CNN: Moody’s downgrade of 15 banks a sign of a new recession

posted at 8:41 am on June 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Late last night, Moody’s hammered 15 of the world’s largest banks with ratings downgrades, including US firms like JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America.  The best one can say about it is that it could have been worse, as the downgrades everyone knew were coming ended up being milder than some had predicted:

Ratings agency Moody’s downgraded 15 of the world’s biggest banks on Thursday, lowering credit ratings by one to three notches to reflect the risk of losses they face from volatile capital markets activities, but banks criticized the move as backward looking.

Morgan Stanley, one of the most closely watched firms in the much anticipated review, had its long-term debt rating lowered by just two notches, one level less than had been expected, sending its stock up sharply in after-hours trading.

The downgrade left Morgan Stanley more highly rated than Bank of America Corp and Citigroup, but a step below Goldman Sachs Group.

Credit Suisse, which last week was warned about weak capital levels by Switzerland’s central bank, was the only bank in the group to suffer a three-notch downgrade. But its new A1 deposit and senior debt ratings still rank higher than many of its peers.

“All of the banks affected by today’s actions have significant exposure to the volatility and risk of outsized losses inherent to capital markets activities,” Moody’s Global Banking Managing Director Greg Bauer said in the announcement.

Global markets dropped sharply overnight, but the real test will be what happens today.  CNN analyst Christine Romans notes that markets have basically remained calm and that stocks in some of the banks rose, as investors had months to prepare for the Moody’s review of the banks, which started in February.  In the long run, though, the lower rating will force banks to pay higher costs for lending and borrowing, which will make both more difficult while these largest banks try to strengthen their asset positions.

But that’s only a secondary worry, as Romans explains.  The ratings change and the weak position of the banks reflect a weakening global economy that looks just about ready to tip over into another recession:

CNN’s web page refers to this as a “double-dip” recession (Romans does not), which I’m not sure is technically correct.  We have had 12 straight quarters of GDP growth — anemic, sluggish, and in some cases nearly all artificial, but growth nonetheless.  A new recession will be its own phenomenon at this point, brought on by bad economic policies in the US and in Europe.  Better economic policies might not prevent it from happening at this point, as the data Romans notes shows, but better economic policies would make the next recovery a lot more successful than the worst one we’ve seen since World War II in 2009-present.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’m no economist but even I know that if your administration, including yourself, is filled with people with, literally, no private sector experience, AND THEY TRY TO CONTROL AND MANIPULATE IT ANYWAY, the economy is going to reflect that.

Cleombrotus on June 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Clarified it for you.

iurockhead on June 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

And by the way, this line is pure intellectual dishonesty. Social Security and Medicare are socialism, pure and simple. Hence why they’re out of control, unsustainable, and poised to bankrupt us. As Maggie said: “the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”. But then, I don’t think either FDR or LBJ foresaw millions of cases of fraud in both of those systems, as well as rising health care costs for a litany of reasons. Naivete costs money.

MadisonConservative on June 22, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Canada is a much more socialist nation than the U.S., they didn’t go through the housing nightmare we did. Care to explain?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Can someone remind rockmom that most of these banks have continued to post *massive* profits over the past three years and that they haven’t been involved in small business loans for quite a while.
libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 9:03 AM

You know not what you speak. Do your homework before spouting lib talking points. Go back and look at the impact of CountryWide on BAC over the past two years.

Massive profits = $9bb losses per quarter on the mortgage business alone.

Do some more homework on credit card “profit”. I’ll give you a hint… “Durbin Amendment” which limited swipe fees to $.21. Works great unless you would like to completely eliminate fraud detection. You don’t mind hackers running up your credit card bill, do you?

Pul-leeze… stick to your academia world and the theory of how things should be in your world. The rest of us will live in the real world.

VietVet_Dave on June 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Hypocritical, but how on earth does that effect your ability to get a job?

Just listing stuff you don’t like doesn’t mean they actually impact employment rates.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM

The only way a president effects ones ability to get a job is by having policies that deter or incentivize economic activity. So, for instance, higher taxes, higher regulation, threats of investigations, failure to issue permits, etc., will deter economic activity, which will mean less jobs, which will effect people’s ability to get a job.

But – isn’t it Obama himself that keeps claiming (dishonestly) that Republicans haven’t passed a “jobs bill”? Isn’t Obama claiming that he “saved or created” millions of jobs?

If a President (or the gov’t) has no effect on jobs or employment – why is he saying such things?

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

While you’re at it can you remind her that the small banks and credit unions who *do* finance small business suffered the most in the 2008 crash and were *not* bailed out by the federal government?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Can someone remind this OWS reject that one the main reasons small banks and credit unions suffered the most in the 2008 crash is because we had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate beginning in 2007 who overloaded small banks and credit unions with ball-busting rules and regulations?

And can someone remind this OWS reject that because of ball-busting rules and regulations placed on small businesses, many of them had to shut down thereby defaulting on the loans they received from small banks and credit unions?

And can someone remind this OWS reject that it was the Democrat Congress who refused to address the problems with Fannie & Freddie thereby forcing many small banks and credit unions to make homeowner loans to people who had no possibility of repaying them?

And before this OWS reject smugly reminds me, it’s too bad we had a GOP President who didn’t seem to comprehend the power of a veto pen.

Flora Duh on June 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Canada is a much more socialist nation than the U.S., they didn’t go through the housing nightmare we did. Care to explain?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

I love this canard! I have a game I want you to play. Come on down Libby it’s time to play crack shack or mansion! We also have crack shack or mansion two. Just because they have been able to manage their bubble so far doesn’t mean they don’t have one.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Canada is a much more socialist nation than the U.S., they didn’t go through the housing nightmare we did. Care to explain?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

1) they had reduced public spending and debt through some austerity type measures before the crisis;

2) the Canadian gov’t was not bullying and incentivizing lending institutions to loan to people with bad credit the way the US gov’t was.

