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:

Advertisement

NEXT: Cops Employing Robbers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 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
    http://www.privacy.es.tc

  2. And this is a man who knows his right-wing ideologues.

  3. 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?

  4. Can we please…please ban the spammers?

    Ban them!

    YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE! MASON! YOU TOAD!

  5. No attention and no bailouts make O’Reilly… something something.

  6. JOhn Mason | September 25, 2008, 5:00pm | #

    This spamming mother fucker is really starting to piss me off.

  7. 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.

  8. That damn pop-up is far more annoying than the spammer!

    Can we have however decided to put that in publicly flogged? Please?

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. O’Reilly isn’t really a right-winger. He’s a populist shithead who operates on the “common sense” principle

    Yes indeedy.

  12. Let’s have O’Reilly pay the bailout. Problem fixed!

  13. I’ve tried to kill him with my mind several times but I clearly failed.

    Someone’s been sneaking you Ephemerol.

  14. Well, one solution to spammers is to buy so much of their stuff that they retire and stop spamming us.

  15. Someone’s been sneaking you Ephemerol.

    Shit! Damn you, ConSec!

    Cronenberg pays off once again ๐Ÿ™‚

  16. O’ Really remind me of Golum, waiting to bite someone’s finger off…

  17. Cronenberg pays off once again

    You were right. Ever get tired of hearing that? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    one solution to spammers

    Solutions to spammers: 1
    Solutions to Scanners: zilch

  18. 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.

  19. I’ve tried to kill O’Reilly with my mind several times, but clearly that also didn’t-work.

  20. You were right. Ever get tired of hearing that? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Not really ๐Ÿ™‚

    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!

  21. 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.

  22. This is classic Tammy!

  23. “I gotta take a break”.

    That’s for sure.

    You can just picture the producer cringing in the background.

  24. That’s because he’s Revok. Just look at him!

    Then who is Vale? Someone naive, with a hick-ish Canadian accent…

  25. 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.

  26. O’Reilly is just an amazingly deceptive populist. Perhaps if we all ignore him, he’ll go away.

  27. “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.

  28. Then who is Vale? Someone naive, with a hick-ish Canadian accent…

    Bob McKenzie?

  29. 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 G?del say?

  30. Take off, hoser.

  31. O’Reilly’s lack of a brain makes him immune to mental attacks.

  32. 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.

  33. 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?

  34. 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.

  35. “I would hit them!”

    HAHAHAHAHA

  36. i>Bob McKenzie?

    Respectable, but he looks more like Ron MacLean.

  37. Respectable, but he looks more like Ron MacLean.

    Hey, you said naive and hick accent. I delivered.

  38. 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.

  39. 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…

  40. From those accusations, it sounded like O’Reily was talking about that guy in the mirror.

  41. O’Reilly probably needs the bailout to save his portfolio.

  42. 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.

  43. “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.”

  44. Has Bill ORLY ever said anything that matters?

  45. 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.

  46. Don’t be dissin O’Reilly!

    I am certainly one of “the folks.”

    He’s just lookin out for me.

  47. 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

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. “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.

  51. 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)

  52. 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.

  53. $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?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.