Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Watchdog: Bailouts created more risk in system

Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:59 PM EST
business, politics, us, united-states, bailout, treasury-department, watchdog
Daniel Wagner, AP Business Writer

Neil Barofsky, special inspector for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010, before the House Oversight Committee and Government Reform Committee hearing on AIG. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The government's response to the financial meltdown has made it more likely the United States will face a deeper crisis in the future, an independent watchdog at the Treasury Department warned.

The problems that led to the last crisis have not yet been addressed, and in some cases have grown worse, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the trouble asset relief program, or TARP. The quarterly report to Congress was released Sunday.

"Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car," Barofsky wrote.

Since Congress passed $700 billion financial bailout, the remaining institutions considered "too big to fail" have grown larger and failed to restrain the lavish pay for their executives, Barofsky wrote. He said the banks still have an incentive to take on risk because they know the government will save them rather than bring down the financial system.

Barofsky also said his office is investigating 77 cases of possible criminal and civil fraud, including crimes of tax evasion, insider trading, mortgage lending and payment collection, false statements and public corruption.

One case concerns apparent self-dealing by one of the private fund managers Treasury picked to buy bad assets from banks at discounted prices. A portfolio manager at the firm apparently sold a bond out of a private fund, then repurchased it at a higher price for a government-backed fund. A rating agency had just downgraded the bond, so it likely was worth less, not more, when the government fund bought it. The company is not being named pending the outcome of Barofsky's investigation.

Barofsky renewed a call for Treasury to enact clearer walls so that such apparent conflicts are less likely.

Treasury said it welcomed Barofsky's oversight but resisted the call to erect new barriers against conflicts of interest. The new rules "would be detrimental to the program," Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in a statement. The existing compliance rules "are a rigorous and effective method of protecting taxpayers," she said.

Much of Barofsky's report focused on the government's growing role in the housing market, which he said has increased the risk of another housing bubble.

Over the past year, the federal government has spent hundreds of billions propping up the housing market. About 90 percent of home loans are backed by government controlled entities, mainly Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The Federal Reserve is spending $1.25 trillion to hold down mortgage rates, and millions of homeowners have refinanced at lower rates.

"The government has stepped in where the private players have gone away," Barofsky said in an interview. "If we take government resources and replace that market without addressing the serious (underlying) concerns, there really is a risk of" artificially pushing up home prices in the coming years.

The report warned that these supports mean the government "has done more than simply support the mortgage market, in many ways it has become the mortgage market, with the taxpayer shouldering the risk that had once been borne by the private investor."

Barofsky's report echoed concerns raised by housing experts in recent months, as home sales and prices rebounded. They warn that the primary reason for the turnaround last year has been billions of dollars in federal spending to lower mortgage rates and prop up demand.

Once that spigot of cash is turned off, they caution, the market will be vulnerable to a dramatic turn for the worse. Daniel Alpert, managing partner of investment bank Westwood Capital, wrote in a report that national home prices are bound to fall 8 to 10 percent below the lows of last spring.

"The lion's share of the remaining decline will occur in markets that saw sizable bubbles but have not yet retrenched," he wrote.

Officials from the Obama administration counter that massive federal intervention has helped the housing market stabilize and prevented more dire consequences.

Barofsky's report also disclosed that, while the Obama administration has pledged to spend $75 billion to prevent foreclosures, only a tiny fraction — just over $15 million — has been spent so far. Under the Making Home Affordable program, only about 66,500 borrowers, or 7 percent of those who signed up, had completed the process as of December.

He said the key to preventing future crises is to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, create and improve loan underwriting and supervision of banks. He stopped short of endorsing specific proposals for overhauling financial regulation, but said many of the proposals would go far to improving the system.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Daniel Wagner's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (40)
Socrates1

I'm "shocked".

  • 2 votes
#1 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:21 AM EST
Kavidog22

And following our legislators course of action, the Fed is doing all they can to block any attempts at transparency and oversight.....

We will never learn.....

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:40 AM EST
TDR

The FED had very little to do with the financial crisis so why are you mentioning them? What do you think is the connection?

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:15 PM EST
Socrates1

The FED had everything to do with the financial crisis. They control the money supply and direct the economy.

  • 5 votes
#1.3 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:28 PM EST
mike lonkouski

Socrates1

You are as wise as your namesake!