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM

A new recession will be its own phenomenon at this point, brought on by bad economic policies in the US and in Europe. Better economic policies might not prevent it from happening at this point, as the data Romans notes shows, but better economic policies would make the next recovery a lot more successful than the worst one we’ve seen since World War II in 2009-present.

Obumbler & the Dems. have driven the volt off a cliff & into the ditch.
Thank You DemocRAT Downgrade.

redridinghood on June 22, 2012 at 10:09 AM

CNN’s web page refers to this as a “double-dip” recession (Romans does not), which I’m not sure is technically correct.

If we are to slide in another recession I imagine it would play better for Jugears if we were to have the “double-dip” variety. That means it would really be an extension of the last recession which we all know was Bush’s fault.

A brand new recession would be owned by Barry and Barry alone.

The media will not allow that to happen.

pain train on June 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM

This is gonna leave a mark scar.

TheClearRiver on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Social Security on the other hand allowed people to “not worry” so much about retirement since thety had a check coming and made it easy for them to “play the market” with 401k’s IRA’s etc where if they were not 100% of SS check people would more likely be less risky with their own retirement savings.

unseen on June 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM

You can’t be this intellectually dishonest, I am just going to assume you forgot that throughout the 2000′s the Bush Administration and conservatives pushed for the conversion of Social Security into 401ks and other private wall street investment products. Can you *imagine* what would’ve happened in 2008 if those efforts had succeeded? Its a frightening thought. I mean, think about what you are saying. That if people had been less secure they wouldn’t have….invested in wall street? I.E. Investing in Wall Street is a bad idea in the long term? How on earth can you claim to be a free-market conservative?

But, you are wrong about what causes crony capitalism. It is not people’s right to free speech and involvement in the political process that causes crony capitalism. It is making gov’t so large and overbearing that getting cozy with the gov’t is the way to make money and do business.

If gov’t did not pick winners and losers in business through the regulation process, their would be much less croney capitalism (there will always be some, to the extent that the gov’t has contracts and provides subsidies).

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 9:50 AM

So you excuse the fact that corporations buy politicians in order to get policies that (they believe) will guarantee them greater profits because politicians have lawmaking power? OK, so you are wanting a government around the size it was in, I’m guessing pre-Teddy Roosevelt?

And can I ask…why do you support Republicans then? They are bought and paid for by the same corporations who buy and sell Democrats, and yet you are under the impression that only Democrats are “crony capitalists?” I mean…really?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Flora Duh on June 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Excuse me, ma’am. May we remind the “perfessor” of Bawney Fwank’s and Chris Dodds’ shenanigans, also?

kingsjester on June 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Flora Duh on June 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

There you go again… introducing facts.

Nicely done.

VietVet_Dave on June 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Ed:
Again the TOTD demonstrates that you are CLEARLY out of your league. Technically the NEBR has because not declared an official recession because of government manipulation of the key indicators they utilized to determine a recession.

Additionally, you have NEVER mentioned the relaxation of FASB rules 157 and 158. The relaxation of these rules has allowed banks the opportunity to avoid demonstrating the fact that they are really insolvent. The entire system has been corrupted by politicians who insist that there is a risk free utopia. The entire burden of the economy has been involuntarily borne by the taxpayer through government largesse.

TBTF must end, asset deleveraging must fully evolve and the return of increasing wages has to begin (subsequent ability to save) and the attendant production for the economy to recover.

DevilsPrinciple on June 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

But – isn’t it Obama himself that keeps claiming (dishonestly) that Republicans haven’t passed a “jobs bill”? Isn’t Obama claiming that he “saved or created” millions of jobs?

Indeed. It is also Obama who put Goldman Sachs execs in charge of his economic team and who agreed to a stimulus that was 1/3 supply side tax breaks and 1/3 shoring up individual state debt. In other words it wasn’t an actual Keynesian “stimulus.” So he can claim to have saved a large number of jobs (not sure as to the number, I’m sure its less than they are claiming). But its not really fair to claim that this has been a “socialist” regime. If it were socialist than the bank bailout would’ve gone directly to every American in foreclosure towards keeping their mortgage afloat or refinanced. But that’s not what happened is it.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM

DevilsPrinciple on June 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

So, tell me…how many people read your writings?

kingsjester on June 22, 2012 at 10:17 AM

DevilsPrinciple on June 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

That’s a lot of acronyms.

pain train on June 22, 2012 at 10:17 AM

The few socialist-lite policies we have, social security and medicare, did not produce the massive over speculation in the housing market.
libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Depending on who you believe – the government or US debt clock. Social security and medicare are somewhere between $70 trillion and $120 trillion

TARP was less than 1% of this and last I checked all but about $20 billion was paid back, GM the main exception

How are you guys planning to pay for that?

Chuck Schick on June 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

So, does anyone know of a good credit card. One not carried by one of these banks. Mine is issued by Bank of America and when I learned they are giving money to the Communist-inspired, Al Gore gimme money con known as global warming, I meant to get another.

IS there a non-leftist, non-Obama contributing bank out there anywhere?

Portia46 on June 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Medicare & SS are $70 trillion to $120 trillion in the hole, that is

Chuck Schick on June 22, 2012 at 10:21 AM

First, it must be noted, that there *are* always job openings of some kind in most larger communities. Particularly in tech-healthcare-service economy areas. The problem, it seems, is that many Americans lack the skills to fill those positions or (in the case of service work) are unwilling to take the low paying wages one gets at Walmart or other service work. None of that is the President’s fault.

First, it must be noted, not everyone lives in “most larger communities”. I know many on your side of the fence believe there is no life outside of cities, but get a grip. Secondly, of course many grown Americans don’t want to take minimum wage jobs. Why would they, when they can take 99 weeks of unemployment at a higher rate? Thanks again, Dems.

