TPS Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 no doubt he did a pretty stupid thing, especially since he pissed both wall street and the bush admin off. <just came across this piece he wrote in the post about how the admin blocked states from preventing subprime lending. enemies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Why must you do that? Few factual inaccuracies - the peak of predatory lending was 2005/2006, not 2003. But most importantly, the OCC is not an obscure agency (which you should know) . The reason OCC pushed back at the states is that the states were encroaching on regulations of federally chartered institutions. A minor technicality that you don't like to be bothered with when analyzing things in hindsight. You would also figure if Bush & Co were after Spitzer, they would have done something well before he ran for governor. No need to gin up accusations now that the great crusader has been exposed as a sleazeball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 The guy did have a lot of enemies but I don't think it was a deliberate set up. He was just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 ..ps, if you don't believe me, maybe you can believe these guys. So whether or not you want to see if Bush & Co were the ones behind Ellie's troubles, the op-ed is emblematic of his style, sensationalizing half truths to prop up his image, while actually doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakesider Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Maybe it is as simple as the arrogance of power....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Maybe it is as simple as the arrogance of power....? I can't think of many who could compete with him on that score. Eliot Spitzer is a first ballot lock for the "Arrogance of Power" HOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 no doubt he did a pretty stupid thing, especially since he pissed both wall street and the bush admin off. <just came across this piece he wrote in the post about how the admin blocked states from preventing subprime lending.enemies Now that's rather interesting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Why must you do that? 1) Few factual inaccuracies - the peak of predatory lending was 2005/2006, not 2003. 2) But most importantly, the OCC is not an obscure agency (which you should know) . 3) The reason OCC pushed back at the states is that the states were encroaching on regulations of federally chartered institutions. A minor technicality that you don't like to be bothered with when analyzing things in hindsight. 4) You would also figure if Bush & Co were after Spitzer, they would have done something well before he ran for governor. No need to gin up accusations now that the great crusader has been exposed as a sleazeball. 1) Irrelevant 2) Obscure to the majority of those reading the piece, duh. (which you should know) 3) Kinda proves Spitzer's point, doesn't it? There ws an obvous problem with these subprime mortagaes, this has been known for years. The states tried to do something about it. Bush could have taken the lead in this, but instead, he fought the people trying to stop the disaster and look at the mess we are in now. Nothing a tax cut can't fix, huh? 4) You questioning the timing??? Have you been paying attention? Spitzer, the governor of New York--you do know where Wall Street is located?--was turning up the heat on this issue just as the meldown was beginning. They wanted the number one point man in this crusade out of the way, I'm sure. I don't know if they "got him" but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 A politician dropped the dime on his rival who was committing a crime? This is news? What am I missing? Tommy will explain it to you later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 1) Irrelevant Irrelevant, why? 2) Obscure to the majority of those reading the piece, duh. (which you should know) Including to the soppers, like you, who take his word as gospel? I take it you haven't bothered reading the letters to Wash Post disputing Saint Ellie's claims. 3) Kinda proves Spitzer's point, doesn't it? There ws an obvous problem with these subprime mortagaes, this has been known for years. The states tried to do something about it. Bush could have taken the lead in this, but instead, he fought the people trying to stop the disaster and look at the mess we are in now. Nothing a tax cut can't fix, huh? Read the letters, educate yourself. Abuse was happening all over the place, including in state chartered banks. Why weren't state chartered run mortgage companies reigned in? If all 50 state AGs supported Spitzer, how is this a Dem vs Rep issue rather than State vs Fed? Why did the SCOUTUS have to rule in this case (against the states?) 4) You questioning the timing??? Have you been paying attention? Spitzer, the governor of New York--you do know where Wall Street is located?--was turning up the heat on this issue just as the meldown was beginning. They wanted the number one point man in this crusade out of the way, I'm sure. I don't know if they "got him" but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Yes, I'm questioning the timing, because if Spitzer thought there was a problem in 2003, why did he wait until Feb '08 to write his op-ed, when the market imploded in the summer of '07? Keep it up, you may take back the crown from East Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Keep it up, you may take back the crown from East Brady. He never really gave it up. Just because a great amount of his stupidity was lost, there's no way you can overcome that kinda quantity with one thread of nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 1) Irrelevant, why? 2) Including to the soppers, like you, who take his word as gospel? I take it you haven't bothered reading the letters to Wash Post disputing Saint Ellie's claims. 