@quantumushroom and @blankfist

It's called Sallie Mae.
It's got a government Charter and gets its funds from the government.

Hence @dystopianfuturetoday's cockeyed look.
~~~

Side Note -

Just admit it Quantum. Democrats and Republicans are all the same.

Do you sincerely think all these Republicans are just gonna give up their power and stop funneling tax dollars toward corporations that "donate" to re-elect them?

If you're gonna be angry about the left you HAVE to be equally as angry about the right.

Dems are playing minor league ball compared to the GOP.

"No Big Government! ..Unless it's the Red Team increasing the national debt, then it's okay.."

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A "nationalized student loan industry" is literally, LITERALLY, one of the dumbest phrases I've heard in months.

I don't know, it doesn't sound that far fetched to me.

This sure does feel biased.

It's almost as if this video is trying to conflate income tax with building roads and infrastructure. But we should know zero income tax goes to that.

The housing bubble was bad, but was it the fault of private lenders? The lenders take their cues from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which are both FEDERALLY SPONSORED! If Freddie and Fannie aren't lending, then banks don't lend. We also know the Federal Reserve create arbitrarily low interest rates that inflated the housing bubble.

This video brings up specious arguments.

>> ^rougy:

Funny you should ask....
Betty Boop was modeled on (ripped off from) the actress Helen Kane.
At one point, Helen sued the studio for stealing from her, but by the time she did it, her fame had dwindled and the fame of the cartoon character had soared.
She lost the lawsuit.


-Mae Questel also did the voices for Betty Boop and Olive Oyl-from the looks at dates, they switched off regularly-Helen Kane was a popular singer in the 20s who did a handful of films, her popularity began as a vocalist-

Hmmmm...
Seems to me like the President is just trying to slide off the blame for an economy that is, at best, slowly recovering - at worst it's sliding fast. While his historic Health Care Bill goes into effect it really doesn't do much to combat a 9.9% unemployment, and worsening state and global economics. Freddie and Fannie continue to drain our coffers:
http://www.france24.com/en/20091225-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-unlimited-public-funding-2012-real-estate
and our government focuses more on social issues (like racial profiling and illegal aliens) than fiscal.
Granted that without a Democratic controlled house and senate nationalized health care would never have passed, but aside from Obama promising to focus on the economy like a laser beam - nothing has really happened to boost our economy in 2 years. All I've seen is the rapid printing of money to shore up fast eroding programs.

Now with businesses collapsing and federal/state tax revenue declining, we have to implement tax incentives that will create growth in both big and small business and cut back on the union pensions and social programs for the short term. This creates jobs, and revenue.
It took years but Gov. Schwarzenegger has come to this same conclusion in California.
http://gov.ca.gov/speech/15164/

But I have little hope that anything will get fixed as long as politicians remain in power.
Oh and go see waiting for Superman:
http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEf-vJZOj4M&feature=player_embedded

much regulation stifles innovation and growth, but there are behaviors and practices that are strictly parasitic or needlessly risky which should be reined in

The history of the housing meltdown is long and tortured - but it began in the 70s under Carter and culminated in the 90s under Clinton. When Clinton's admin repealed Glass-Steagall it lit a slow fuse on the economy which finally blew in 2008.

Congress (both Dem & Repub) wanted more people "in houses" because it got them votes. AIG and other financial houses lobbied for the changes because they saw they could make money by selling financial packages. I remember VERY well in the 90s the rancorous debates on this subject. People who opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagall were labelled by political opponents as 'evil rich fat cats' who 'oppressed the poor' and who wanted to 'deny the American dream to the working class...'

Do you remember that rhetoric? I sure do. They were able to argue very strongly that they were doing a GOOD thing and that opposing them made you a lousy, slimy, no-good dirtbag who hated the working poor.

So the law changed, and ALL BANKS (not just the lobbyists) were forced to deal with new market realities. If you didn't complete - you died. So they opened up financial options for 'the poor' they never would have DREAMED of messing with before. Now the poor could get loans. But in most cases the 'poor' SHOULDN'T have gotten loans because they couldn't afford them. But everyone was told, "Don't worry - Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae will get your back." So they did it anyway not because they were irresponsible or malicious. It was what they were TOLD to do because that's what government wanted, and as such it created a marketplace reality they couldn't avoid.

Moreover, it wasn't just the poor for whom financing got easier. The middle class could make a quick buck by flipping multiple properties. Speculation went wild. Housing prices skyrocketed. People got rich quick for virutally nothing. It was all going great until people overseas finally decided they couldn't keep make money on financial packages built on poisonous debt forever. POP!