Thirdly, perhaps there would be jobs with more agreeable pay rates if the minimum wage, which Democrats raise at every opportunity to appear as if they’re helping the poor, didn’t drive up the cost of menial labor that a teenager or unskilled worker should be getting less to do. A constantly increasing minimum wage means increasing government-dictated employment costs. Perhaps instead of hiring the teenager and the laid-off mother of three at eight bucks an hour each, the teenager should get four dollars an hour and the mother should get twelve, based on their difference in work experience. But no…private industry cannot be allowed to set their own wages. Why? Of course. Socialism must prevail, if the Democrats are to continue declaring themselves the champions of the poor.

First of all. However much it ignores you that the President said this there is no evidence that uttering those words has any actual impact on employment..you have to know that right?

Ignores me? Not sure what you’re saying, there. However much it irritates you that people notice that the President said this, it is a blatant symptom of his disdainful and lackadaisical attitude towards the plight of the unemployed, and reflects his missteps in trying to spur economic growth…you have to know that, right?

But on a larger point, the President was right! Corporate profits have continued to increase during this Administration. Corporations keep claiming they can’t hire people because of uncertainty, but the only thing that has been certain is profit increases.

As I already pointed out, this administration and the previous one are keeping corporations afloat through government bailouts. You’re not actually acting as if corporatism is a good thing, are you?

I might also add that corporations are using high job demand to squeeze more and more out of their existing work staffs. Everyone here who has a job at a large firm is aware of this trend. More responsibilities while wages are stagnant. Its happening everywhere, regardless of whether or not the corporation is meeting plan or not (and boards have also made “meeting plan” a near impossibility). None of these things are the President’s fault.

You’re right. Instead, they should hire more people and cut everyone else’s wages to pay for them. Then more people will have a job, but everyone will be a little poorer. Redistribution works so well, doesn’t it?

On a more serious note, however, I completely sympathize with the trend you’re discussing. It’s affected both my and my wife’s jobs. However, what exactly is the alternative? Telling companies to up their debt ratios in a Keynesian attempt to inflate job numbers? Again, that’s unsustainable – the key component of socialist policies. If you don’t have the money, don’t spend it. A lesson the government, as well as many people in this country, need to learn.

The President shouldn’t respond to the popular will of the people? Polls indicate broad support for raising taxes on the wealthy.

No s**t. The President has been telling everyone that if we only taxed the rich more, that our debt and other problems would vanish overnight. Again, you’re being intellectually dishonest.

Nothing remotely close to cap and trade has even sniffed passage in Congress. How long can we blame a bill that isn’t law for energy costs?

Um, as long as it’s sitting there, waiting to become law. I know you probably wish that conservatives would just forget about things like cap and trade and the assault weapons ban and all the other sleeping legislation you would like snuck through, but that ain’t gonna happen. It’s sitting there, making the coal-fired energy industry hold its breath as they wonder whether they will be eliminated by government dictate.

Your candidate for President called for a stimulus and praised it (before he didn’t). Republican governors are on record as crediting the stimulus for economic success in their states. And quantitative easing is Fed policy. Are you suggesting Obama micromanages Bernanke? And its also precisely what the financial sector wanted. But yeah I forget, the financial sector is full of socialists.

Whose candidate? Romney? Anybody who knows me knows I don’t support him, and I get plenty of crap for it. Try again.

Hypocritical, but how on earth does that effect your ability to get a job?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 9:59 AM

See above. It reflects his disconnect with people, and his cavalier attitude towards spurring economic growth through fiscal policy.

MadisonConservative on June 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM

the Bush Administration and conservatives pushed for the conversion of Social Security into 401ks and other private wall street investment products. Can you *imagine* what would’ve happened in 2008 if those efforts had succeeded?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Social Security would have been a bunch of individual accounts that would have been full of stock certificates that had lost half their value, instead of one big fund full of treasury certificates that have no value, since the debt is never going to be paid.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Canada is a much more socialist nation than the U.S., they didn’t go through the housing nightmare we did. Care to explain?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

You’re asking how a country with 1/10th our population, nowhere near the number of size of banking corporations as we have, and no Community Reinvestment Act, didn’t have the exact same situation as us did?

Really? Come on, now.

MadisonConservative on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Can someone remind this OWS reject that one the main reasons small banks and credit unions suffered the most in the 2008 crash is because we had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate beginning in 2007 who overloaded small banks and credit unions with ball-busting rules and regulations?

Indeed. Rather than regulate big banks, Democrats targeted small lending institutions. Why? Because the Dems are corporatist-lite, its one of the reasons why you alls claim that they are “socialist” is so fracking ridiculous.

And can someone remind this OWS reject that it was the Democrat Congress who refused to address the problems with Fannie & Freddie thereby forcing many small banks and credit unions to make homeowner loans to people who had no possibility of repaying them?

This has been demonstrated again and again, but while Fannie and Freddie were royally screwed, the vast majority of overexposure was taken on by the big private investment banks. Who made tons and tons and *tons* of money off of these poor investments. That’s the part that you all don’t quite seem to understand. Greed mattered immensely.

What has also been demonstrated again and again is that the areas with the highest foreclosures were NOT, may I repeat, were NOT, areas that benefited most from the CIRA. Fort Lauderdale, boo boo, was not a CIRA targeted community. Here’s the ugly truth, those CIRA targeted areas did not experience massive house price *increases* (the kinds that led to flipping, reflipping, and over reliance on equity) that brought the credit crisis over the time. Housing prices in CIRA communities remained relatively stable. Now here’s where Democrats pulled their usual f%ckery. They used the language of the CIRA to support lending practices that made their donors on wall street tons and tons of money. But it was the middle class, not the poor, who took on these loans. Quit blaming them.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

See above. It reflects his disconnect with people, and his cavalier attitude towards spurring economic growth through fiscal policy.

