations... Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time ... the law had weakened.
Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. ... Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending." ...
Yellen is hardly alone... One of the only regulators who long ago saw the current crisis coming was the late Ned Gramlich... But Gramlich praised CRA...
It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force... And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.
****And instead of spluttering about the ties to McCain APE I notice you haven't disporved a single one.
Yeah, I'd go back to saying how Oliver Stone is a poopy pants for making fun of one of the most unpopular and disasterous Presidents of Modern times. Cause the Publics sure with you there ! -
Sure, no one forced poor people to take out sub-prime loans, but BANKS KNEW THESE PEOPLE COULDN'T AFFORD THE MORTGAGES THEY WERE BEING SOLD. Secondly, if the only problem was that too many people bought homes and couldn't afford them, then this mess wouldn't be as shitty as it is. No, the problem is that banks and lenders and wall street firms bundles thousands, if not millions of these loans together and shipped them off to the highest bidder (usually foreigners), bidders who now know these packaged "deals" aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Bill is coming due you deregulating fucks.
-
http://tinyurl.com/49hcuy
http://tinyurl.com/52emak
Yeah, I know the Loyal Bushies and far right Deregulating loons will huff and puff and try and blame the messanger but the facts are thre and the CRA Myth is Bullshit.
-
The Superbailout is for all of the terrible loans that are ON the balance sheet. (The so called cash for trash)
OFF the balance sheet and possibly greasing the wheels of a great many of Wall Streets Finest and supposedly most venerable "safe" Companies, Corporations and Deals may be a staggeringly vast amount of shadow money. Some in CDS's some in CLO's but all of it "unofficial" "unaccounted" and pure poison seeping through all parts of the World Financial System.
No amount of MegaBailouts can cure it because no-one and no corporation will openly admit to having them and the sad fact is many of them may not even KNOW. (And as soon as they did find out and admit they had them the Corporation or Company would be finished and the sharks would take them down in record time.)
So even if the bailout works unless new hard hitting regulation comes along soon to deal with the bad derivatives and securities etc. it simply won't matter.
"About half-way through" isn't too far from the truth about where we are. And the C.R.A. had precious fucking little to do with almost all of these Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction.
-
Sep 28, 2008 8:26:04 AM CDT
SO TODAY THEY'RE BLAMING POOR PEOPLE FOR THE CREDIT MELTDOWN?
by bringingsexyback
I guess some people never tire of using their assholes as their proverbial mouths.
-
to insure the mortgage-backed securities of hundreds of other companies.
It wasn't because AIG got greedy and developed an insurance vehicle with an eye for tremendous profits. It was poor people. LOL -
Sep 28, 2008 8:34:56 AM CDT
GOOD NEWS! RECENT GALLUP POLL SHOWS SMART REPUBLICANS
by bringingsexyback
do not visit AICN. There's hope for the Right yet ...
-
http://tinyurl.com/6ck3h
Go there to get some education, kiddo. Sure, there's more land mass in red, but when you consider population density, the map changes significantly. 79% of the population of America lives in urban cities (those blue spots on the city/county level voting maps). The rest of the people are in the red zones (low population density, rural areas).
It's completely disingenuous to say that because Kansas is all red on a national map that means that conservatives outnumber liberals. In fact, there's almost FOUR TIMES as many people in New York City than there is in the ENTIRE STATE of Kansas.
Same goes for any of the blue states. Bigger cities with more people, versus podunk states with low population.
And then, when you get down to county level and look at your precious red states, you'll see that the bigger cities in the south and west also tend to lean blue or "purple" in the middle of vast rural red areas.
If you really want to nitpick, you'll find that if you compare your red/blue map to a map of the Union & Confederacy during the Civil War, that all the red states are likely former Confederate, pro-slavery States.
So go ahead and crow about how red states take up more space in the USA. It won't be long before the liberals in overpopulated places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle or Detroit hear you saying how much space there is down there, and decide to move south to the less-populated states and take those over, too.
It's already happening in Texas and Florida. Once the current generation of old WWII-embracing baby boomers dies off, you'll see Florida turn quite blue.
