patrick.net

Nomo, I realize that you publish these trollish replies frequently. Try to grasp this: The Basel 3 committee is trying to take Fannie and Freddie hostage, permanently. The government will no longer have the choice to take away or even threaten to take away loan guarantees from the GSE's. This will bake in moral hazard and the taxpayer will be the permanent cash fund for the casino that is Wall Street.

The Tea Party has staked its fortunes to the rant of Rick Santelli. Santelli said that the victims of the ponzi housing scheme were losers. On Feb 18, 2010 he said that. In response, the Chicago tea party and the St Louis tea party were formed on Feb 22. Now Nomo, the basis for the tea party was the rant. And the core of the rant was that the borrowers were losers.

I suggest you not try to distort history. I have studied it and I know what I am talking about. Hennessy, leader of the St Louis Tea Party is on Kudlow frequently and has never called out the bankers. Kudlow knows all about Basel 3. You can count on it.

If the Tea Party were to come out and announce their opposition to Basel 3, then that would be a start. But it is unlikely that they will. I posted the info at the Hennessy Blog, Nomo. And although he allows the post, he said nothing. He refuses to speak to me. I know where he is coming from. Until the Tea Party says otherwise, they are giving tacit approval to Basel 3.

They probably will be the first ones to be out there buying the guaranteed mortgages that an investor can never lose on.

Given that Honest Abe and RayAmerica appear to have a lot in common with the Tea Party, and Gary A does not, I fail to see how they are "all the same".

I haven't read up on Basel III much, but the idea that an acceptance of GSE Bonds as valid Tier-2 capital will make it difficult for the USG to allow a default on them is quite sensible. Right now banks are parking their GSE bonds (CDOs etc) with the Fed and getting cash/USG Treasury bonds back instead at near 0 interest rate.

If Basel III allows the banks to hold tier 2 capital as GSE bonds, then the banks could exchange back their loans from the Fed for their original GSE bonds, and both banks and the Fed would be more happy. It would in effect be a method for the Fed to stop guaranteeing bad GSE paper and make the taxpayer's government do it instead.

In general, I'd say that many Tea Party members are not especially bright, and they are prone to being hoodwinked and fooled by clever fascists and corporatists who want to use them for their own political purposes. But buyer beware, if the Tea Party ever gets smart they may be more than what the corporatists bargained for. It could get very ugly indeed, 1930s kind of ugly.

The more you talk, Nomo, the more ridiculous you sound. Here is the link to what the Tea Party says about itself: http://stlouisteaparty.com/about/ And here is the statement from that link:

"The whole thing started when CNBC reporter Rick Santelli challenged Barack Obama to come to the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade and explain to the people there why they should pay for other people’s bad financial decisions. He ended the rant by saying, “We’re gonna have a tea party here in Chicago . . . in July.”

We believe in small government and dealing with the consequences of your own bad decisions. We utterly reject the notion that the most productive and responsible members of society owe a government-mandated handout to the less productive and irresponsible. If anything, it’s the other way around. While charity is a cornerstone of our society and faith, it is nowhere permitted in the Constitution. Charity works best closest to home."

While this sounds fine on the surface, it totally ignores the point that the housing scam was a ponzi lie. It was a massive ponzi scheme and people have the right to walk away from ponzi schemes. Santelli apparently doesn't think so. Tough S**t.

As far as the Tea Party is concerned, Nomo, you are lazy. You can see that the basis of the Tea Party was the rant. Your premise is flawed, as the St Louis Tea Party says point blank that the basis for the Tea Party is the rant.

You are intellectually lazy. That is your problem, Nomo.

justme says

Given that Honest Abe and RayAmerica appear to have a lot in common with the Tea Party, and Gary A does not, I fail to see how they are “all the same”.
I haven’t read up on Basel III much, but the idea that an acceptance of GSE Bonds as valid Tier-2 capital will make it difficult for the USG to allow a default on them is quite sensible. Right now banks are parking their GSE bonds (CDOs etc) with the Fed and getting cash/USG Treasury bonds back instead at near 0 interest rate.
If Basel III allows the banks to hold tier 2 capital as GSE binds, then the banks could exchange back their loans from the Fed for their original GSE bonds, and both banks an the Fed would be more happy. It would in effect be a method for the Fed to stop guaranteeing bad GSE paper and make the taxpayer’s government do it instead.

Exactly, Justme. The Fed wants joe taxpayer to take the hit, not the Fed. That is what Basel 3 is about. You made a very astute observation. The private Fed is working in its own self interest and they could care less about the American taxpayer.

Nomograph says

justme says

I’d say that many Tea Party members are not especially bright, and they are prone to being hoodwinked and fooled by clever fascists and corporatists who want to use them for their own political purposes.