MadisonConservative on June 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM

But on the the other hand, he has a PhD in the Liberal Arts and is fluent in Marxist economic theory and political ideology, so he clearly is smarter than all the rest of us combined. /s

SWalker on June 22, 2012 at 10:27 AM

believe that the true problem with crony capitalism is the disregard for the rule of law. The same laws do not apply to all, and that more than anything else will destroy the country. Once you teach people that laws only selectively apply then all is lost.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 10:00 AM

agreed but those that write the laws or in this case control the laws that are written overtime will tend to think themselves above the law. So once again the answer is smaller government less people with less power to effect the writing of laws, less bills written to become laws means less chances of sneaking in small little laws to reward certain people. means more ability of citizens to keep an eye on their represenatives means less bribery and less people above the law

unseen on June 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I’m convinced you’re deathtomediahacks.

Because we all didn’t get a chance to say it before we were sure, let me just formally say, welcome back. Now, no cracks about stalking. Because it’s just too easy. Same demographics, same exact language. (I’d *fracking* bet the farm on it)

Did you ever finish your book?

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM

This has been demonstrated again and again, but while Fannie and Freddie were royally screwed, the vast majority of overexposure was taken on by the big private investment banks. Who made tons and tons and *tons* of money off of these poor investments. That’s the part that you all don’t quite seem to understand. Greed mattered immensely.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

There is nothing wrong with self interest, or greed as you like to call it. The problem is FRAUD. There was fraud from the borrowers who lied, to the mortgage brokers who aided their lies, and the top executives who knew the loans were bad but sold them as AAA securities anyway. There is nothing wrong with self interest as long as you obey the law.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 10:34 AM

All I know is the guy who predicted the 2008 bust is predicting worse now.

txmomof6 on June 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Indeed. It is also Obama who put Goldman Sachs execs in charge of his economic team and who agreed to a stimulus that was 1/3 supply side tax breaks and 1/3 shoring up individual state debt. In other words it wasn’t an actual Keynesian “stimulus.” So he can claim to have saved a large number of jobs (not sure as to the number, I’m sure its less than they are claiming). But its not really fair to claim that this has been a “socialist” regime. If it were socialist than the bank bailout would’ve gone directly to every American in foreclosure towards keeping their mortgage afloat or refinanced. But that’s not what happened is it.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Ah, then end-stage argument of “true” socialists like you: when faced with the reality that massive government involvement didn’t produced the ideologically promised results you fall back to “they didn’t really do it right – next time powerful bureaucrats and politicians will get it right and won’t be corrupt!”.

Obama – and most liberals – claim that the state bail outs saved the jobs of teachers and cops, so why do you hate teachers and cops? In the words of Joe Biden – why do you want more rapes?

gwelf on June 22, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The best [?] is yet to come. What you see is the game plan, Democrats,Child Obama and his string pullers, and of course a media that hates with a passion & idiotically thinks itself superior, are poised for the kill. Destroy as much as you can, maximize pain, wreck and keep wrecking. Big as the banks are they have been essentially taken over by freaks of the left. These freaks can’t catch up with Europe, and pass her downwards, fast enough. Obama, he sits in the WH blubbering, approaching breakdown if not already there.

arand on June 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM

You can’t be this intellectually dishonest, I am just going to assume you forgot that throughout the 2000′s the Bush Administration and conservatives pushed for the conversion of Social Security into 401ks and other private wall street investment products. Can you *imagine* what would’ve happened in 2008 if those efforts had succeeded? Its a frightening thought. I mean, think about what you are saying. That if people had been less secure they wouldn’t have….invested in wall street? I.E. Investing in Wall Street is a bad idea in the long term? How on earth can you claim to be a free-market conservative?

Wall Street is risky. Period. If people know this and still invest their money and they lose as a free market conservative i’m fine with that. Don’t help them let them eat dog food. They made a decision and they took a risk and lost. I don’t care. If people know they can gamble and maybe strike it rich while also having a backup secure check they will gamble to their hearts content. If they can get a 10% return with a risky “investment”/gamble or a 2% secure no risk return people being people will mosty of the time go for the 10% return and if they have a secure check coming regardless of how it turns out they will always go for it.

Social security is the admission by liberals that to them people can’t be trusted with their money.

If people are responsible for their retirement and only they are responsible for it, they would not invest in WAll STREET as the sole p[lace for their money. They would take a fraction of their retirement and gamble it in Wall street but the rest they would invest in bonds, metals, land, kids, etc.

personal responsibility and freedom u liberals should try it sometime.

unseen on June 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM

The lsm will call it a double dip in jan and blame mitt on inauguration day

cmsinaz on June 22, 2012 at 10:42 AM

…thereby forcing many small banks and credit unions to make homeowner loans to people who had no possibility of repaying them?

Flora Duh on June 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

But it was the middle class, not the poor, who took on these loans. Quit blaming them.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Stereotyping aren’t ya?

Fort Lauderdale, boo boo, was not a CIRA targeted community.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Thank you for once again showing how little you really know. Do you think Ft. Lauderdale consists only of what you see on postcards or travel brochures?