In fact, I bet you'll see Florida turn blue THIS YEAR. -
Sep 28, 2008 11:49:58 AM CDT
The Only Thing Funnier Than This Will Be BIDEN vs. PALIN Debate
by laserpants
W was going to be the comedy hit of the decade until we found out that MSame nominated a borderline retarded, woefully unqualified, Nazi Xtian MILF to be his running mate. If you thought Obama's PWNING of McSame at the debate on Friday was fun, just wait for Biden vs. Palin -- it is going to bem hands down, the MOST HILARIOUS comedy event of the decade. I CAN'T WAIT!!!
-
I'm no Bush fan, but this doesn't look like anything but a woeful attempt to cash in on the ever fashionable Bush Bashing that's become the 'it' thing to do. It's stuff like this that makes me not want to support the polices of the liberal left. If this movie were to be released at any other time, I'd probably feel differently... but despite Stone's interview in USAToday last week, his actions don't match his words... even if its only the timing of the movie.
-
Not sure what story you're reading, but the information is somewhat erroneous. It's not poor people's fault... it's congress's for forcing Fannie and Freddie to make loans to poor people. Loans that were high risk and not fair to those people. And it was a Bipartisan congress that forced that. Our government at work... makes us proud, doesn't it?
-
god damn, his over-the-top Mccain impression is fucking hilarious.
-
Sep 28, 2008 12:37:34 PM CDT
this film won't have much interest from majority of film goers
by palewook
its like making a movie about Herbert Hoover in 1928.
-
I'd have more respect for Stone if he was honest enough to just say it:
"Yeah, I haven't had a hit in years so I figure it's time to cash in on the Bush hatred and score me some easy bank and win some awards."
It's a hack piece, Stone. Just admit it. You hate Bush and you're gonna ridicule him. The trailers do everything but play circus music and have Josh Brolin wearing a clown suit.
Don't give us this "we are fair with him" bullshit you keep saying in interviews.
Stone's about as fair and balanced as good ol' Mikey Moore.
-
Obama himself stated that he has always leaned toward Marxist mentors.
He favors creating s Socialized Health Care System that will cost in excess of 510 Billion dollars yearly.
He will increase taxes on anyone in the U.S. making greater than $32,000.00 per year.
One main difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is the dishonesty of the Liberals. The Conservatives admit they are Conservative. I fully acknowledge that I am a Conservative. Liberals on the other hand won't admit or acknowledge they are Liberal. For example, Roger Ebert is one of the most Liberal persons in the media, but when confronted regarding his political leanings, he denies any Liberal orientation.
Another problem with Liberals is that many cannot support their arguement with facts, so they resort to the use of profanity and ad hominem attacks. Michael Moore is a perfect example of this behavior, as are some of the responses to my post supra.
Furthermore, the Liberals say that they support free speech, when in reality they don't. I can't tell you how many times I have had Conservative bumper stickers either defaced or removed from my car, both of which would be a crime by the way. I may persoannly disagree with another person, but I would never consider removing a Liberal bumper sticker from their car. -
Mind at least giving a link when you rip off articles on other web sites for your information? dweeb
-
In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." The proposal was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, the proposal did not alter the implicit guarantee of a Washington funded bail out in case the companies ran into financial difficulties, a perception that enabled these institution to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) added "I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act -
Some economists have claimed that the CRA encouraged risky lending.[10][3] Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke speculated that the underlying assumption of the CRA, that more lending is better for communities, may not always be appropriate.[11] Economist Stan Liebowitz has claimed that banks were forced to loan to consumers who were not credit worthy with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit," inferring that Countrywide itself relaxed its own requirements rather than being compelled to do so.[12]
New America Foundation fellow Robert Gordon[13] countered that approximately half of the loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major subprime lenders were regulated but had very little CRA involvement.[14] Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.[14] Austrian economist Thomas DiLorenzo counters Gordon's statistic by arguing that even if half of the subprime loans were made by non-CRA companies, the CRA had still caused tens of billions in defaults on mortgages by unqualified borrowers.[15]
Ellen Seidman, the former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision,[16] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing one of her own speeches as an example. She noted that if unregulated independent mortgage companies make subprime loans, affiliated CRA banks should not be able to count them for CRA purposes although she did not indicate whether this practice currently occurs.[17] An analysis by the law firm of Traiger & Hinckley, LLP, which counsels financial services entities on fair lending and Community Reinvestment Act compliance, concluded that CRA banks were less likely than other lenders to make high cost loans or to foreclose in certain metropolitan areas; they also were more likely to retain their original loans.[18]
Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act .[19] A Wall Street Journal editorial recently argued that the law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them and that this contributed in part to the subprime crisis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act -
Among banks and the regulatory agencies, there was a consensus that data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements imposed a heavy burden on small community institutions. As a result of a 2002 review of the CRA regulations and largely negative public comment on a revision of an initial Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposal, the FDIC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) made substantive changes to the implementation of regulations for the CRA for banks (though not thrifts).