Great post!

  • 3 votes
#1.4 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:08 PM EST
TDR

Socrates and Mike,

I know that is what has been perpetrated and it is popular thought, but the FED had very little to do with the financial crisis. That just isn't true.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 8:17 AM EST
Nofluer

Socrates1 #1.3

Awwww.... *I* was gonna say that! (But I didn't have time yesterday.)

:-)

I typed the reasons that the Fed is and was responsible for the crash - but this F*c*ing program that MSNBC can't seem to fix ate it. You'll have to figure it out for yourself... but the FED is at the HEART of the depression!

Start with two words - Carry Trades.

Then some names - Greenspaz, Rubin, and Summers (the people who BLOCKED regulation of the Derivatives that led the crash). And then look at Goldman Sucks and their former employees and CEOs. Enjoy.

  • 3 votes
#1.6 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 8:51 AM EST
Kavidog22

I'd like to add to Nofluer's comment about the derivatives that's led/leading the crash...

For us laymen, this is a great PBS documentary to get you up to speed:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/

  • 2 votes
#1.7 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 9:51 AM EST
TDR

Nofluer,

You have stated that the FED is at the heart of the recession because of the 'carry trade.' Really? How do you figure? How does the 'carry trade' bring on a financial collapse?

As for the Derivatives market, that is just not true. You are making claims that just aren't true -- at all. That is just irresponsible -- irresponsible.

  • 1 vote
#1.8 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 11:24 AM EST
TDR

Kavidod22,

I'm going to watch the PBS piece and let you know what I think and how this correlates to the subject at hand.

  • 2 votes
#1.9 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 11:33 AM EST
Nofluer

TDR - Do you know what a carry trade is? If not, look it up and then you'll understand why Greenspaz keeping US interest rates really LOW for all that time put it at the heart of the crash. Especially when you understand how the derivatives (leveraged to about $50 Tn total) led the crash. Your comment in the second paragraph says that you don't know what happened or how it happened.

  • 2 votes
#1.10 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 1:17 PM EST
Nofluer

Kavi #1.7

Can you summarize the video? I can't do videos.

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 1:18 PM EST
Kavidog22

Nofluer:

It's a documentary about the CFTC head Brooksley Born who served under Clinton.

She discovered and predicted our current financial crisis back in '96 with the unregulated OTC derivatives scam (at the time only 53 Trillion in derivatives were floating around I believe). She had an uphill fight against Greenspan, Rubin, Geitner and Summers(?) (and the whole financial lobby actually) who were pushing for a more unregulated financial market. They eventually stripped Born's position of any regulating authority. It eventually led her to resign after several congressional hearings. Six weeks after her leaving LTCM nearly melts down and something like 15 banks are asked by Clinton to bail LTCM out (at a cost of 3 Billion+/-)... As of 2007 there was more than 595 Trillion in OTC derivatives floating around unregulated....the rest is history. According to Born these cyclical, unpredictable and much larger crashes will continue to occur until there is some transparency and regulatory measures taken......It's (literally) an unregulated scam where unprotected working class families are holding all the risk while the bankers walk away legally rich when their hedging/betting goes awry. It's one of the greatest transfer of wealth schemes in our history.

It's been awhile since I've seen it myself, but the impression it left on me was what got me interested in learning more about our financial system. It simply blew my mind....

  • 4 votes
#1.12 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 2:00 PM EST
Nofluer

Thanks.

  • 1 vote
#1.13 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 2:19 PM EST
TDR

Nofluer,

I have a very firm grasp of the financial meltdown. I am asking questions to see what and how you are really thinking.

In post 1.10, Nofluer you stated that the carry trade was perpetrated by Greenspan but can you elaborate? What direction was the carry trade? Who was trading what and during which particular time periods was the 'carry trade' actually happening?

If you could answer those questions for me? Then how does the carry trade hurt derivatives? Please be as specific as possible. You can't just use the word 'derivatives' w/o being specific about what part/market was effected by the 'carry trade.'

Kavidog22

As for you summary of the events, they are a little off. LTCM went down in 98 because of a financial crisis in Russia which precipitated the run on the LTCM funds because they were hedged to thinly.