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; its just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Flora Duh on June 22, 2012 at 10:44 AM

This has been demonstrated again and again, but while Fannie and Freddie were royally screwed, the vast majority of overexposure was taken on by the big private investment banks. Who made tons and tons and *tons* of money off of these poor investments. That’s the part that you all don’t quite seem to understand. Greed mattered immensely.
libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

What you don’t understand is that risk tempers greed. When the federal government – via Freddie/Fannie – removes that risk then you have problems (and anything but a free market system). Also, community organizers like Obama sued and harassed banks to make risky loans all in the name of social justice (the ideological core of socialism).

gwelf on June 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM

There is nothing wrong with self interest as long as you obey the law.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 10:34 AM

considering that the banks, morgatge companies and realators outright ignored state laws pretaining to deeds and transfer of land should not every bank, and company involved in the process loss all rights to the property they sold without legally owning? Selling something u don’t legally own could be consider illegal, theft, fraud. etc.

unseen on June 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

So he can claim to have saved a large number of jobs (not sure as to the number, I’m sure its less than they are claiming). But its not really fair to claim that this has been a “socialist” regime. If it were socialist than the bank bailout would’ve gone directly to every American in foreclosure towards keeping their mortgage afloat or refinanced. But that’s not what happened is it.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM

He saved state and local gov’t jobs with a wealth transfer and all it did was push the state’s debt and budget problems down the road. Hardly worth crowing about.

Nothing liberals ever do is true “Keynesian stimulus”. Keynes preached saving money during good times and spending during bad times. No liberal has ever sought to cut spending during good times or save during good times. So even if I believed in Keynesian (I do not), Liberals, like in all else, are dishonest about Keynes.

In today’s world – due largely to liberals – true Keynesian stimulus is impossible. A true Keynesian stimulus would be like deciding to build a big project a la the hoover dam and put people to work on something that would actually have a long term benefit for society as infrastructure. Because of all of the environmental laws, labor laws, zoning laws, etc., no project like that can get off the ground in less than a 5 year ramp-up time. there may be projects like that starting right now that were already planned, but you can’t simply “dump money” into those projects. The money is already there for those projects, as the projects were long planned and the money set aside.

So, instead, Obama merely gave money to state and local gov’t so they could close budget gaps and avoid the necessary lay-offs and cuts that gov’t really need to make to become solvent.

So, the spending accomplished nothing but pushing the can slightly down the road, and the truth is that no stimulus can do more that that.

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

arand on June 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Exactly. All I see is wreck and more wreck. I do not think Obama is the least bit sane.
Libfreeordie sounds just like many 18 year olds. This is exactly what is coming out of Oregon schools. Little Marxists who believe that it just hasn’t been done right yet, and they are the ones to do it. The next 50 years is going to be an interesting and very frustrating struggle.

ORconservative on June 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM

What has also been demonstrated again and again is that the areas with the highest foreclosures were NOT, may I repeat, were NOT, areas that benefited most from the CIRA. Fort Lauderdale, boo boo, was not a CIRA targeted community. Here’s the ugly truth, those CIRA targeted areas did not experience massive house price *increases* (the kinds that led to flipping, reflipping, and over reliance on equity) that brought the credit crisis over the time. Housing prices in CIRA communities remained relatively stable. Now here’s where Democrats pulled their usual f%ckery. They used the language of the CIRA to support lending practices that made their donors on wall street tons and tons of money. But it was the middle class, not the poor, who took on these loans. Quit blaming them.

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I’ve never bought into the CRA link as mainstream conservatism likes to sell it. I tend to believe that the banks saw congress and the CRA coming, and convinced congress that they couldn’t possibly take on that kind of risk, but they offered an alternative. Let us use CDOs to move mortgages, and their CRA risks, off our books and we’ll gladly implement your CRA demands.

“I don’t care what you do with me, Brer Fox” said Brer Rabbit. “Just don’t fling me in that briar patch over there. Roast me, Brer Fox, but don’t fling me in in that briar patch,” said Brer Rabbit.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM

CNN’s web page refers to this as a “double-dip” recession (Romans does not), which I’m not sure is technically correct. We have had 12 straight quarters of GDP growth — anemic, sluggish, and in some cases nearly all artificial, but growth nonetheless.

Bollocks. We’ve never left recession, despite “technical” constructs to argue otherwise. How many headlines do we need to see, daily, weekly, year after year, stating “Unexpected Higher Job Losses Posted,” or read about bank/credit downgrades, business failures, plummeting savings, home values, higher and higher daily consumer goods prices???

EasyEight on June 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM

So you excuse the fact that corporations buy politicians in order to get policies that (they believe) will guarantee them greater profits because politicians have lawmaking power? OK, so you are wanting a government around the size it was in, I’m guessing pre-Teddy Roosevelt?

And can I ask…why do you support Republicans then? They are bought and paid for by the same corporations who buy and sell Democrats, and yet you are under the impression that only Democrats are “crony capitalists?” I mean…really?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Oh good god. Unions buy politicians. the AARP buys politicians. What exactly do you want? Nobody can spend money on politics? Grow up and stop with the silly cliched idiotic talking points (corporations own politicians, its so bad).

Yes, I want a small gov’t that is not involved in everything. Why, exactly do you believe the federal gov’t needs to be involved in everything? Why do you worship gov’t? I mean . . . really?

You excuse unions that buy politicians in order to pass laws that make it harder for American companies to compete and stay in business? That let lazy inefficient workers keep their jobs and earn way more than the market would allow?

Do you ever speak in anything but cliches? Corporations bad and evil, politicians bought, gov’t good.

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Canada is a much more socialist nation than the U.S., they didn’t go through the housing nightmare we did. Care to explain?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Canada has five banks and one bank regulator. The U.S. has hundreds of banks and five different agencies regulating them, plus state banking departments in many cases. Canada’s banks spend less than one-fifth as much on regulatory compliance as U.S. banks.

Canada’s central bank also is not the regulator of the banks. It does not manipulate market interest rates the way the Fed does. This is the main reason it has avoided the boom/bust cycles that have happened in the U.S. repeatedly due to the Fed manipulating interest rates.

The better structure of Canada’s central bank and banking system have nothing to do with “socialism.” In fact, the only way Canada is more socialist than the U.S. is its health care system. The U.S. has far more government interference in markets of all kinds, more citizens dependent on government payments, more rent-seekers spending millions on lobbying to greb their share of federal dollars and tax loopholes, etc. Canada’s provincial governments also enjoy much more autonomy from Ottawa than the States in America do now.

