President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 06, 2009 08:35 PM UTC
5 Comments
However, although I’m a layman, one thing popped out to me on this:
The problem of securitizing the bad mortgages was that when people defaulted on their loans, and the banks foreclosed the properties, the securities that were based on the value of those properties were rendered worthless. This was related to the overall recession, and the fact that many people could no longer afford to pay their ARMs that they had taken out in better times.
In the case of securitizing life insurance policies, it seems to be a much more stable way of doing it. I think it’s moronic, as you do Car, to follow down a similar path to try to bring the economy back as the one that took us down the drain in the first place. At the same time, unless some sort of massive catastrophe happened (like a pandemic or some sort of nuclear attack) it would appear that people are probably going to continue living–nobody can foreclose on your life.
Still, I tend to agree with your last statement. Wall St. will do anything for a huge profit–damn the consequences.
Securitizing life insurance policies could less risky than the subprimes, but the potential for abuse and fraud are still there.
It follows that just because these life settlements can be securitized, should they?
The article mentions similar points you raise and it also reminds readers that when banks and investment firms started bundling subprime mortgages nobody thought a national housing decline would happen. Regional, maybe, but not a national decline!
You’ve missed the whole death panel discussion this last month? Democrats will do anything to keep their Wall Street contributions flowing …
The insurance companies are secretly in league with the President to help Bernanke and Geithner set up their pals at Goldman/ Sachs to run the death panels and take out folks for maximum profit.
If we time it right, we can take out the whole family at once, and our banks can keep the estate, too. Hoooeeey! Man, are we gonna make some money now!
Oh,…sorry. I got carried away.
Didn’t we just get done seeing this play?
There’s nothing theoretically wrong with a derivatives market, or with reinsurance. But it sounds like, rather than creating a stable, reliable market, they’re looking to cash in on the same sleight-of-hand market tricks that made mortgage derivatives work so well for some people, until it didn’t.
It’s becoming more and more clear to me that Wall Street has turned into a gambling house for rich people. Some come away fabulously wealthy after playing for a while, some lose it all to the sharks, and others ride the roller-coaster. A few are skilled enough at the game to regularly win. No small few are so desperate to win that they cheat. Few seem able to quit.