Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Financial Meltdown Precipitates O'Reilly Meltdown
By the beard of Zeus! Bill "steaming pile of humanity" O'Reilly loses it on the "Radio Factor," defends the bailout, excoriates Bush and "right-wing radio liars," and takes wild roundhouse swings at that "fat toad" Barney Frank. It makes no sense, but that's rather beside the point. The cigar-chomping fat-cats aren't looking out for you! Oh, and if you point a finger at O'Reilly, he'll smash it into little bits:
|9.25.08 @ 5:00PM|#
All I know is that we have a MORON sitting in the White House,
and his little mini-me McBush is also a MORON running for the White
House. Good help us all if he wins in November.
Jiff
www.privacy.es.tc
|9.25.08 @ 5:01PM|#
I don't quite understand how Bush know they are "dealing in bad
paper" orwhy would it be his job to say so?
And isn't the bailout for more than just Fannie and Freddie?
|9.25.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Can we please...please ban the spammers?
Ban them!
YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE! MASON! YOU TOAD!
GG|9.25.08 @ 5:06PM|#
JOhn Mason | September 25, 2008, 5:00pm | #
This spamming mother fucker is really starting to piss me off.
Elemenope|9.25.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Can we please...please ban the spammers?
Ban them!
I'm with you, dude, but if the asshole(s) is/are using an
anonymization service, it may not be technically feasible to do
so.
ktc2|9.25.08 @ 5:10PM|#
That damn pop-up is far more annoying than the spammer!
Can we have however decided to put that in publicly flogged?
Please?
|9.25.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Yeah, the idea that Bush should have announced that Merrill
Lynch was "dealing in bad paper" is hilarious.
Speaking as someone who works at a big firm and helped create some
of this "bad paper," with a lot of it we're not even sure it's "bad
paper" now, much less did we know that at the time, much less would
Barney Frank have known that.
|9.25.08 @ 5:10PM|#
This spamming mother fucker is really starting to piss me
off.
Only now?!? I've tried to kill him with my mind several times but I
clearly failed.
O'Reilly isn't really a right-winger. He's a populist shithead who
operates on the "common sense" principle: that no matter how stupid
a position is, if it is conventional wisdom that a lot of people
believe, it's right.
JP|9.25.08 @ 5:12PM|#
O'Reilly isn't really a right-winger. He's a populist
shithead who operates on the "common sense" principle
Yes indeedy.
Dagny T.|9.25.08 @ 5:14PM|#
I've tried to kill him with my mind several times but I
clearly failed.
Someone's been sneaking you Ephemerol.
|9.25.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Well, one solution to spammers is to buy so much of their stuff that they retire and stop spamming us.
|9.25.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Someone's been sneaking you Ephemerol.
Shit! Damn you, ConSec!
Cronenberg pays off once again :-)
Dagny T.|9.25.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Cronenberg pays off once again
You were right. Ever get tired of hearing that? ;-)
one solution to spammers
Solutions to spammers: 1
Solutions to Scanners: zilch
|9.25.08 @ 5:25PM|#
His lip service to "no spin" is as bad McCain's "straight talk."
Hmmmm . . . They should have run together with Obama as the
campaign manager. The BS would have been unstoppable. People would
have drooled like zombies, ears would have bled . . .
What am I saying?!
Sorry, folks. O'Reilly's absurd hyperbole is sometimes
contagious.
JMR|9.25.08 @ 5:29PM|#
I've tried to kill O'Reilly with my mind several times, but clearly that also didn't-work.
|9.25.08 @ 5:32PM|#
You were right. Ever get tired of hearing that?
;-)
Not really :-)
I've tried to kill O'Reilly with my mind several times, but
clearly that also didn't-work.
That's because he's Revok. Just look at him!
Jerry|9.25.08 @ 5:33PM|#
O'Reilly does have to watch out not to become a caricature of himself. Next thing you know, some local Fox News producer will have him tied up to a palm tree on the Galveston Seawall.
|9.25.08 @ 5:45PM|#
"I gotta take a break".
That's for sure.
You can just picture the producer cringing in the background.
Dagny T.|9.25.08 @ 5:45PM|#
That's because he's Revok. Just look at him!
Then who is Vale? Someone naive, with a hick-ish Canadian
accent...
|9.25.08 @ 5:47PM|#
I would think there can only be so many urls that spammer is using. Make the posting system reject any post that contains already used urls would make it much more difficult for the bot/$1 per hour person in Bangalore to continue spamming here.
the innominate one|9.25.08 @ 6:08PM|#
O'Reilly is just an amazingly deceptive populist. Perhaps if we all ignore him, he'll go away.
|9.25.08 @ 6:17PM|#
"right-wing radio liars,"
I only heard Rush for like 10 mins this morning....he seemed
solidly against the bailout.
Perhaps this is whom O'Reilly is referring to.
The odd things is I have yet to find anyone who is actually for the
bail out. left wing right wing libertarian...no one seems happy
about it.