If we had Canada’s form of government, Barack Obama’s government would have fallen in 2010 and we would have a Conservative prime minister today.

rockmom on June 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Social Security would have been a bunch of individual accounts that would have been full of stock certificates that had lost half their value, instead of one big fund full of treasury certificates that have no value, since the debt is never going to be paid.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I say if government wants people to “save” for retirement. Make a tax that says the first 15% of earnings are taxed at 100% unless it was placed in a retirement account.

No withdrawls allowed from account until age 62 but what u do with the funds in the account is up to you. I wasn’t thrilled with bush’s crony capitalism trying to juice up Wall street with his maket accounts that would have had high fees and such.

unseen on June 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM

“15 Big Banks Slapped With Credit Downgrade”

That’s inconceivable!

Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations are in place.

Where’s our unicorns, moonbeams and pennies from heaven??

locomotivebreath1901 on June 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM

considering that the banks, morgatge companies and realators outright ignored state laws pretaining to deeds and transfer of land should not every bank, and company involved in the process loss all rights to the property they sold without legally owning? Selling something u don’t legally own could be consider illegal, theft, fraud. etc.

unseen on June 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I forgot about the whole MERS tax avoidance problem, but you can certainly include that as well.

DFCtomm on June 22, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Indeed. Rather than regulate big banks, Democrats targeted small lending institutions. Why? Because the Dems are corporatist-lite, its one of the reasons why you alls claim that they are “socialist” is so fracking ridiculous.
libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You are partially correct – Obama and Democrats are actually fascists. Technically socialism is when the government owns and operates all the means of production (and these systems have historically and unequivocally been horrific).

What we have – as explained by Thomas Sewell – is a system where the government insists it be involved in the operation of businesses without having an ownership stake (with the exception of GM which Obama handed over to the unions) and can use any failures as more reason to be even more involved in operating the business/industry. The statists get to call the tune and let the businesses reap the consequences.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist

You also seem deluded – why would government corruption matter less if the government were more involved. You seem to acknowledge that Democrats are corrupt and that the larger government gets the more it’s resources are used to corrupt ends but you want more government? Or have you now become a free-market libertarian?

gwelf on June 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM

the Bush Administration and conservatives pushed for the conversion of Social Security into 401ks and other private wall street investment products. Can you *imagine* what would’ve happened in 2008 if those efforts had succeeded?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Well, as I recall, those nearing retirement wouldn’t have been affected. So, the rest of us would see our accounts drop in value in the short term (but still have actual value) and then watch over the next 10 – 20 years as stocks eventually come back and we would have larger retirements than social security will ever provide, if SS still even exists at that time.

Meanwhile, SS certificates that currently exist have no actual value as they are just IOUs from one agency of gov’t to another, which means it is a debt we owe ourselves. How you believe there is any actual value in a debt you owe to yourself is beyond me. Apparently you believe money grows on trees and if the gov’t waves a magic wand wealth appears.

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Yeah, “double dip” because that way “IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT!”

When in truth, this will be “THE OBAMA RECESSION”.

GarandFan on June 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM

And can I ask…why do you support Republicans then? They are bought and paid for by the same corporations who buy and sell Democrats, and yet you are under the impression that only Democrats are “crony capitalists?” I mean…really?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

And by the way, I never said anything that remotely implied that democrats are the only ones who are crony capitalists. that is entirely in your head. I fully admit that republicans engage in it to, which is why smaller gov’t is the only answer. The less gov’t, the less chance for corruption, crony capitalism and the like.

And, I support Republicans only to the extent that they are less liberal than the dems. I hardly think republicans are that great. Just better than the alternative.

As far as money in politics – why do you support Obama? He basically outspent McCain 2:1. I suppose you believe his money came from a “good source” and that he is not “bought and paid for” because he is a liberal and therefore protected from evil by a glowing aura of light.

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Canada is a much more socialist nation than the U.S., they didn’t go through the housing nightmare we did. Care to explain?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/canada-housing-flaherty-idINL1E8HL2N020120621

casuist on June 22, 2012 at 11:01 AM

The less gov’t, the less chance for corruption, crony capitalism and the like.

The problem with libs is they think the opposite is true. But it goes to the very heart of the philosophy. Libs believe they can change human nature itself if they just find the right formula of laws and regulations. then everyone will be happy and wealthy and pure.

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Do you ever speak in anything but cliches? Corporations bad and evil, politicians bought, gov’t good.

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I’ve come to the conclusion that Libby has no real knowledge. And for some strange reasson this marvelous academic has all the time in the world to post incessantly on Hot Air and who knows where else. There is a good side to this though, it gives HA the hits and demonstrates the ineffectual abilities of Liberal academia. LOL

Deanna on June 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I’m not sure is technically correct. We have had 12 straight quarters of GDP growth — anemic, sluggish, and in some cases nearly all artificial, but growth nonetheless.

Maybe he is taking those GDP numbers with a large shaker of salt? If one can believe what the consumer metrics institute writes, the BEA hasn’t been very good with their accuracy. It took them FORTY MONTHS to finally revise the first quarter of 2008′s GDP before they got it right.

I am very curious that nobody wants to vet the BEAs numbers! CMI shows their math and it is credible.

http://www.consumerindexes.com/

Isn’t it about time we all do that? We cannot blindly trust the information supplied by the government, especially after they show us week after week after week how poorly they perform their work!

If any of us gave consistently wrong information for forty months, (or 68 weeks in the case of the BLS/DoL) WE WOULD BE FIRED.

dogsoldier on June 22, 2012 at 11:07 AM

If the Democrats can’t get a large government to function as claimed then who can? They had Congress for 4 years, 2 of which they also had the presidency. Before the GOP revolution in the 90′s they had control of the House for 40 years. I think they’ve had ample time to make it work and it obviously doesn’t. But true believers like libfree keep asking for more in the hopes that eventually it will all somehow work out.

gwelf on June 22, 2012 at 11:10 AM

libfreeordie,

Don’t you have to go defend child rapists from “Law and Order” types?