  • 1 vote
#1.14 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 3:40 PM EST
Kavidog22

TDR:

Yeah, my summary might be a little off on the whole documentary. It's been awhile since I've watched it.

The Russian crisis indeed facilitated the LTCM melt down, but my point was that it never should have occurred to begin with. The CFTC (Brooksley Born) should have been granted the authority to investigate and regulate the derivatives without Greenspan, Rubin, Summer and Geitner interference. The OTC derivative market is completely off the books and unregulated and was a primary contributor to the financial crisis we are currently in. The fact that OTC derivatives are still mostly unregulated should be of considerable concern to all of us.....

BTW, did ya have a chance to take a peek at it yet? What's your take on the events it related to?

    #1.15 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 3:51 PM EST
    TDR

    Kavindog22,

    What I've been trying to get at is that the derivative markets played its part in the financial meltdown but they were not the main cause. The were a myriad of problems in the WORLD that caused this current economic downturn. Too many times I'm seeing people point fingers but are only getting a small part of the picture. That is what we all need to be aware of. If we only see a partial picture, then we can't regulate properly and that is my fear as politicians, which the documentary made very clear, don't understand a lot of these complex issues. They rely a lot on their staff member who also aren't versed in these subjects. So how do you make policy when you don't know what you are talking about or understand what is being told to you?

    • 1 vote
    #1.16 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 3:59 PM EST
    Kavidog22

    TDR:

    I agree that we all only see a part of the picture. No doubt even the ones 'in the know' and pulling the strings behind closed doors aren't even aware of the impact their decisions will have on future events.

    What I can say is that I'm no Economist. I'm not a financial advisor, trader, accountant, hedge fund manager....etc...... Outside of plane geometry that I use as a land surveyor, my math isn't particularly strong. That said, I have to rely on the opinions of those that are in these fields and try to learn what I can from them. We are all limited to the things we can know and understand about anything happening around us. But even with my profound ignorance on economic and global financial issues I can read between the lines. I can sift through the political rhetoric and lies and come to a basic understanding of almost anything. These unregulated 'derivatives' are dangerous to all working class folk. We've seen an enormous amount of wealth lost by average Americans and shifted to just a handful of of the politically connected corporate elite and bankers alike. Regardless of how little we all may have of the bigger picture most can find something small to pin point and cry foul on. This is the one thing I know the CFTC needs to get a handle on.

      #1.17 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 4:40 PM EST
      Nofluer

      Carry Trades depend on one country/currency being very low value - ie nearly non-existent to effectively negative borrowing rates. Greenspan held the US rates waaay too low for too long. People could borrow money just by smiling at a bank, or buy on margin. Look at the Dot Com bust - with PE ratios of 1000:1 and greater!!! that says money was too easy. To my knowledge, Greenspan didn't personally participate in carry trades, but they would have been impossible without the low interest rates he maintained for too long.

      I can personally testify to the easy money atmosphere. ON an income of only about $50,000 or $60,000 I was able to borrow a total of nearly $170,000 and only about 80,000 of that was real estate. The rest was totally unsecured. As I told my wife - in this market, as long as we can cash flow, we're good, and I was right. Seeing the salad days about to come to an end, about 4 years ago we started paying the debt down and are now nearly debt free, (all of our debt now is asset backed) and our net worth is in the positive numbers.

      As to the other side of the carry trades, I have no clue since I haven't bothered to look - but I'm virtually certain that when interest rates are as low as they were here for so long, it's going on. You don't have to see actual sex acts to know they are happening when you see prostitutes hanging around a brothel and men going in and out of the building.

      As Kavi said, there were a LOT of problems going on in the world. From the US perspective the main cause as I see it was the too low too long interest rates, and the repeal in '99 of the guts of Glass-Steagall that allowed the big banks to risk depositor money. Add that to AGI and the credit swap derivatives and for the big boys, there was a virtual Free Money Bazaar going on.