I'm hesitant to lay the blame for this all on 'risky practices' of 'parasitic financial companies'. They played a big part - very true. But I've always said the housing problem was a THREE part problem. I list the problems here in order of culpability...

1. Government arranged the banquet and set the table.
2. Financial houses provided the food and sold the meals.
3. Stupid consumers gorged themselves on food they didn't need and couldn't afford.

Most people ONLY look at #2. I think that is a foolish & myopic approach that ignores the most important player (government) and gives a free pass to #3 (consumers).

from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtIM_TEQxwA

Is this fruition of my college years,
arriving in an envelope, business-size,
Sallie Mae Corporation letterhead?
This is to inform you that you
havent made a payment on your loan
since the winter of, italicized, 1997.

If at this time you cannot make
the monthly payment we set,
youll be required to remit to us
the balance in full.
You know, I dont think Ill pay—
what kind of fool
would feed the beast that swallows its young?
Would feed the beast that swallows its young?

Clearly, eightteen isnt old enough to drink
but old enough to sign a promissary
interesting.
Military? Sure, join up.

And who can put a pricetag
on a top-notch education?
How about $50,000? $80,000? Well, thats
just for the textbooks.

But what exactly is the consequence
should I refuse to pay?
Is there still a Dickensian debtors prison?
Oh, there isnt? Well

If at this time you cannot make
the monthly payment we set,
well be required to revoke what every citizen fears:
your card for digging your hole deeper in debt
to the beast that swallows its young,
to feed the beast that swallows its young.

Everyone must go to university.
Without a good degree,
how will you pay the lenders
who staked you while attending university?
And everyone must grow the university.

This is to inform you that Ill never make a payment.
This is to inform you that Ill never make a payment
to the beast that swallows its young.

Then when they bite, you exploit them with all of the things written in the fine print in that contract they signed.

People keep acting like bank credit with interest is some 'secret'. Everyone knows that credit cards have high interest rates and fees. When a bank hits you with fees then you pay off the balance and cancel the account. Or (better) never run a balance and you'll never have a fee. Or (best) never borrow money from a bank. It isn't complicated.

Also, some are acting as if banks should behave like altruists. It's as if you are pretending the world is Bedford Falls, that banks are the Building & Loan, and bankers are George Bailey. No no no... Customers must walk into the bank with the mindset that they are dealing with Mr. Potter. Banks sell a useful, but dangerous product. If you are smart and careful you can come out well. If you are stupid and careless you will lose every time. Pretending that banks should act like friendly charities is foolish.

I don't know why the government hasn't made strict guidelines as to how a bank must conduct itself.

They did. The government was the entity that opened the 'free money' floodgates by repealing Glass-Steagal because they wanted more people buying homes & cars. Banks were cool with it because it allowed them to be one-stop-shops, repackage debt into paper commodities, and government promised Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would cover it all. Government set the table & provided the food. Banks sold the tickets to the banquet. Customers gorged until they ruptured internally. Three parties were involved, and the blame is shared by all three equally.

I'm just saying the government needs to protect those less savvy about credit and debt and keep the banks from exploiting these poor fools.

I'm all for the concept, but how do you implement it? Force everyone to take a class or sit down with a lawyer before they can get a loan? I don't think that will help except maybe 1 case in a million. Almost no-one goed to banks with the delusion that they don't have to make payments or incur interest.

I volunteer time as a sort of career/money counseller to help people out of financial trouble. I've sat down and explained the whole 'never borrow money because of interest...' formula very patiently and clearly. It doesn't matter. People hear the speech, and turn right around and get in debt to the gills buying crap they didn't need. They don't want to sell the stuff and pay the bill either. They want someone to pay the bill or absolve the debt so they can keep their stuff. That's just the way human beings are. So forcing banks to sit people down and go through a "here is how debt & interest work" education is helpful, but will not make the problem go away.

The only sure fire way to 'protect these fools' (as you put it) is to have the banks use a means-testing system by which they deny credit to 'risky borrowers'. "Sorry - we're not lending you money for your own safety." That's a recipie just asking for a lather-rinse-repeat of the whole 'red lining' accusation in the 90s. Can't win for losing. Banks are 'evil' if they expect to be paid back.... Banks are 'evil' if they refuse to lend money to people who can't afford it... Nice catch 22.

Oh...and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ARE NOT government institutions.

That is another fucking lie that's been rammed down our throats.

They are SHAREHOLDER owned and SHAREHOLDER controlled.

They are no more a part of our government than the Federal Reserve.