MidniteRambler on June 22, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Apparently you believe money grows on trees and if the gov’t waves a magic wand wealth appears.

Monkeytoe on June 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

The problem is wealth isn’t money, it’s assets and the utility of those assets. This is their (donks/progressives, etc.) dirty little secret. Money doesn’t grow on trees, but it can come from a printing press. So in their view, just print more. When a government goes into debt it just prints money to pay it.

Fighton03 on June 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Fighton03 on June 22, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I’m not a financial wiz by any stretch but your comment is fundamental and well stated. And yet the concept is lost on so many people. The wife and I have been fearful of the dollar value since the beginning of the giveaways and have transferred much of what we had (not collecting much interest to begin with) into tangible real property over the last couple years. Building a farm/country property. And it’s not a matter of just seeing how much we can buy or own, it’s a matter of protecting what we’ve earned towards retirement in a more stable commodity than something that’s only worth or as good as the discipline of our government.

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM

I’m convinced you’re deathtomediahacks…
 
hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM

 
He finally owned up to it here.

rogerb on June 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Dear Flora Duh, Monkeytoe, etc.

Here you go again with your facts, figgers and logic. Well Libfreeordie isn’t having it. You’re not going to confuse a good liberal with facts… ever! In liberal world talking points trump reality every time. So there. /S

ghostwalker1 on June 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I downgraded Moody’s to sub-junk years ago. I can’t say why this pathetic joke is still in business. Their ratings have never been accurate about anything – no more than asking your average person in the street for their opinion.

On the bright side, Warren Butthead’s business is all wrapped up in insurance and fancy derivatives and the like, so his ownership stake in Moody’s is pretty cool … Luckily, “conflict of interest” is no longer a concept that America actually considers for anything.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM

thanks Hawk. Given my typing skills, getting a “well stated” is a major achievement.

Your point about the value of the commodity(money) is telling, because that is exactly why gov’t cannot create wealth. The printing of money only destroys the ability to create wealth. This is the fundamental flaw in all socialist/marxist/facist type economic theories.

Fighton03 on June 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM

the Bush Administration and conservatives pushed for the conversion of Social Security into 401ks and other private wall street investment products. Can you *imagine* what would’ve happened in 2008 if those efforts had succeeded?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Anyone close to retirement would have been primarily in bonds and value stocks. The market has made back the vast majority of the value as well.

And those of us 10-50 years from retirement have been fortunate enough to have been investing into the market through a severe downturn of the market, and have done well.

One last thing- Bush’s plan was 100% voluntary.

Chuck Schick on June 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM

The problem with Libfree types is that they hear one piece of info and extrapolate into areas that are completely wrong.

Yes, corps are sitting on quite a bit of cash. Do you know why they won’t spend it? Because they are afraid of what the govt will do tomorrow. PPACA has all sorts of costs associated with making every employee more expensive. Silly NLRB rulings cause employers to be unsure of what rules might change on them regarding rules on organizing – more risk on hiring employees. Small employers are directly impacted by the soak the rich tax rates and are unsure how much money they have to invest or how much they will have to send to uncle sam. Quietly the EPA is forcing the states to begin regulating carbon and creating permitting process – all of which costs time and money. They are shutting down coal plants which in some part of the country means energy supply will be threatened. Most people assume once coal is pretty much forced out they will go after natural gas. The thought of placing capital in place only to have more EPA regulations put in place make them wary to invest unless it is just a slam dunk business proposition and they are convinced they can pass on all the higher costs.

Business supported Obama pretty well in 08, but are now very much against him for all the reasons I noted. Because of what Obama has done. Business will always play the game of paying protection money and try and pay off everybody. But right now they are staring down the barrel of Obama regulatory state and going – nah, not interested in supporting that. And they are taking that same attitude towards the states as well – so we see California and Illinois hemorrhaging jobs – Cat is very quietly doing all they can to leave Illinois whenever possible.

Big govt is a protection racket – like the mob. And while we know the Democrats are all in on this and believe in nothing else than bribes, skim, votes, repeat; the GOP are no saints and have a substantial number of their members with the same problem. Ask Microsoft what happened when they didn’t have a govt lobbying presence in the early 90s. It wasn’t pretty. Now they do.

Lib, you think govt is the great protector. They aren’t. They are the monster in the closet now. Too big, too scary, and too hungry. They believe everything any of us make belongs to the govt first.

Zomcon JEM on June 22, 2012 at 11:52 AM

He finally owned up to it here.

rogerb on June 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM

He doesn’t even try to mask his bio or pattern. I think he wanted us to know. Vanity.

But, let’s not pass this opportunity to observe that you and I both are *fracking* troll experts and bona fide geniuses!

*sighs*

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

the Bush Administration and conservatives pushed for the conversion of Social Security into 401ks and other private wall street investment products. Can you *imagine* what would’ve happened in 2008 if those efforts had succeeded?
 
libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

 
I know you’re less versed on economic nuts and bolts, but you might need to consider learning how to buy and sell stock. Vanguard’s site is a very good, very inexpensive place to get your feet wet. They’re very patient with inexperienced investors, too. Give them a call and they can talk you through it. I’d suggest something simple and long-term at first. They even have retirement dates set that automatically set diversity depending on your risk tolerance.
 
You can learn as you go, and invest more as you become more comfortable with what you’re doing.
 
You’re around 30, right? Even $100/month at a pessimistic 6% for the next 30 years will give you over $100K for retirement. Starting young is the best time to begin so that interest has time to work its magic, especially since SS won’t be able to float you when you’ve retired.
 