Previously, all institutions over $250 million in assets were subject to a three-part CRA test that covered lending (including community development loans), qualified investments, and services (including community development services) to their assessment areas. Institutions less than $250 million were subject only to a lending test.
However, as of September 1, 2005, only those institutions with more than $1 billion in assets were subject to the three-part test. Institutions below $250 million remain subject to only a lending test. A new CRA test was created for institutions with assets between $250 million and $1 billion. This latter category, referred to as Intermediate Small Banks, were subject to the same lending test to which institutions under $250 million were subject along with a new combined community development test covering community development loans, qualified investments, and community development services. The $250 million and $1 billion asset thresholds were indexed to the consumer price index and so could change annually. Thus, all institutions remain subject to the CRA test. These substantive changes were intended to be a compromise between those changes advocated by banks and those by community groups.
However, the changes were not received positively by all community groups. Changes to tests conducted on the Intermediate Small category were viewed by some as decreasing the institutions' obligations to meet lending requirements of low and moderate income households. Racial inequities in mortgage acceptance rates (as reported by Inner City Press, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, ACORN, and other groups) are cited as a primary reason to maintain or even increase the scope of the CRA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C ommunity_Reinvestment_Act -
In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[5]
The new rules went into effect January 31, 1995 and featured: strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to target to groups to collect a fee from the banks (as of 2000 $9.5 billion had been paid to such nonprofit groups). The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages."[3] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.[6][7]
Related rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.[4] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C ommunity_Reinvestment_Act -
Once upon a time, in the land that FDR built, there was the rule of "regulation" and all was right on Wall and Main Streets. Wise 27-year-old bank examiners looked down upon the banks and saw that they were sound. America's Hobbits lived happily in homes financed by 30-year-mortgages that never left their local banker's balance sheet, and nary a crisis did we have.
Then, lo, came the evil Reagan marching from Mordor with his horde of Orcs, short for "market fundamentalists." Reagan's apprentice, Gramm of Texas and later of McCain, unleashed the scourge of "deregulation," and thus were "greed," short-selling, securitization, McMansions, liar loans and other horrors loosed upon the world of men.
Now, however, comes Obama of Illinois, Schumer of New York and others in the fellowship of the Beltway to slay the Orcs and restore the rule of the regulator. So once more will the Hobbits be able to sleep peacefully in the shire.
With apologies to Tolkien, or at least Peter Jackson, something like this tale is now being sold to the American people to explain the financial panic of the past year. It is truly a fable from start to finish. Yet we are likely to hear some version of it often in the coming months as the barons of Congress try to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the housing and mortgage meltdowns.
Yes, greed is ever with us, at least until Washington transforms human nature. The wizards of Wall Street and London became ever more inventive in finding ways to sell mortgages and finance housing. Some of those peddling subprime loans were crooks, as were some of the borrowers who lied about their incomes. This is what happens in a credit bubble that becomes a societal mania.
But Washington is as deeply implicated in this meltdown as anyone on Wall Street or at Countrywide Financial. Going back decades, but especially in the past 15 or so years, our politicians have promoted housing and easy credit with a variety of subsidies and policies that helped to create and feed the mania. Let us take the roll of political cause and financial effect:
- The Federal Reserve. The original sin of this crisis was easy money. For too long this decade, especially from 2003 to 2005, the Fed held interest rates below the level of expected inflation, thus creating a vast subsidy for debt that both households and financial firms exploited. The housing bubble was a result, along with its financial counterparts, the subprime loan and the mortgage SIV.