Gee, ya think? Guns, God, Gays, and NASCAR are powerful diversionary tactics.
Left wing nuts are equally disposed to being manipulated. It’s more a wing nut thing than a left or right thing.

But what we have in this country is a right wing-nut problem. It appears that somewhere between 20-30% of the population is a right wing-nut. I'd venture that less than 1% of the population is a left wing-nut.

Justme is correct. You have been exposed Nomo. Why don't you admit that the rant was the basis for the Tea Party? It is in black and white. Why don't you swallow your pride and humble yourself and admit I was right and you are wrong?

That was a Nomograph says

justme says

It appears that somewhere between 20-30% of the population is a right wing-nut. I’d venture that less than 1% of the population is a left wing-nut.

Hate is the primary motivator, and hatred seems to resonate best with the right. In general, liberals don’t go in for the hate thing as much. That’s why right wing AM talk radio is such a moneymaker, and AirAmerica went bankrupt. Most progressive people are more educated and open-minded, and don’t fall for such nonsense.
GaryA says

We utterly reject the notion that the most productive and responsible members of society owe a government-mandated handout to the less productive and irresponsible.

Once upon a time, when our nation was founded, the saying was “the noblest motive is the public good”. The Tea Partyers seem to have rejected the notions upon which America was built. They work to vilify public works and civil service as Socialist, Communist, evil, etc. Meanwhile they adulate selfishness as if it were next to Godliness.
The Tea Party mantra seems to be “the noblest motive is selfishness. Take, take, take, and give nothing in return”.

That was a quote from the Tea Party which I reject. Yes, the Tea Party is a Rand based every man for himself and while individual Tea Party cells may see things a bit differently, the leadership is very much against the common good. It is one thing to be communist, and quite another to be for the common good. They are not the same, yet the Tea Party makes them the same. I like that post Nomo. I think you are seeing that these guys do have an agenda that is not in the long term interest of America.

I am wondering if the American people will see through the no money down and ponzi loan game and stay away, or if they will be tempted to repeat the process all over again.

Nice to see that the discussion led to some level of mutual understanding and agreement. Happy Labor Day.

Nomograph says

A good Internet argument should *never* lead to mutual understanding and agreement.

Great, we can diasgree om that one and then we are done ;-).

Market Ticker has picked up the Basel III story, but with a different emphasis in the analysis.

http://market-ticker.org/cgi-mt/akcs-www?post=166071

AdHominem says

The fact that some “generals” like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc… have co-opted the growing anti-establishment sentiment and have used the ‘if you can’t beat them lead them tactic’ is no surprise. But don’t think for a minute that the “generals” represent the average joe’s. In fact, the “generals” are actually part of the powers that be and are working against the sentiment and ideals that got the tea party movement growing.

You are right. I view Palin along the same lines as Bush Jr. Like him, she's a puppet on a string that would be controlled by the shadow ruling elite, in particular, the Neocons, as evidenced by her foreign policies which are in lock step with them.

GaryA says

“The whole thing started when CNBC reporter Rick Santelli challenged Barack Obama to come to the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade and explain to the people there why they should pay for other people’s bad financial decisions. He ended the rant by saying, “We’re gonna have a tea party here in Chicago . . . in July.”

We believe in small government and dealing with the consequences of your own bad decisions. We utterly reject the notion that the most productive and responsible members of society owe a government-mandated handout to the less productive and irresponsible. If anything, it’s the other way around. While charity is a cornerstone of our society and faith, it is nowhere permitted in the Constitution. Charity works best closest to home.”

First of all, that happened in Feb '09, not '10, which was most likely a typo on your part.

However, Santelli was ranting about the bailout of the BANKS, which was sold to the public as a bailout of underwater home-owners. He never referred to these people as "losers". He was pointing out that in every financial transaction, one party will make money while the counter-party will lose. Bailing out the "losers" subjugates a critical step in the free-market system. Capital must be freed of bad investments and put to use in more wealth-producing areas of the economy. Housing was a bad investment. The capital sunk into housing would have been MUCH more productive somewhere else.

Assuming someone with a mortgage didn't refi, they are free to walk away. It is the banks that are on the hook--hence the bailout of the banks' balance sheets.

I do agree with you that the US taxpayer should not backstop Fannie or Freddie.

Also, as far as I know, Rick Santelli never attended a tea party. His brief Tea Party calls in early '09 were the pinnacle of the Tea Party grassroots movement. After Feb '09 the Tea Party was hijacked by Fox news, Sarah Palin, and the like. Most rational people stopped paying attention to them right around the same time.

Correct, Feb 19, 2009. Here is the problem, the guy did rant and called them losers in a derogatory sense. Check out my new thread posted today, 10/17/2010. Ownership is dicey even for people current on their payments.

Here is the rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k