If the insurance companies can't deny care, can they at least charge whatever they want? I tend to agree with Throbbin... if someone goes shopping for care only after they get sick, than it isn't health insurance they are after, it's cheaper immediate care. If I'm a health insurance company, and someone I know requiring treatment has to be offered a plan, I make that plan cost at least as much in the short term as I know I'm going to be spending. If we were to then go ahead and effectively force the insurance company to subsidize their care, the insurance company will quickly go out of business as it needs to fear insolvency, a public provider does not. That's exactly why libertarians complain about the public option distorting the marketplace, and they're exactly right.

What I fear will happen with this "public option" is that it will become a dumping ground for unprofitable customers. Much in the same way Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac became dumping grounds for unprofitable debt obligations. So, we'll still have huge profits and overhead going to private insurance firms, while the tax-payer is footing the bill for all their losses.

That's why I'm an unapologetic single-payer proponent. Get us all into the same pool.

^ You're not making much sense to me either. The banking industry is one of the most highly regulated markets in existence. Regulate it an inch more and you might as well nationalize the whole thing.

If you want to find the biggest culprits behind our "collapse in credit" and the subprime mortgage crisis, look no further than the Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It's not reasonable to ignore how distorted the financial and banking markets are, and blame only the market itself, instead of the government created agencies which are causing massive distortions, for any problems that arise.

When Blarney Frank refers to his ethnic heritage, he means "criminal", right? He belongs behind bars for the rest of his life for his Fannie Mae thievery. With the "free" health care this fat finook is getting, you'd think he could afford decent dentures.

In other news, moonbats were shocked--SHOCKED!!--by a reference to Hitler not involving the name "Bush".

Seeing how you're in Britain you might not remember that President Bush tried to regulate Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac a few times and the democrats stuffed him. Which we all know was the final piece of hay that broke the camels back. The start of it was the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to loosen their loan requirements so that anyone could get a loan.

>> ^enoch
how is reducing government size going to affect the "culprit" of america's current financial crisis?since when did goldman-sachs and the federal reserve become government agencies?


You're kidding, right? The Federal Reserve is as much a creature of government as any other agency or department that was brought into existence through legislation, granting it exclusive power over our nation's currency. The only remotely "private" aspect of the Fed is its secrecy and lack of oversight (something not even private companies fully enjoy anymore).

The subprime mess was only possible because of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

In an economy, it's the private sector that is productive, and the public sector mostly lives off of that production. In a recession, we need more savings and productivity to grow ourselves out of it, but that won't happen if govt keeps expanding and spending/borrowing even more money than it already does, because that adds even more of a burden to the productivity that we need to dig ourselves out of this hole in the first place.

>> ^Mashiki:
Generally when dealing the a persons health you don't want "price competition" you want to aim for best service at reasonable price for the public dollar.

Price competition is *exactly* what allows any kind of push for quality of service at lowering prices, you can't have one without the other. What is a "reasonable" price anyway? Can you appreciate the irony of a bureaucrat deciding whether a price is reasonable dealing exclusively with other people's money? There is no question that the market process is a far superior judge of what prices should be than even the smartest and most well informed group of bureaucrats could ever be.

If there is one overriding issue with the current round of debates in the US over "healthcare", is that they want to have it at the federal level for one and all. Sorry, bad idea. Hell it's a terrible idea.

That's a good point: If 100% socialized healthcare were ever implemented in the US, it would be better (less worse) if it existed at the state level as opposed to federal. That would institute a faint glimmer of competition between the separate systems, and people would be able to "vote with their feet", which is terribly ineffective, but better than being completely helpless.

I wouldn't say low salaries are completely unavoidable, there are jobs that can only offer such salaries but the long-term tendency in a free market is for better salaries to be available to those more competent and specialized, with a general increase in quality of life and purchasing power attenuating most concerns on the lower end.

Minimum wages today are calculated with goals like "sustaining a family of four" or something, but teenagers or people who live with their parents sometimes are just working for extra bucks, or they might be looking for entry level employment for the experience, to acquire a skill, etc. So the govt steps in and says NO, and that represses an entire market for lesser jobs in every sector of the economy, taking away freedom of choice both from the unemployed and the employers. In the end, it won't matter when unemployment reaches high percentages and desperation sets in.

Why did Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (FM2) offer free credit and backed up loans made in the real estate market? Because politicians decided it should be easier for people to have houses, yay! A noble goal any politician would promise for votes.

Now here's a thing about the nature of people: They're greedy, but they're also fearful. It's a very important balance because they want stuff, but they also fear losing what they have. But FM2 stepped in and took away the fear: ZERO risk, we are federal institutions and we totally back up all your loans! So people were free to be greedy without the fear. That's the housing bubble in an austrian nutshell for you.