Fed Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke prefer to blame "a global savings glut" that began when the Cold War ended. But Communism was dead for more than a decade before the housing mania took off. The savings glut was in large part a creation of the Fed, which flooded the world with too many dollars that often found their way back into housing markets in the U.S., the U.K. and elsewhere.
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Created by government, and able to borrow at rates lower than fully private corporations because of the implied backing from taxpayers, these firms turbocharged the credit mania. They channeled far more liquidity into the market than would have been the case otherwise, especially from the Chinese, who thought (rightly) that they were investing in mortgage securities that were as safe as Treasurys but with a higher yield.
These are the firms that bought the increasingly questionable mortgages originated by Angelo Mozilo's Countrywide and others. Even as the bubble was popping, they dived into pools of subprime and Alt-A ("liar") loans to meet Congressional demand to finance "affordable" housing. And they were both the cause and beneficiary of the great interest-group army that lobbied for ever more housing subsidies.
Fan and Fred's patrons on Capitol Hill didn't care about the risks inherent in their combined trillion-dollar-plus mortgage portfolios, so long as they helped meet political goals on housing. Even after taxpayers have had to pick up a bailout tab that may grow as large as $200 billion, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank still won't back a reduction in their mortgage portfolios.
- A credit-rating oligopoly. Thanks to federal and state regulation, a small handful of credit rating agencies pass judgment on the risk for all debt securities in our markets. Many of these judgments turned out to be wrong, and this goes to the root of the credit crisis: Assets officially deemed rock-solid by the government's favored risk experts have lately been recognized as nothing of the kind.
When debt instruments are downgraded, banks must then recognize a paper loss on these assets. In a bitter irony, the losses cause the same credit raters whose judgments allowed the banks to hold these dodgy assets to then lower their ratings on the banks, requiring the banks to raise more money, and pay more to raise it. The major government-anointed credit raters -- S&P, Moody's and Fitch -- were as asleep on mortgages as they were on Enron. Senator Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) tried to weaken this government-created oligopoly, but his reforms didn't begin to take effect until 2007, too late to stop the mania.
- Banking regulators. In the Beltway fable, bank supervision all but vanished in recent years. But the great irony is that the banks that made some of the worst mortgage investments are the most highly regulated. The Fed's regulators blessed, or overlooked, Citigroup's off-balance-sheet SIVs, while the SEC tolerated leverage of 30 or 40 to 1 by Lehman and Bear Stearns.
The New York Sun reports that an SEC rule change that allowed more leverage was made in 2004 under then Chairman William Donaldson, one of the most aggressive regulators in SEC history. Of course the SEC's task was only to protect the investor assets at the broker-dealers, not the holding companies themselves, which everyone thought were not too big to fail. Now we know differently (see Bear Stearns below).
Meanwhile, the least regulated firms -- hedge funds and private-equity companies -- have had the fewest problems, or have folded up their mistakes with the least amount of trauma. All of this reaffirms the historical truth that regulators almost always discover financial excesses only after the fact.
- The Bear Stearns rescue. In retrospect, the Fed-Treasury intervention only delayed a necessary day of reckoning for Wall Street. While Bear was punished for its sins, the Fed opened its discount window to the other big investment banks and thus sent a signal that they would provide a creditor safety net for bad debt.
Morgan Stanley, Lehman and Goldman Sachs all concluded that they could ride out the panic without changing their business models or reducing their leverage. John Thain at Merrill Lynch was the only CEO willing to sell his bad mortgage paper -- at 22 cents on the dollar. Treasury and the Fed should have followed the Bear trauma with more than additional liquidity. Once they were on the taxpayer dime, the banks needed a thorough scrubbing that might have avoided last week's stampede.
- The Community Reinvestment Act. This 1977 law compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them. Banks that failed to make enough of these loans were often held hostage by activists when they next sought some regulatory approval.
Robert Litan, an economist at the Brookings Institution, told the Washington Post this year that banks "had to show they were making a conscious effort to make loans to subprime borrowers." The much-maligned Phil Gramm fought to limit these CRA requirements in the 1990s, albeit to little effect and much political jeering.
