Tags for this video have been changed from 'tight, pants, trousers, ass' to 'tight, pants, trousers, ass, butt, bum, fanny, culo, derriere, rump, tush, tuckus, fundament' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

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 When Clinton's admin repealed Glass-Steagall it lit a slow fuse on the economy which finally blew in 2008.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).

kids have always got naked in front of eachother , the technoligy just alows for it to be sent around , in the past it would have been " did you hear that jo showed her fanny to bob behind the bike shed" and then everyone would take the piss out of them , the difference with an image is its just a recording of the same event.

in the end the only bad thing that happened was that the kid killed themselves , everything else is the sort of thing that when you get to 20 you think was funny and stupid.


like asloot of things its an inducatoinal issue

1) kids need to know how things can back fire with uploading sharing photose
2) kids need to know that it dosent matter so much whatever happend its not worth killing yourself over
3) school should educate kids on sex properly and sexual behavoir and how that could go wrong or things that are safer to do.

This site would be so much more pleasant if it wasn't completely overwhelmed by 16 year old liberal nutjobs like Nithern who haven't done enough research to realize that both Dems and Repubs have been complete fiscal retards for a really long time. Nithern, you bring up the old Clinton surplus myth. Read this:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

If you can't understand it, let me break it down for you: there was never a surplus under Clinton. Ever. There are two parts of the national debt. Imagine you're a household and you have a mortgage and credit card debt. You take out a second mortage on your home and pay down some of your credit card debit. Home debt goes up, credit card debt goes down. Then you go all over the city and tell people you reduced your credit card debt! Whee! You don't tell them you went deeper into debt elsewhere in order to do it. Do you realize how ridiculous of an accomplishment this is?

Moreover, Social Security payments are adjusted for the CPI. The CPI is the government's way of calculating rises in the cost of living. In the 90s, the Boskin commission was formed to look for "bias" in the way the CPI was calculated. Let me translate that for you: hey guys, we need reduce Social Security obligations without anyone noticing by subjectively omitting certain price increases, thereby artificially lowering the CPI against which SS payments are adjusted.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

Perhaps there is no accurate measure for the underemployed, but discouraged workers (jobless for over a year) are no longer counted when they used to be prior to the Clinton admin. It's a goofy new category created to intentionally make the number look more timid that historical numbers and nothing more. Both the CPI and the way unemployment are calculated changed during the Clinton administration as short term "fixes" of problems that need real solutions that no citizen is ever going to vote for. So if you think Clinton solved jack shit fiscally, I've got news for you: we're going to need something 100x more potent. And it won't happen, because people are retards like you. Think about it. You bitch about the Iraq war, and rightfully so, but before you were born the Democrats started a useless little war called "Vietnam" that led to Nixon severing our currency's last link to gold. Oh, and we lost about 50k soldiers. Which is sad, because you can always count on communism to fail by itself, which is exactly what happened after we pulled out.

You cry about the lack of Republican regulation. We need more regulation like we need a hole in the head. You don't even know what the word means, it's just some magical decree for officiating infractions in a game that can't exist without "subsidy fever". I mean, there's laws against stealing and killing and defrauding, and then there's handing out free money while impossibly trying to stop people from gambling with it. People's hope for gain is NORMALLY offset by their fear of loss. That goes out the window in an economy where anyone can borrow foreign money cheaply for a depreciating asset that they're convinced is an infinitely appreciating piggy bank. It goes out the window WITHIN the government, because politicians are by nature operating with money it appropriated rather than labored for. A "GSE" like Fannie and Freddie need way more regulation that any bankruptcy-fearing company.

Moreover, no one cares what bank they give their money because all bank deposits are insured by the FDIC. No investor gave a shit what loans Freddie and Fannie were spewing out because they were implicitly backed by the federal government. The home bubble got a huge boost from a 97 tax law excepting certain home sales from capital gains taxes. Because politicians like being the candyman. They don't think about the unintended consequences of creating artificial demand and employment in certain sectors with all their subsidy intervention bullshit. TO THIS DAY, FHA loans are being made requiring only 3% down. All the private subprime lenders? Couldn't have happened unless a politically motivated central bank exists to PRICE FIX the cost of borrowing in the market. Spike the punch, see mayhem that ensues, then resolve that the solution isn't to kill the spiker, but rather to hire more police officers to regulate the effects caused by the spiker. That's great logic. I hope you're regulating your regulators, too, because the SEC was told of Madoff's scheme 8 FUCKING TIMES and didn't do jack shit about it. I have more confidence in genuine personal risk of loss regulating behavior than some fucknut at the SEC. If only you would support an economy that wasn't so awash in fucking subsidies.

Social Security is another Democrat timebomb. Why not bring that shit up? It operates like a ponzi scheme and if you know how ponzi schemes work, you know that early investors win at the supreme expense of later investors. Guess who that later investor is? It's you!

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.

Um FUCKS SAKE, ITS actually 100% fucked up that sum one can not be naked in public or just naked in general.

only time its a problem is if sum one is shoving there tits , fanny , dick in sum one else's face , but just been naked is totally fine .

anyone who thinks different should be launched into the sun.

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.

That was a fanny pack. How come it is on backwards?

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.

dag, I don't think they're a telethon, but the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation donates US$1.5bn a year.. I'm pretty sure they might have built a road or two..


you are joking. They did deregulate major laws which had been in place for years - google Glass Steagall act, for one.
In this country you had a financial services authority who turned a blind eye to the cdo's that were being traded, and/or didn't even know what these new banking derivatives were, not even the bank of England had a clue.

Removing Glass Steagall would have done nothing if the government had not set interest rates so low. Oh, and don't forget the government's implied guarantee of mortgages in Freddy and Fanny Mac.

It always intrigues me to see people claim that humans need government to provide services for them. I personally don't think either socialism or capitalism are perfect, but in the latter, at least you are free to choose what you want.

^ 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.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^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?


um...no.
it is a private institution, while the federal reserve act of 1913 may have given the fed it's birth and a charter,it is a still private.a charter is how every bank in the country need to operate,does that mean that every bank is government owned?they were basically hired to do a job,and the abuse has been going on for almost a century.
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century"
whose family coincidently is part owner of the federal reserve.
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. — Thomas Jefferson

through the past century,every recession,inflated bubble and depression there has been ONE financial institution GOLDMAN SACHS.with incredibly strong ties to the federal reserve and the world bank and the cute and cuddly international monetary fund.i am not going to write a report just to make a point.
you think its fannie and freddie?
ok..i say fannie and freddie were planned....by?
well...i already stated as such who i think holds the blame for that.
great article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine#
and i would recommend one book that is vital,especially now.the man has called it since 2004 while everybody treated him as a pariah.interesting how this man is now thinking of running for senator.see what happens when you call it right?
peter schiff and his amazing book "crash proof"
great short vid here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NvjrfC6i0I

but hey,you go ahead and keep thinking it was the government and freddie and fannie.
but i was not kidding.

>> ^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.