Money spent by govt is, in principle, rarely spent as wisely as money spent by people, because people work to earn and therefore value their money, they usually have to be productive to earn it (which isn't easy), while govt is just politicians and bureaucrats deciding over money they easily appropriate from productive people. I don't know how I can put this in simpler terms.

The govt isn't just police officers and VA hospitals. How about our multi-trillion dollar warfare machine, how can any liberal think that's indispensable? What about institutions like Homeland Security, Departments of Education, Agriculture, DEA, FDA, and countless other needless resource wasting bureaucracies at the Federal level? I'm all for cutting them out first.

You say you're not pleased with the bailouts, yet you don't consider govt at fault for handing money to investment banks. Could you elaborate on this apparent contradiction?

When I give you money, the money is now yours, what you do with it is your own business. But when I'm the govt, and I give you money, I'm giving you money that IS NOT MINE and that I SHOULDN'T BE GIVING TO YOU (at least that's what I'm arguing, a keynesian might think differently). So there lies the root of the problem: govt is to blame for handing out free money, not what people did with it, because it's expected that people will be careless about money that is freely handed to them, as opposed to money that is earned.

People with guns don't inevitably commit murder. About the bus driver, it's expected that he'll drive poorly and crash when drunk (maybe not though if he's lucky), even though I said he was force-fed the alcohol, which is not accurate since I'm not sure investment banks were legally obligated to accept govt money, but it's easy to imagine how a bank might be strongly influenced to accept money if it has no strings attached and it's also offered to its competitors.

The rest of us go bankrupt or get jail time if we lose or steal money, a politician, with luck, doesn't get reelected. That's what I meant with "exempt from accountability".

Even though I think Ben Bernanke is an idiot, he's smart enough to be the current chairman of the Fed and even he thinks the Fed helped cause the Great Depression. The conclusions one can take about what happened in the 20's and 30's are not as clear cut as you'd think. What is important to understand are the motivations behind those that acted and those who interpret what happened.

The privileges granted from the govt to the Fed make it a very very powerful institution, and the govt LIKES the Fed. Just keep that in mind.

@ ^NetRunner

The principal sponsor of the "audit the fed" bill is Ron Paul, he wants people to see how much the Fed stinks, so he can push his agenda to abolish it. Far fetched, but his heart is in the right place.

So, again, instead of reaching the conclusion that economic intervention is bad, or that the Fed's intervention must've not been so obviously predictable or that the Fed's false guarantees (and those of other federal institutions like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) created moral hazards that subverted the market, you'd rather think that markets are dumb. Way to go.

Central banks are huge interventions in an economy, hell, we should be glad that markets even work despite them. Not you, no, you think markets are slow and stupid, because they can't adapt to being strangled (or, according to you, "gently caressed") by central banks.

If you say the Fed arose from the necessity to stabilize interest rates, you just bought into their alleged purpose, you're drinking the kool-aid. You're starting from the premise that because currency used to be issued by private banks, they'd always have an evil agenda and take advantage of people who used it.

Think about it: If I could print my own currency, sure, I'd be tempted to inflate it, but wouldn't that ruin my reputation? This leads people to adopt the best currency over time, the one with the best history of retaining value and high liquidity.

The Fed is no less dishonest than those banks could be, what in the nature of the Fed makes you think otherwise? With the added grievance that it has a monopoly over the entire national currency market! So, if you don't like the dollar, the govt says "f*** you, move to Canada!", using anything else is forbidden by law. Tell me, how is taking away your freedom of choice supposed to make things any better?

Think about the amount of wealth the Fed has been stealing through inflation from all of us this whole time since the gold standard was criminally dropped in the 70's, its colossal compared to whatever private banks would be able to get away with in a free currency market.

Linking to an article and just saying "False" makes your view of economics seem simplistic to me. Entire schools of thought were built around mistaken or dishonest premises. There are a lot of political motivations behind false economics (which is also one of the reasons I'm opposed to public education: Govt using taxpayer money to further its statist agenda, but I digress).

When you mock me saying I assume something created by govt is bad, it makes me wonder if you truly understand the corruptible nature of govt. It's not just ideology speaking, its very real: Govts usually have NO incentive to be productive, they tend to grow and become corrupt, as evidenced by history, which is why we should strive to have govt institutions be as small and transparent as possible.

In any case, I was pointing out that people usually assume we live in a capitalist society, even though we have these massive anti-capitalistic monsters sticking out of it. Critics of capitalism and the market selectively blame it for everything wrong in society yet fail to acknowledge how uncapitalistic our economy actually is.