We could cite other Washington policies, including the political agitation for "mark-to-market" accounting that has forced firms to record losses after ratings downgrades even if the assets haven't been sold. But these are some of the main lowlights.
Our point here isn't to absolve Wall Street or pretend there weren't private excesses. But the investment mistakes would surely have been less extreme, and ultimately their damage more containable, if not for the enormous political support and subsidy for mortgage credit. Beware politicians who peddle fables that cast themselves as the heroes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122204078161261183.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop -
bumper sticker free talkback
-
Wouldn't everything be so much easier if they didn't exist? Oh I wish they would all just fuck off and die.
-
Since they are currently trying to bail out the banks and thereby nationalize the banking system at great tax payer expense. Whoops! Btw, while you're busy bailing out BILLIONAIRES WHO DON"T NEED OUT HELP AND SHOULD BURN IN THE HELL THEY CREATED FOR THEMSELVES, would the Federal Govt. mind terribly bailing me out of my credit card, school loan, and car loan debts? Thanks.
-
Seriously though is that all you got ? I have a paragraph or two of information from Wikipedia and you ignore the main point that the CRA was in no way responsible for either all the loans or more pertinently Wall Streets CRS's and CLO's that have decimated corporations like Fannie and Fredddie and AIG ?
And I gave the URL's for 2 articles instead of pasting them all.
But the facts stand. Blaming the current Catastrophe on the CRA is a far right wing MYTH. It's been DEBUNKED.
Did you hear Bush blame the CRA ? Did you hear Fannie Mae ir Freddie Blame the CRA ? Did you hear AIG blame the CRA ? Did you hear Lehman Brothers blame the CRA ? Did you hear Merril Lynch Blame the CRA ? Did you hear Washington Mutual blame the CRA ?Did you hear Congress blame the CRA ? Have you heard ANYONE apart from deperate far right bloggers, pundits, commentators and the few Economists who always hated the very idea of the CRA, blame the CRA ?
Tell you what 5 by 5 you tell me how poor people and the CRA engineered Credit Deafault Swaps and CLO's and all the rest of the worthless securities then made BILLIONS by doing this in Bonuses and walked away when the roof caved in I'll admit it was the fault of the CRA.
But the public aren't calling for the blood of the CRA are they 5 by 5 ? They want the cocksuckers in Wall Street who screwed over Main Street. Don't they ? -
FULL Wiki CRA article http://tinyurl.com/265e8c
FULL Wall Street Journal Online Opinion piece http://tinyurl.com/3kttxo
See how easy that was ?
-
The bailout should NOT happen. The banks should go under, the congress members and CEOs who allowed it should go straight to jail, then shot for treason. Let the market balance out, naturally.
-
Yeah, when there are no jobs to be found, food shortages, mass starvation, riots and 10 dollar a gallon, let's see how you feel about the markets balancing out naturally.
-
If Markets had been allowed to function naturally without intervention, we wouldn't be in this mess today. It think the bailout is necessary, but it underscores a lot of mistakes the Government is responsible for by being too involved in the market. That's why the Republicans are in favor of it.
-
Sep 28, 2008 6:32:45 PM CDT
And here's a link for the American Prospect Article lest 5by5 cr
by g100
http://tinyurl.com/3sjcfj
Though I did say it was an overview in the post. -
Let's not forget the "house flipping" craze of the last 10 yrs or so that made all of the above even worse...
-
Sep 28, 2008 8:52:59 PM CDT
"borderline retarded, woefully unqualified, Nazi Xtian MILF"
by zacdilone
As usual, the libs show their tolerant and compassionate side. Face it, you are far more hateful than those you brand as "Nazis."
-
I watched the debate the other night. McCain fucking scares me. Like that creepy preacher guy in Poltergeist 2. He's got that smile that looks friendly, but you just KNOW as he's glad-handing you, he's thinking of 27 ways to kill you and hide your body.
If McCain gets elected, he'll croak a couple years into his term, leaving Palin to press the button when Russia invades the Ukraine. Then she'll go watch the show from her living-room in Alaska. -
Sep 28, 2008 10:15:13 PM CDT
Yes, You're Right, I Am Intolerant Of Imbecilic Theocratic Fasci
by laserpants
Why don't I feel guilty? Must be the righteous indignation of a nation sick and tired of incompetent nazi fucks running our country into the ground with their fairy tales and oil shares.