      You are correct - there are different kinds of derivatives. Balanced self-canceling derivatives such as currency derivatives, to my knowledge, have never been a problem. It has been some time since I was up to my eyeballs in this stuff... but IIRC I posted a few articles about it. In some of them my details were incorrect because not all the facts were known at the time. Even today we see different "experts" (which I'm not) pointing fingers at everybody but themselves. My information indicated to me that the Mortgage Backed Derivatives were the principle problem (aka Toxic Assets) and they were a problem because of how they were done. The deed of trust was separated from the mortgage and the actual real estate. I read that the deed of trust had to accompany the derivatives to "give them value" but it in fact did the exact opposite, turning the derivatives into non-specific debt (aka currency). (It was the "slicing and dicing" process to get the wonky values ratings that did this - as I understand the situation, Li's formula didn't NEED specific numbers to assign AAA ratings - but I'm not sure about that aspect. I just know that they separated the underlying assets from the derivatives.)

      http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13655.html

      So you have 50 TN (I read somewhere else that they leveraged the 2 TN face value at a rate of 25:1) face value of a brand new currency with no reserve or assets to give it value - ie monopoly money. And at the tiime I thought that was what Paulson was reportedly trying to buy with $700 Bil in TARP funds.

      Then recently I read that the crash was caused by an electronic run on Lehman (?)...

      So, yeah. there were lots of specific problems - and we get a different story every time someone talks about it, but they all grew out of the atmosphere caused by the underlying monetary policy of Greenspan, (and perhaps we should add here) and the progressive deregulation of the US economy.

      Bernanke also did his part to kick off the crash when he took office and did his two testosterone rate hikes - too much too fast. I liken that to a ski slope with a buildup of snow on the mountain. Here you had a delicately balanced economy and Bernanke fired the avalanche gun with investors still on the slopes. Then he did it again.

      • 2 votes
      #1.18 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 5:05 PM EST
      Socrates1

      Without getting into the specifics-which may of course leave me open to criticism--my question would be this...How many people would accept the CEO of ExxonMobil as the new Secretary of Energy? We have a virtual monopoly by GoldmanSachs on any high government post pertaining to finance. Even sweeter has been their long standing grip on the post of FED Chairman. Money control=control.

      • 3 votes
      #1.19 - Mon Feb 1, 2010 10:13 PM EST
      Kavidog22

      Socrates1:

      Yup......

      Baron M.A. Rothschild wrote, "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."

      • 2 votes
      #1.20 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 12:57 PM EST
      TNLADY

      And therein lies the biggest problem. Who's in control of our money? The people who were suppose to be "watching" the money have been telling us that "they didn't see it coming". My common sense says that 1) they're incompetent or 2) they're lying. Either way, they're still the ones watching the money. Doesn't give me much confidence.

      I've enjoyed reading your comments and appreciate your explanations. I would welcome any sources you have that might help with understanding this crazy mess. I really need to avoid participating in their next boom and bust cycle if at all possible.

      • 1 vote
      #1.21 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 4:48 PM EST
      Socrates1

      Regarding the Fed I have a group to which I attempt to clip appropriate articles.

        #1.22 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 7:26 PM EST
        TNLADY

        Socrates1

        Would that be the Forum on the Federal Reserve? I'm new to the vine, so how do "join" a group?

          #1.23 - Wed Feb 3, 2010 6:54 AM EST
          Reply
          mike lonkouski

          Yeah, me too, especially with the line...

          He said the key to preventing future crises is to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

          It seems that the right has been saying as much for a few years.

          If this recession double-dips, things are going to be very ugly!

          Few people realize it, but we are teetering on the brink.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#2 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:32 AM EST
          Kavidog22

          mike:

          I agree.

          I think we're in for for a deflationary crash regardless of what we do to stave it off. Printing cash and dumping it into the system is not only putting off the inevitable but will worsen the outcome for us all when it does crash...

          • 2 votes
          #2.1 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:44 AM EST
          supergerbil424

          It is popular to blame, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac etc.

          Unfortunately most of the sub-prime lending, MBS securities from these loans were by the banks and quasi-banking institutions like- Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Citibank, Bank of America.

          Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae were involved with Prime Mortgages, those considered a good risk.

          Part of the problem is political, Republicans voted along with Democrats to force these quasi government institutions to lend to mortgages larger than 400K, they forced them to expand lending even if they did not want to. That part you should blame on the elected politicians.

          • 3 votes
          #2.2 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:00 AM EST
          Nofluer

          Gentlemen - get out your dictionaries and your history books - or Google.

          Look up "Stagflatioin", "Volcker", and Nixon/Ford/Carter (ie ten to twelve years of CRAP!)

          Because that's where we're going.

          You heard it here first almost two years ago.

          • 2 votes
          #2.3 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:32 AM EST
          Kavidog22

          Nofluer:

          In your opinion do you think we've seen the last of deflation? From what I've been reading (most thanks to your guidance) I'm anticipating a longer period of deflation followed by a bear market from hell.....whats your thoughts and/or projection for the next 2 years or so?

          • 1 vote
          #2.4 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:02 PM EST
          Nofluer

          Kavi #2.4

          whats your thoughts and/or projection for the next 2 years or so?

          My response to your question was turning into a mega-comment - so I just wrote it up as an article. That way I can MAYBE find it again if I want to later. And it was becoming overly long too. The person who said someone was "a man of few words" wasn't talking about me. ;-D

          the-next-2-years

          • 1 vote
          #2.5 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:17 PM EST
          psychokiller

          I lived through those years, nofluer. I worked a full time job, and 2 part time jobs, just to keep from sinking. The blame is with our elected officials, who put their political careers ahead of the American people. Vote out the career politicians in 2010, and 2012.

          The only thing a person can do is deal in cash only during those times.

          • 1 vote
          #2.6 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:21 PM EST
          Reply
          Ferrari5k

          Gee, there's still a living to be made by stating the obvious.

            Reply#3 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:24 AM EST
            AlphaDogReporter

            Funny how about 80% of the American public said the same thing as Captain Obvious Barofsky.

              Reply#4 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:24 AM EST
              Erik the Read

              Europeans are decoupling and battening down the hatches. Half a bus load of pundits are predicting the double dip.

              Norwegian exports to China are up by 40%. It is a good indication what my countrymen are thinking. They're looking for new markets.

              • 3 votes
              Reply#5 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:59 AM EST
              Nofluer

              Actually, Eric, it's not a double dip since we never recovered from the first dip.

              • 2 votes
              #5.1 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:41 AM EST
              Nofluer

              DOH! "Double dip" = Bush and Obama.

              • 1 vote
              #5.2 - Tue Feb 2, 2010 11:02 PM EST
              Erik the Read

              Since a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GNP growth, I suppose we are now in the up-turn since all countries, even the UK, are reporting growth. If things turn sour in April or later, that would be the second dip, providing the new downturn lasts six months or more. The Euro is being pummeled, thanks to Greece and Spain, that spells double trouble.

              • 1 vote
              #5.3 - Wed Feb 3, 2010 12:05 AM EST
              Reply
              Living the Dream 77

              Where is there a choice?

              Now that everything (except for our favorite color and which brand of stupidity we can vote for) is decided for us-

              Why go to work when the fruits of our labors have already been robbed before we get out of bed?

              Why bother when the innovations of small businesses and entrepreneurs that have historically accounted for the vast majority of jobs in our once free-market economy have been categorically rejected because they are not TO BIG TO FAIL?

              Take a trip to the rest of the world and we Americans will learn that what we might have invented is now being perfected elsewhere.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#6 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:32 AM EST
              replytoj001

              The problems that led to the last crisis have not yet been addressed, and in some cases have grown worse, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the trouble asset relief program, or TARP. The quarterly report to Congress was released Sunday.

              "Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car," Barofsky wrote.

              Of course the basic problems/conditions have not been addressed, that would call for decisive leadership and bold action, neither of which can be found in the congress or the president.

              But the wost part is if there was to be clean up, they would have to turn on, turn in each other, and they won't, they are all inter-connected, look at Tim Geithner with Goldman Sachs, the NY Fed, and now he is Sec of Treasury.

              replytoj001

              • 2 votes
              Reply#7 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:56 AM EST
              WILDWONDERFUL

              I have a question do any of you have a loan with any of these big banks ? If so why ?

              • 1 vote
              Reply#8 - Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:51 AM EST
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
              Newsvine Privacy Statement
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
              FUN STUFF:
              • Leaderboard |
              • E-Mail Alerts |
              • Top of the Vine |
              • Newsvine Live |
              • Newsvine Archives |
              • The Greenhouse
              COMPANY STUFF:
              • Code of Honor |
              • Company Info |
              • Contact Us |
              • Jobs |
              • User Agreement |
              • Privacy Policy |
              • About our ads
              LEGAL STUFF:
              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com