That said,
 

Can you *imagine* what would’ve happened in 2008 if those efforts had succeeded?

 
Yes. A lot of middle-class people who knew to hold and buy during the down time would’ve made (and still be making) a lot of money off of the rising market.
 
As it is, SS is still stagnant/failing and those same middle-class folks may never see the money that has been taken from them.

rogerb on June 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Canada is a much more socialist nation than the U.S., they didn’t go through the housing nightmare we did. Care to explain?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

You’re really oversimplifying that, but no matter.

To their credit, Canadian government does not have the strange obsession with promoting home ownership that we do. They do not have a mortgage deduction on income taxes. My friends are Canadian homeowners and they waited quite a while to get into their homes.

Over the past 15 years, the US government has been pushing homeownership through rock-bottom interest rates after 9/11, things like CRA, state laws like here in CA that encourage people to walk away from their homes, and, most insidious of all, lowering home-equity minimums at Fannie/Freddie and FHA to compete with private lenders during the boom. Negative home equity was the #1 cause of foreclosure and twice the number of sub-prime loans. You can thank the government for all of this.

Chuck Schick on June 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

DevilsPrinciple on June 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

So, tell me…how many people read your writings?

kingsjester on June 22, 2012 at 10:17 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

DevilsPrinciple on June 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM
That’s a lot of acronyms.

pain train on June 22, 2012 at 10:17 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

…think his actual baptised name…is Dumb Pecker!

KOOLAID2 on June 22, 2012 at 12:03 PM

libfreeordie, you really must at some point take the time to go back and read your comments. Funny! Oh and did you get the folks at Morehouse straightened out yet?

Bmore on June 22, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Bmore on June 22, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Bmore, with respect to our “Phoenix” of a commenter here, I’d like to propose he be addressed as libfreeordeathto. In that way, we can pay homage to his wonderful contributions prior to him being ban-hammered the first time.

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Canada is a much more socialist nation than the U.S., they didn’t go through the housing nightmare we did. Care to explain?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Well, the others here have sufficiently drop-kicked your getalife into low Earth orbit on this one, so I will just add a simple factoid. Canada only has about 10% of the population the US does. Hence, much fewer housing units.

And unlike here, Canada’s politicians did not pressure lenders to make loans to people who couldn’t afford to pay them back.

Del Dolemonte on June 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Bmore on June 22, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Bmore, with respect to our “Phoenix” of a commenter here, I’d like to propose he be addressed as libfreeordeathto. In that way, we can pay homage to his wonderful contributions prior to him being ban-hammered the first time.

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Consider it done. Funny! Have you noticed the absence of our NASCAR buddy?

Bmore on June 22, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Moody’s downgrade of 15 banks a sign of a new recession

No, it’s a sign of the beginnings of a long-overdue “truth in ratings” movement spurred by consumer rejection of obviously-phony, inflated ratings.

landlines on June 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Consider it done. Funny! Have you noticed the absence of our NASCAR buddy?

Bmore on June 22, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I didn’t even want to ask about him. I think he finally got tired of getting his butt spanked every single time he opened his mouth.

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM

This is a new recession? When did the old one end? The “recovery” was a lie made up by Obama, democrats and their friends in the press. It never actually occurred.

Dollayo on June 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM

the Bush Administration and conservatives pushed for the conversion of Social Security into 401ks and other private wall street investment products. Can you *imagine* what would’ve happened in 2008 if those efforts had succeeded?

libfreeordie on June 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

YES!!! IT WOULD STILL BE MY MONEY!!! …invested in the investments of my choice, available for taking loans against it in times of hardship (paid back to myself of course), and able to be willed to my wife and children if I die before retirement!

Social Security is TAKING money from me and giving it so someone else. Yet when I reach retirement age, there won’t be any left. So what was your point again… that with 401K I might actually be able to retire?

Good thing liberals don’t like firearms… I imagine your hospital bills would be outrageous, just based on how many times you do it on HotAir!

dominigan on June 22, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I didn’t even want to ask about him. I think he finally got tired of getting his butt spanked every single time he opened his mouth.

hawkdriver on June 22, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Sorry for the slow response , I’m stuck using an iPad and HA is having issues with having java inabled on the iPad. Of course it has to be inabled to comment. As far as our buddy. I think he is history. The last outing you had with him was one of his last. Of course the whole stealth banning thing makes it hard to know for sure. No entrails and what? Regardless the site is more readable for not having him on. Now if they could just muster the energy to swing that glorious hammer a time or two more. I could use the breeze, it’s finally starting to get hot down my way. ; ) P.S. Good to see you.

Bmore on June 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

We have had 12 straight quarters of GDP growth — anemic, sluggish, and in some cases nearly all artificial,

If you’re right about the artificial part, wouldn’t that mean that there really weren’t 12 straight quarters of GDP growth?

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Hope to live long enough to see justice come to my favorite BANKSTER OF AMERICA and see some of their criminal leaders (of the rape of the housing market) thrown in the penitentiary!!

Marco on June 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Why do you let so many threads die after you present your data and/or open ended argument?

rogerb on June 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM

 
Which threads are those?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 11:44 PM

rogerb on June 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM

So, does anyone know of a good credit card. One not carried by one of these banks. Mine is issued by Bank of America and when I learned they are giving money to the Communist-inspired, Al Gore gimme money con known as global warming, I meant to get another.

IS there a non-leftist, non-Obama contributing bank out there anywhere?

Portia46 on June 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Hey there, Portia…You might give USAA a try. We’ve been with them for many years now…free checking, reimbursment for ATM charges, etc. Our credit card interest rate is a reasonable 8%. They’ve been serving military families for something like 80 years. I see them advertising on TV a lot, so maybe they’ve opened up to everyone…I don’t know. If you have ANY military person in your family, you might want to apply.

StarLady on June 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2