-
Intolerant of them, I am, that is.
-
because pumping 700bill into the banks isn't meddling in the markets is it?
-
Sep 28, 2008 11:34:18 PM CDT
More praise for the W trailer that played before BURN AFTER READ
by jonquixote
Absolutely amazing. I thought this movie had bad idea written all over it, and it probably still does. The trailers, however, have been sensational. If Stone's W sucks, I hope they adapt the trailers into a feature.
-
Sep 29, 2008 12:12:44 AM CDT
Who the fuck cares when AVATAR is FUCKING OUR EYEBALLS in 2009?
by motoko kusanagi
nobody
-
One important point - none of them were elected officials (Congressmen and Senators) who just so happened to be the CHAIRMEN OF CONGRESSIONAL REGULATORY COMMITTEES and got their pockets lined, and their souls bought, with dirty money. Who has the greater conflict of interest?
-
I called you a dweeb for posting without giving credit. And you're still a dweeb for doing that. Then to make a point and to show you how to do it, I put up articles and their url's. I could give shit less about debating you on the point, so I "got" nothing 'cause I wasn't givin' you nothing assface. The point of the Wall Street Journal report was that there was plenty of blame to go around. There is no myth. So piss off.
-
Who is passing the cash to who.
Who do you think were the middlemen who bought their souls with cash ? Should any of them have done it ? Very fucking obviously not.
But the FACT is if you are dimwitted enough to believe the far-right spin from the wingnut blogs trying to blame this catacvlysm on poor people (as usual) And you actually REALLY that Congress is actually handing out 700 BILLION solely because of that fraction of all Sub-prime Mortgages that can be directly traced to C.R.A. intervention that then went into foreclosure, then it scarcely matters what the truth is or that the solution is clearly OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION to prevent these Lobbyists or Companies using Cash as a weapon to influence those who regulate them.
Look into A.I.G. Look into the financial Weapons of Mass Destruction like Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations. Then realise that the public has it exactly right in directing almost all their anger at Wall Street.
Though the Fed and the so called Regulators with the likes of Paulson (Ex CEO of Goldman Sachs) needs a good hard Kick in the Ass to put it VERY mildly indeed. -
Tell you what if you had JUST posted the full wiki article and url saying why, then posted the full Wall Street Journal article and url saying "there was plenty of blame to go around" I wouldn't have had a problem and thanked you for reminding me to source that one paragraph (like I sourced the other stuff).
But you didn't do that did you ?
You tried a feeble insult and then added some nonsense about bumper sticker politics. So don't start whining like a child if you get called out on it.
And there self-evidently IS a MYTH being passed around the far right Blogs. That somehow this whole Financial Cataclysm was ALL fault of Clinton or Carter via the C.R.A. and poor people taking out Mortgages. But as you so rightly said "there was plenty of blame to go around." and of that blame the C.R.A.s share is a small one indeed compared to the main players of the Government and the President and of course Wall Street who the public would happily watch the Golden Parachuting CEOs being lynched right now.
Finally to answer your final pithy point not only will I not piss off, I'll raise you a Go Fuck Yourself.
Golly Indeed. -
Americans seem to have lost all sense of perspective in the last year- there was all the Facism=Left wing crap and now this. Fuck's sake- what he is is the American Equivalent of Tony Blair. Whether that is a good thing or not....
-
i'm not even sure if they know what liberal means. the real definition is akin to less government. that sounds like the conservatives to me, not the democrats. obama is a liberal because he wants to nationalise health. sounds like someone needs to reach for a dictionary.
-
Of course it is.. but at this point its like Iraq... if we ignore it, we're not doing what needs to be done to clean up a mess that shouldn't have been started in the first place. There is no choice. Here's the article. Note the date.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....gewanted=1
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
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.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
-
...he would've been perfect for the role of McSame. A twitchy, half-wacked package of barely-contained rage.
-
Nyah, nyah! Take THAT, Repugs!
-
...see Josh Brolin accept the award for Best Actor. Not, he will be at his ranch herding cattle. He should be in prison for being the worse 2 term president of all time, but the idiot may pardon himself. How can he even show his face in public after almost destroying America? We came very close to a total crash due to this idiot's mishandling of...everything. I have never witnessed such complete incompetence in a president since...ever. He makes Carter look good. He makes Nixon look good. I would have to look at my US History book to find a worse president...maybe he should move to Iraq...
-
Dig his corpse up, dust it off, and lets make a movie.
-
This looks a MILLION times better than the original trailer. Assuming of course we stay away from that stylized colorization of 'Alexander', this looks and feels (based on the trailer anyway) like a contender... (though of course the Academy and Mr. Stone don't seem to be the best of friends).
Timely, appropriate, fun and dramatic - with cast-power unmatched in years! This has potential... -
Sep 29, 2008 12:04:01 PM CDT
But who's THIS promoting Fannie Mae "fairness" and "affordable h
by g100
Bush promotes national minority home ownership plan.
Jet, July 1, 2002
President Bush set a new goal of helping 5.5 million minority families buy their own homes before the end of the decade, hoping to end what he called a "home ownership gap."
"The difference in home ownership between Anglo America and Black and Hispanic America is too big," Bush said at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta.
The president recently was in the city to promote his home ownership program, which calls for the building of 5.5 million new homes for minorities before 2012.
Citing high down payments a major obstacle to home ownership for low-income families, Bush wants a $200 million expansion to the American Dream Down Payment Fund, first outlined in January and awaiting action by Congress. Grants from the fund would help about 40,000 families a year make down payments or pay closing costs on houses. article http://tinyurl.com/496h9s -
Fannie Mae Pledges Continued Support for President Bush's Nationwide Effort to Increase Minority Homeownership
Business Wire, Oct 15, 2002
Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO, Franklin D. Raines today joined President Bush and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Mel Martinez, and other industry leaders and non-profit organizations, for a housing summit to promote the Administration's proposal to expand minority homeownership.
Fannie Mae's ten-point plan to help advance the Bush Administration's homeownership proposals was included in the Blueprint for the American Dream document released by HUD today.
"Fannie Mae commends President Bush and HUD's continued efforts to make minority homeownership a national priority through today's housing summit," said Raines. "As we know, homeownership builds stronger families, communities, and improves our quality of life. Through the expansion of minority homeownership, the Administration will advance housing equality in America."
"The Blueprint for the American Dream that we unveiled today is the response to the `homeownership challenge' President Bush issued in June to increase minority homeownership," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez. "Our partners, representing every segment of the affordable housing industry, are committed to working together to achieve the President's goal of adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade." article http://tinyurl.com/4oqxjx
This clusterfuck is way, WAY beyond some fruity conspiracy involving the fraction of mortgage forecloseres that the C.R.A were responible for.
-
Economists View : April 18 2008
Ezra Klien and Robert Gordon
Yet Again, It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act
E.K. As Robert Gordon shows, however, this is crap. First, there's the timing. CRA came in 1977. The crisis came in 2007. Indeed, by 2004, the Bush administration had weakened the CRA -- and after that (though not, presumably, because of it), bubble lending really took off. Further, CRA only governs a certain class of federally insured banks. Problem is, half of the subprime loans came from mortgage companies with no CRA involvement at all. Another 25%-30% came from companies with very little CRA exposure. For those who left their abacus at home, that's 80% of the loans which were fully or largely outside CRA jurisdiction. More than that, the non-CRA mortgage firms made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA-covered firms. Which basically leaves a stake in the heart of this particular theory. Indeed, until now, some conservatives have been moaning that no one is talking about the CRA part because it's so racially charged. Poppycock. It's just a false charge.
R.G. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.articlehttp://tinyurl .com/65fqsx
Wachovia just went belly up. Think you or the far-right bloggers can keep blaming everything CRA or do you think the fact that the mortgage backed securites that made Wall Street and the people who dreamed them up BILLIONS in profits and bonuses might just be a bit more relevant ?
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID. PERIOD.
-
i love how in the song it goes 'how did i get here?' then it shows Georgy shrugging...hah good shit
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts