Congrats Illinois.......

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Mike Madigan is a big part of the problem. He's the King of Pork, and is now attempting to get the income tax rate jacked back up to 4.95%.

The Chicago Teacher's Pension Fund is just a wee bit out of control too:

http://chicagocitywire.com/stories/5...ed-7-8-million

Described as a "taxpayer backed" Ponzi scheme. Indeed.

Can't say as I miss living in the Land of Lincoln....

There is chart in the article you linked titled.
How much would the Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund have left if operated as an actual pension fund?

That chart can also be used to show how much money would be in the fund if the ROI had continued at the same rate as in 2007. That ROI was 17.2%. Well the answer to that is that after deducting $12,072,221,947 in expenses; the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund would have $30,977,176,115 in it. There would have been no need for bailouts or stealing from the General Fund.

But that did not happen, because Bush and the Republicans screwed up the economy so badly that we still have not fully recovered.

The anonymous-of course-author of the piece calls the pension fund a Ponzi scheme. This immediately proves to us that he is a moron deserving no respect.

And I can't say that we miss you much either.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2017/07/0...nois-democrat/

I'm starting to understand the problem

They are both right. The increase is 1.2% (The new rate minus the old rate or 4.95 minus 3.75 equals 1.2)

The percentage of increase is 32%. (1.2% divided by 3.75% equals 32%)

Both Rauner and Welch are cherry picking statistics.
But we get back to the same basic truth. If Bush and the Republicans hadn't screwed up the Robust Clinton economy we would not even be talking about this.

[baconswitchfarm]

If the Bush economy caused this then all 50 states should be in this situation.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by mostpost

There is chart in the article you linked titled.
How much would the Chicago Teachers' Pension Fund have left if operated as an actual pension fund?

That chart can also be used to show how much money would be in the fund if the ROI had continued at the same rate as in 2007. That ROI was 17.2%. Well the answer to that is that after deducting $12,072,221,947 in expenses; the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund would have $30,977,176,115 in it. There would have been no need for bailouts or stealing from the General Fund.

But that did not happen, because Bush and the Republicans screwed up the economy so badly that we still have not fully recovered.

The anonymous-of course-author of the piece calls the pension fund a Ponzi scheme. This immediately proves to us that he is a moron deserving no respect.

And I can't say that we miss you much either.

Well, it certainly takes Isaac Newton level skills in math to make the assumption that an ROI of 17.2% is sustainable, under any economy, let alone that of a declining empire bent on socialism. But the ability to correlate a state's pension woes with the U.S. economy with zero factual evidence to back it up, is yet another display of your fiscal challenges, and inability to connect even the obvious dots.

And an expense ratio of $12,072,221,947/$30,977,176,115 of 38.9% certainly borders on criminal, err, Ponzi, by any reasonable definition. Any fund that taps itself out in 2.5 years without additional revenue, is simply theft. Illinois pension holders will soon find out that the "guarantee" of backing via state budget can't be enforced, since it was mathematically impossible to maintain the rates of return - therefore, it was an illegal amendment to the state constitution.

Yeah, miss you too Mostie, with those clever Little Sisters of the Poor comebacks.

[_______]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/408...-opportunities

This response would more appropriately be in the Financial Markets section but since the discussion is here...

It's a long read but basically talks about the opportunities in the muni bond market should Illinois debt get downgraded to junk status. Pensions and endowments can't own non-investment grade debt and a lot of retail investors will sell into the fire sale.

Of more interest to some posters here would be the section on what happened the last time Illinois raised taxes. Wealth fled Detroit and Puerto Rico during their years of mismanagement. The same is likely to happen to Illinois which doesn't leave them much room to maneuver.

[delayjf]

That ROI was 17.2%

CA has made the same mistake regarding its State employees pension fund. We'll see how this whole thing works out.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

If Bush and the Republicans hadn't screwed up the Robust Clinton economy we would not even be talking about this.

Please explain how Bush and the Republicans were responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis.

Hint: Government pressure on lenders to issue mortgage to unqualified buyers started with housing policies of Carter and especially Clinton. Bush shares some blame because he did nothing to end such policies.