Well except O'Reilly and everyone in congress and working at the
White house.
|9.25.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Then who is Vale? Someone naive, with a hick-ish Canadian
accent...
Bob McKenzie?
Warty|9.25.08 @ 6:26PM|#
So, let me get this straight: O'Reilly says, while hosting his
talk radio show, that talk radio hosts are lying to me.
What would Gödel say?
Elf Sternberg|9.25.08 @ 6:41PM|#
I thought that was poly-dicholoride euphemol. "Those stupid bastards are taking poly-dichloride euphemol." Actually, that does sound like the drug O'Reilly takes.
|9.25.08 @ 6:42PM|#
This movie was shot in 3B. Three beers and it looks good,
eh?
So Franklin, are you saying that I haven't been slipped
Ephemerol?
|9.25.08 @ 6:47PM|#
To be fair he is right about Dodd and Frank...both heads of the
senate and house finance committees. They did push Frannie Mae to
buy up all that bad sub-prime paper then bundle (more like tangle)
it up and dump it back on the market.
Bush probably could have done something to stop it as well.
Why O'Reilly thinks this lends itself to spend 700$ billion in a
bail out is anyone's guess.
|9.25.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Respectable, but he looks more like Ron MacLean.
Hey, you said naive and hick accent. I delivered.
|9.25.08 @ 7:25PM|#
They did push Frannie Mae to buy up all that bad sub-prime
paper then bundle (more like tangle) it up and dump it back on the
market.
Funny you should mention that, joshua. S.190, the "McCain" Fannie
Mae reform bill his signed onto, the one you claim would have
prevented the financial meltdown, but was killed by the mean old
Democrats, would have required Fannie Mae to buy more
mortgage-backed securities. It would have forbidden Fannie from
buying mortgages, and required it to purchase MBSs instead.
But, like you said, the Democrats killed it.
anarch|9.25.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Well, one solution to spammers is to buy so much of their stuff that they retire and stop spamming us.
Worked with fiat money, didn't it? Oh, wait...
|9.25.08 @ 8:56PM|#
From those accusations, it sounded like O'Reily was talking about that guy in the mirror.
Famous Mortimer|9.25.08 @ 9:17PM|#
Actually, his comments could apply to a lot of the cult thinkers
on this blog.
Of course, his rant against Conservative radio is nothing new to
people who understood all of this long before he decided to chime
in.
Famous Mortimer|9.25.08 @ 9:22PM|#
"O'Reilly isn't really a right-winger. He's a populist shithead
who operates on the "common sense" principle: that no matter how
stupid a position is, if it is conventional wisdom that a lot of
people believe, it's right."
In other words, he's a "right-winger."
|9.25.08 @ 10:33PM|#
To be fair he is right about Dodd and Frank...both heads of
the senate and house finance committees. They did push Frannie Mae
to buy up all that bad sub-prime paper then bundle (more like
tangle) it up and dump it back on the market.
Bush probably could have done something to stop it as
well.
Fuck that. The Democrats have been in control of both houses for
what, not even 2 years?
This shit happened on the Republicans watch. They could have done
something about Fannie and Freddie long ago. They didn't because
they easily formed the most corrupt government in recent history.
They had disasterous policies to inflict on this nation that they
felt were more important.
Fuck them and fuck you if you defend them.
|9.25.08 @ 10:36PM|#
Don't be dissin O'Reilly!
I am certainly one of "the folks."
He's just lookin out for me.
|9.26.08 @ 1:11AM|#
Funny you should mention that, joshua. S.190, the "McCain"
Fannie Mae reform bill his signed onto, the one you claim would
have prevented the financial meltdown, but was killed by the mean
old Democrats, would have required Fannie Mae to buy more
mortgage-backed securities. It would have forbidden Fannie from
buying mortgages, and required it to purchase MBSs
instead.
Help me out a bit here joe. Here is the bill.
S-190
I see lots of stuff about oversight, risk assessment and stopping
golden parachutes which probably wouldn't be very welcome by the
folks funneling money to the committee. It's not clear that the
oversight would in fact do much and pretty much all of the
financial sector got fooled by the risk assessment, but hey it's a
start.
You are saying that there is a poison pill (one that was known to
be a poison pill at the time of the filibuster by the Democrats) ?
lurking in this document. Could you please point it out ? That
would be most helpful.
I would also note that no one on the committee had any clue of the
nature of the problem in 2005. I suspect that what we are really
looking at is the usual petty Democrat corruption with the typical
payoffs to the usual suspects to protect the Freddie and Fannie
exec's personal compensation. Only now it is more public because
everything blew up. The other thing the cynic in me wonders, is
what McCain's angle was. The man never met a lobbiest he didn't
like. An attack on Democratic supporters maybe ? I really wonder
about McCain's reasons for (belatedly) supporting this bill
|9.26.08 @ 8:11AM|#
Artifex,
You are saying that there is a poison pill (one that was known
to be a poison pill at the time of the filibuster by the Democrats)
? lurking in this document. Could you please point it out ? That
would be most helpful.
Why certainly.
`SEC. 1319I. CLARIFICATION OF MISSION.
`(a) LOAN ORIGINATION- The Director shall prescribe a regulation
defining what activities constitute loan origination and are,
therefore, impermissible for the enterprises. The regulation shall
clarify that loan origination is impermissible to the enterprises
whether done directly or indirectly.
`(b) DEFINING THE BOUNDARY- The Director shall prescribe
regulations defining the boundary between the primary mortgage
market, in which the enterprises are not permitted to participate
directly or indirectly, and the secondary mortgage market, in which
the enterprises are permitted to operate. Such regulations shall
make clear that--
`(1) the secondary market operations can only involve a mortgage
loan after it has been closed and funded;
`(2) primary market activities include any activities that involve
direct contact with a mortgage borrower, before or after the loan
closes, except that an enterprise may make direct contact with a
borrower whose loan that enterprise currently owns or guarantees
when that loan has defaulted or is in imminent danger of
defaulting;
`(3) underwriting a loan for origination, directly or indirectly,
is a primary market activity; and
`(4) document and custodial functions are primary market
activities, and therefore impermissible to the enterprises, until
the purchase of the related loan in the secondary market.
But you misunderstand me - I'm not saying this was a poison pill,
and the reason why the Act was killed. I'm saying that this
provision, would have pushed Freddie and Fannie (its successors,
actually) further into the "secondary mortgage market," ie, MBSs.
My question, you might have noted, was about the effect it would
have had on the functioning of the financial market, not the
partisan politics behind its legislative history.
I would also note that no one on the committee had any clue of
the nature of the problem in 2005. I agree. The great irony
here is that McCain and the other Republicans almost certainly
supported getting Freddie and Fannie deeper into the MBS market
because they thought it was a prudent way to shield against
risk.
|9.26.08 @ 8:19AM|#
Of course, I'm probably foolish to give those Republicans the
benefit of the doubt like that. This was 2005, right at the height
of the Republican looting spree. An equally plausible hypothesis
would be that some K Street people representing investment houses
wanted more paper out there.
But I try not to merely assume corruption whenever a politician
does something I don't like - especially when it requires such a
strict partisan take on things to create a plausible narrative.
Bernanke\'s Beauties|9.26.08 @ 8:51AM|#
"But I try not to merely assume corruption whenever a politician
does something I don't like"
See, that might be your problem right there.
|9.26.08 @ 11:03AM|#
Joe,
I don't read the section of the bill that you quoted to be a push
towards Mortgage back securities. Does not the section that you
quoted merely affirm that Fannie and Freddie were meant to buy
mortgages from other banks ? This section says that primary loans
(i.e. actual lending to customers) is not to be done by Fannie and
Freddie. Frannie and Freddie were only to be permitted to take
secondary loans (i.e buy the loan paper). Isn't that pretty much
exactly how it all went down even without this law in place ? I
really don't see anything that forces them to buy MBSs here. Oh
course I don't see anything that prohibits it either. This being
legal crap however, I admit they can change total meaning with a
single word.
But I try not to merely assume corruption whenever a politician
does something I don't like - especially when it requires such a
strict partisan take on things to create a plausible
narrative.
Fair enough, but I tend to be significantly more cynical. Want to
float a reasonable theory as to why the Dems shot this down in
committee ? So far I see large infusions of cash to the Dems and
restrictions on executive compensation in the bill. Baring other
explanation, this seems a pretty good model for what actually
happened. McCains actions are more mysterious, I just don't see his
angle at the moment (I am sure it is in there somewhere
however)
|9.26.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Artifex,
Perhaps "forbid them from buying individual mortgages" overstates
the point. However, given the conditions of the market at the time
(ie, mortgages being sold to companies that were, in ever large
numbers, turning them into MBDs), moving them out of the primary
market entirely (which consists entirely of individual loans), and
into the secondary market (which was made up of an ever-increasing
share of MBSs) would have had the effect of greatly increasing
Fannie and Freddie's purchase of MBSs.
Second, there is another section which requires the Director to
sell off assets deemed too risky. In 2005, the administration's
position - heck, a lot of people's position - was that MBSs were a
lot safer than individual mortgages, because the risk of any one
loan could be attenuated through volume.
What's interesting is that there is the language in Section 161
requiring future reports on the implications of banks and
Freddie/Fannie holding MBSs.
The Democrats' motivations? I suspect they didn't like the basic
idea of taking oversight from the departments and giving them to a
board with less accountability.
M. Jewell|9.29.08 @ 6:37PM|#
$700B in taxpayer funds divided by 300 million Americans equals
$400k for each American, give or take. Each American household
could receive up to $400k in debt relief which would provide more
support for the fundamentals of the economy than a Wall Street
bailout with money left over.
If $500 to a household as "economic stimulus" is a good idea, why
not $400k in debt relief?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245