3) Read the letters, educate yourself. Abuse was happening all over the place, including in state chartered banks. Why weren't state chartered run mortgage companies reigned in? If all 50 state AGs supported Spitzer, how is this a Dem vs Rep issue rather than State vs Fed? Why did the SCOUTUS have to rule in this case (against the states?) 4) Yes, I'm questioning the timing, because if Spitzer thought there was a problem in 2003, why did he wait until Feb '08 to write his op-ed, when the market imploded in the summer of '07? Keep it up, you may take back the crown from East Brady. 1) Because it doesn't matter 2) I read it and it was interesting. Would like to hear Spitzer's reply to them, though that won't happen now 3a) Why did Court rule? LOL, because Bush instead of working with the states to stop it sued the states to stop enforcement. That's why. Pretty simple. 3b) Spitzer did reign in the banks he could, Countrywide for instance, even though its a California company but it did business in New York. But was Bear Stearns a state "bank?" No, it was outside the regulatory network for other reasons. All of this smacks of hiding behind jourisdictions, classifications of companies, etc. Lots of smoke and mirrors used to hide these predatory lending practices and other white collar crime. 4) You answerred your own question. He was playing politics and if he was brought down because of that the timing makes perfect sense 5) Do you feel Bush should have done more to confront this problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 He never really gave it up. Just because a great amount of his stupidity was lost, there's no way you can overcome that kinda quantity with one thread of nonsense. Hey, you enjoying watching the Federal government bail out the capitalist system? Must be gauling for you, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 3a) Why did Court rule? LOL, because Bush instead of working with the states to stop it sued the states to stop enforcement. That's why. Pretty simple. Thank you for the daily affirmation. The Supreme Court is an agent of the Executive Branch in molsonland. 3b) Spitzer did reign in the banks he could, Countrywide for instance, even though its a California company but it did business in New York. But was Bear Stearns a state "bank?" No, it was outside the regulatory network for other reasons. All of this smacks of hiding behind jourisdictions, classifications of companies, etc. Lots of smoke and mirrors used to hide these predatory lending practices and other white collar crime. [molson] When I don't understand an issue, I just throw up a whole bunch of jingoisms that I lifted off the headlines of newspapers strewn on bathroom floors. [/molson] 4) You answerred your own question. He was playing politics and if he was brought down because of that the timing makes perfect sense Obviously the timing is important, because the day after the op-ed appeared he had the unbreaking urge to see Kristen. Never mind that the investigations has already been ongoing for months before that. 5) Do you feel Bush should have done more to confront this problem? This problem, if you even understood what it was, is beyond one person's ability to control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 1) Thank you for the daily affirmation. The Supreme Court is an agent of the Executive Branch in molsonland. 2) [molsonWhen I don't understand an issue, I just throw up a whole bunch of jingoisms that I lifted off the headlines of newspapers strewn on bathroom floors. [/molson] 3) Obviously the timing is important, because the day after the op-ed appeared he had the unbreaking urge to see Kristen. Never mind that the investigations has already been ongoing for months before that. 4) This problem, if you even understood what it was, is beyond one person's ability to control. 1) Wow, you really are an idiot 2) Wow, you really are stupid. Talk about avoiding the issue 3) Obviously 4) ROTFLMAO!!!! Oh really? I wasn't aware the President worked alone...You are something special. Sort of special education like. How about making lending less of a loan sharking business? And applying more scrunity to rating agencies that are connected to these mortgage companies and give these mortgages AAA ratings so the companies can sell them off as securites to unsuspecting investors? You are the biggest appologist of Bush's policies on this board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 1) Wow, you really are an idiot 2) Wow, you really are stupid. Talk about avoiding the issue 3) Obviously 4) ROTFLMAO!!!! Oh really? I wasn't aware the President worked alone...You are something special. Sort of special education like. How about making lending less of a loan sharking business? And applying more scrunity to rating agencies that are connected to these mortgage companies and give these mortgages AAA ratings so the companies can sell them off as securites to unsuspecting investors? You are the biggest appologist of Bush's policies on this board Wow, you surely showed me with this response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Wow, you surely showed me with this response. There was nothing to show but your ignorance, which you demonstrated with your previous post. I actually am disappointed. I thought you might be able to offer me a someone intelligent discussion but you are obviously not up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 There was nothing to show but your ignorance, which you demonstrated with your previous post. I actually am disappointed. I thought you might be able to offer me a someone intelligent discussion but you are obviously not up to it. Do your own homework, Sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 There was nothing to show but your ignorance, which you demonstrated with your previous post. I actually am disappointed. I thought you might be able to offer me a someone intelligent discussion but you are obviously not up to it. babble rabble babble rabble............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Oh my....is molton_retard really still crying over Eliot?? Talk about a lonely place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts