Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derwood
wait wait wait wait
the only 2 kinds of liberals are ones that don't get it or get it but are lying bastards?
|
What kind of liberal is Dodd? Do you think he did not know he was getting favorable treatment from Countrywide? Do you think he does not know that his proposed legislation will primarily benefit Countrywide? Was Obama's statement about Countrywide accurate? If it was accurate is he going to support Dodd's legislation? Are you simply going to trust Dodd?
Please continue to ignore these kinds of questions. Because there will be more. In fact go to the "You Can't Soak The Rich Thread", I think I will post some more stuff supporting my premise. Yea, Democrats are really fighting for the poor and the average guy. Do you believe that? If you don't you get the point, if you do - I guess you don't get "it". If I am wrong, show me.
Here is some more, of course from one of my favorite non-credible publications the WSJ.
Quote:
Give Senator Christopher Dodd credit for nerve. On Tuesday, the very day he finally admitted knowing that Countrywide Financial regarded him as a "special" customer, the Connecticut Democrat also announced that he was bringing to the Senate floor a housing bailout sure to help lenders like Countrywide.
How much will Countrywide benefit from Mr. Dodd's rescue? The Senator's plan allows mortgage lenders to dump up to $300 billion of their worst loans on to taxpayers via a new Federal Housing Administration refinancing program, provided the lenders are willing to accept 87% of current market value. The program will be most attractive to lenders and investors holding subprime and slightly-less-risky Alt-A loans made during the height of the housing bubble in 2006 and 2007.
As the market leader during that period, Countrywide originated $167 billion of such loans, more than 11% of the nationwide total, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. Analyst Fred Cannon of Keefe, Bruyette and Woods estimates that the company is still holding more than $30 billion in subprime and Alt-A loans on its books, based on the company's most recent quarterly financials.
Even for the loans Countrywide has already packaged and sold, the company would still benefit from the bailout. That's because Countrywide continues to service the loans, and every loan that goes bad means increased costs for the servicer.
Those mortgage loan sales also typically come with a guarantee that Countrywide will buy back the loans if it turns out they were fraudulent. The more loans that fail, absent a federal refinancing, the more investors will be digging into the details of these stinkers and tossing them back to Countrywide. Mindful of the looming danger, in the first quarter of this year Countrywide increased by 46% its reserves to cover these so-called "rep-and-warranty" agreements.
What's more, the company is holding $34 billion in home equity loans, which are even more risky than the mortgage loans, and typically result in 100% losses for the lender if a borrower defaults. The Dodd bailout will make it more likely that Countrywide gets some recovery from the worst of these loans because the mortgage holder will need to negotiate a settlement with the owner of the home equity loan before participating in the federal bailout.
If borrowers and lenders take full advantage of this new federal program, and Countrywide loans go south at roughly the same rate as those from other lenders, this suggests a potential taxpayer bailout of more than $25 billion for Countrywide-originated loans. Even if the losses turn out to be far less, why should taxpayers do anything to help a company that did so much to foment the mortgage mess?
Meanwhile, Mr. Dodd continues to insist that, though he knew he was a "special" Countrywide customer, he didn't think he was getting any special financial benefit. But a $75,000 reduction in mortgage payments is no small matter for anyone living on a Senate salary of $169,300. Why else would he be known around Countrywide as a "Friend of Angelo" – Angelo being Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo.
Yesterday, nine Senate Republicans led by South Carolina's Jim DeMint sent a letter asking Majority Leader Harry Reid to delay consideration of Mr. Dodd's housing bailout bill in light of its benefits for Countrywide – and Countrywide's benefits for Mr. Dodd. That's an excellent idea, in addition to a Congressional and Justice Department probe of Countrywide, Fannie Mae and the favors they seem to have spread around Washington. American taxpayers need to understand more about who they're being asked to bail out here, and why.
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213...w_and_outlooks
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Yes, Tully, but no conservative is dishonest. Just misinformed. I noticed that too.
Perhaps the OP is misinformed, then, about the ratio of Republican to Democrat corruption? Because there's no such thing as a dishonest conservative.
|
Their are dishonest conservatives and there are conservative who are motivated by power and do things for political reasons. I have never stated otherwise. I am simply tired of liberals pretending they are something they are not.
I am seeing a pattern. Well Republicans did it...Well when Republicans were in control...Well there are more bad Republicans...are you folks actually using the argument that "our" bad behavior is o.k. because we we think Republican behavior was bad?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Yeah, I read the first couple lines of the OP:
I think there are two kinds of liberals. There are those who don't get "it", just as there are some conservatives that don't get "it". The "it" being whatever the main issue is in question. And then there are those liberals who do get "it" but are dishonest about "it".
And decided not to respond to the OP. I did later post a general comment directed at another posters opinion of politicians in general. But the OP basically states, IMO, that liberals fall into two categories- The delusional and the dishonest. To be fair it does state "some conservatives that don't get "it." But it seems to lump all liberals in to negative boxes.
|
Perhaps, my statement was too broad. I think Kucinich is a liberal, I think he gets "it" and I think he is honest about "it" (again I don't agree with him) - he is not taken seriously by Democrats. I think Ralph Nader gets "it", and he used to be honest about "it", but he is not a Democrat and he got corrupted by the quest for power. So, there are exceptions here and there.