[incoming]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Please explain how Bush and the Republicans were responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis.

Hint: Government pressure on lenders to issue mortgage to unqualified buyers started with housing policies of Carter and especially Clinton. Bush shares some blame because he did nothing to end such policies.

Of course, you are right. I would also suggest that the Rev. Jesse Jackson was a main player. Using blackmail against all of the major banks. He accused all of the banks of being "RACIST" and drawing "red lines" around certain neighborhoods to keep them segregated. He used the power of two political organizes for this agenda, Push and The Rainbow Coalition. The banks succumbed too these political pressures and started to make marginal loans. When politicians saw the success of this "blackmail" they passed legislation to make this practice readily acceptable for even larger masses. These policies created the housing bubble which created all of the bank failures and near failures. Most of us had to survive this "steamroller." But the term "RACIST" is still alive today and still be used today as an effected political tool. It got one very unqualified person elected president. It also turned the once powerful Democrat Party into the now dysfunctional New Democrat Party. Enter....Donald Trump!!!!:headbanger :

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by incoming

Of course, you are right. I would also suggest that the Rev. Jesse Jackson was a main player.

Democrats in Congress, led by Barney Frank and Chris Todd also played a big role, pushing Fannie and Freddie to fund the banks that were making those subprime loans.

Republicans in Congress, as I remember, didn't try to stop it due to lack of backbone. Who could possibly have a problem with fulfilling the great American dream of home ownership?

And our dear old friends at ACORN were working with Jesse.

http://worth-reading-blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/economic-meltdown-fueled-by-barney.html

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by mostpost

They are both right. The increase is 1.2% (The new rate minus the old rate or 4.95 minus 3.75 equals 1.2)

The percentage of increase is 32%. (1.2% divided by 3.75% equals 32%)

Both Rauner and Welch are cherry picking statistics.
But we get back to the same basic truth. If Bush and the Republicans hadn't screwed up the Robust Clinton economy we would not even be talking about this.

Yep.....Bush didn't warn or try anything......

Btw, the "Clinton economy" was the bill Gates economy. Microsoft and Intel drove that economy through the explosion of computers and the related tech. Hands down. Anybody could have been Prez.

YouTube

[incoming]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Democrats in Congress, led by Barney Frank and Chris Todd also played a big role, pushing Fannie and Freddie to fund the banks that were making those subprime loans.

Republicans in Congress, as I remember, didn't try to stop it due to lack of backbone. Who could possibly have a problem with fulfilling the great American dream of home ownership?

And our dear old friends at ACORN were working with Jesse.

http://worth-reading-blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/economic-meltdown-fueled-by-barney.html

Republican have often lost their backbone when they have been accused of "racism" in tandem by Democrats and MSM.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Please explain how Bush and the Republicans were responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis.

Hint: Government pressure on lenders to issue mortgage to unqualified buyers started with housing policies of Carter and especially Clinton. Bush shares some blame because he did nothing to end such policies.

Lenders were very willing to issue mortgages to unqualified buyers. They needed no encouragement. Not only did they not care if buyers defaulted on their mortgages, they wanted that to happen so they could cash in on their derivatives, but they could repo the properties and do it all over again.

Subprime mortgages themselves were but a small part of the problem.
From the Wikipedia article "Causes of the Great Recession.'

The immediate or proximate cause of the crisis in 2008 was the failure or risk of failure at major financial institutions globally, starting with the rescue of investment bank Bear Stearns in March 2008 and the failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Many of these institutions had invested in risky securities that lost much or all of their value when U.S. and European housing bubbles began to deflate during the 2007-2009 period, depending on the country. Further, many institutions had become dependent on short-term (overnight) funding markets subject to disruption.[6][7]

Many institutions lowered credit standards to continue feeding the global demand for mortgage securities, generating huge profits that their investors shared. They also shared the risk. When the bubbles developed, household debt levels rose sharply after the year 2000 globally. Households became dependent on being able to refinance their mortgages. Further, U.S. households often had adjustable rate mortgages, which had lower initial interest rates and payments that later rose. When global credit markets essentially stopped funding mortgage-related investments in the 2007-2008 period, U.S. homeowners were no longer able to refinance and defaulted in record numbers, leading to the collapse of securities backed by these mortgages that now pervaded the system


Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke testified in September 2010 regarding the causes of the crisis. He wrote that there were shocks or triggers (i.e., particular events that touched off the crisis) and vulnerabilities (i.e., structural weaknesses in the financial system, regulation and supervision) that amplified the shocks. Examples of triggers included: losses on subprime mortgage securities that began in 2007 and a run on the shadow banking system that began in mid-2007, which adversely affected the functioning of money markets. Examples of vulnerabilities in the private sector included: financial institution dependence on unstable sources of short-term funding such as repurchase agreements or Repos; deficiencies in corporate risk management; excessive use of leverage (borrowing to invest); and inappropriate usage of derivatives as a tool for taking excessive risks. Examples of vulnerabilities in the public sector included: statutory gaps and conflicts between regulators; ineffective use of regulatory authority; and ineffective crisis management capabilities. Bernanke also discussed "Too big to fail" institutions, monetary policy, and trade deficits.[12]
The majority report of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (supported by six Democrat appointees without Republican participation) reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels."[13]

All of this adds up to a failure of regulatory; either because the officials did not believe in regulating business-a favorite theme of republicans-or because they were incompetent. Also a favorite theme of Republicans.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Lenders were very willing to issue mortgages to unqualified buyers. They needed no encouragement. Not only did they not care if buyers defaulted on their mortgages, they wanted that to happen so they could cash in on their derivatives, but they could repo the properties and do it all over again.

All wrong. Bankers were happy to issue subprime mortgages because it was politically correct and because they made their money upfront and then turned around and sold the mortgages to Fannie and Freddie. Then they used that money to issue more mortgages.

No derivatives involved, and banks have no desire to deal with repossessions. Repos are long, messy and costly.

Fannie and Freddie then bundled the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and sold them on the secondary market. Many of these were purchased by hedge funds who used them to back high risk derivatives.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Lenders were very willing to issue mortgages to unqualified buyers. They needed no encouragement. Not only did they not care if buyers defaulted on their mortgages, they wanted that to happen so they could cash in on their derivatives, but they could repo the properties and do it all over again.

A college classmate of mine went into the banking business and after 20 or so years working at Chase Bank and Bankers Trust in NYC was offered the No. 2 slot at a very small, respected community bank in rural Connecticut.

He was there about two years when one day he gets a call from the No. 1 guy who tells him to come to his office 'immediately; drop whatever you're doing,' or words to that effect.

Two people are already there when he enters the boss's office: they were up from Wash DC and were from Housing and Urban Development: HUD sec'y Andrew Cuomo, and his HUD Chief Counsel, Kristin Gillibrand.

To make this long story short: the future governor and future senator for New York suggested to the two bankers that under no uncertain terms the bank must do the following: (1) provide mortgages to all (unqualified) applicants; (2) buy mortgage-backed securities being bundled and sold with the 'approval' of the US government. "It's looks good on the bank's balance sheet holding all these 'assets'," my friend told me Gillibrand said to them.

Oh yeah, one more thing: this little rural bank was explicitly told by them that the US government would put them out of business by the DOJ if they didn't adhere to their suggestion.

A year later my friend retired, and a few years after that, a larger regional bank took over the bank where he worked.

Not all banks were very willing to play this illegal and immoral game foisted by your Democrat-run government, mosty.

[chadk66]

Mostie has zero comprehension of what went down. His sole source is Wikipedia. That has tell to tell us something The liberals such as Maxine Watters had one goal. 100% loans/applications. They didn't give a rats ass if they qualified or not. They wanted everybody in the country to have a home. They knew the federal government would take care of any serious consequences from it. Don't believe me listen to her when she was being told there were serious problems with Fannie/Freddie long before the ship went down.

YouTube

Here's a little bonus for you if Maxine wasn't enough

YouTube

And the libs being told by the Bush Admin. the ship was going to go down if something didn't happen.
cMnSp4qEXNM