If you can't get fired up about "Taxed Enough Already" at this time of year, what does it take? TARP, Stimulus, Trillion Dollar Budgets, Jobs Bills, Mortgage Aid Failures, Taxes and Health Care Reforms are only the beginning. Amnesty for Aliens, VAT Taxes, Carbon Policies, The Fairness Doctrine, The Free Choice Act, Fixes to Health Care Reform and further erosion of our National Security are all coming.
This Forum needs a fire lit under it.
If you can't get fired up about "Taxed Enough Already" at this time of year, what does it take? TARP, Stimulus, Trillion Dollar Budgets, Jobs Bills, Mortgage Aid Failures, Taxes and Health Care Reforms are only the beginning. Amnesty for Aliens, VAT Taxes, Carbon Policies, The Fairness Doctrine, The Free Choice Act, Fixes to Health Care Reform and further erosion of our National Security are all coming.
This Forum needs a fire lit under it.
Agreed on the taxes. As for the forum, this format will never work. There is no way to see which threads were last posted to without opening all of them.
Agreed on the taxes.
As for the forum, this format will never work. There is no way to see which threads were last posted to without opening all of them.
Americans pay one of the lowest personal income taxes on the planet. TARP was a Bush issue. The stimulus is why you might have a chance of pulling out of this and the DEREGULATION policies that led to this crisis. What a joke...how about you just post the Republican platform link and then write, "grrr."
Americans pay one of the lowest personal income taxes on the planet. TARP was a Bush issue. The stimulus is why you might have a chance of pulling out of this and the DEREGULATION policies that led to this crisis. What a joke...how about you just post the Republican platform link and then write, "grrr."
We depend on fewer taxpayers to provide a larger percentage of federal revenue than any other country. TARP wasn't necessary, seems to be making some money and should be repealed. Stimulus was a misrepresented welfare package, loaded with earmarks. Deregulation appears to be important, CAPS and all. Maybe, regulations proposed for Fannie & Freddie would have been prudent.
Bush did it! Stimulus was great! Deregulation, bad! Democrat Party Platform?
We depend on fewer taxpayers to provide a larger percentage of federal revenue than any other country. TARP wasn't necessary, seems to be making some money and should be repealed. Stimulus was a misrepresented welfare package, loaded with earmarks. Deregulation appears to be important, CAPS and all. Maybe, regulations proposed for Fannie & Freddie would have been prudent.
Bush did it! Stimulus was great! Deregulation, bad! Democrat Party Platform?
Your first point is ridiculous and entirely incorrect. Provide a single example of your statement, just one. Secondly, TARP was created by your guy, Bush. Third, the stimulus, according to 3 external watchdog organizations, is working and IS producing jobs. As far as your comment on deregulation, check in on derivatives, how that market is entirely unregulated and how it contruibuted to the economic collapse. Read about credit default swaps and their lack of regulation. Read about the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and how that worked out. Again, this movement is cradled by ignorance and laziness. Get off of your asses and learn something
Your first point is ridiculous and entirely incorrect. Provide a single example of your statement, just one. Secondly, TARP was created by your guy, Bush. Third, the stimulus, according to 3 external watchdog organizations, is working and IS producing jobs. As far as your comment on deregulation, check in on derivatives, how that market is entirely unregulated and how it contruibuted to the economic collapse. Read about credit default swaps and their lack of regulation. Read about the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and how that worked out. Again, this movement is cradled by ignorance and laziness. Get off of your asses and learn something
"-- the proud and ignorant. If you believe that if we still had segregation we wouldn't 'have had all these problems,' this is the movement for you. If you believe that your president is a Muslim sleeper agent, this is the movement for you. If you honor a flag raised explicitly to destroy this country then this is the movement for you. If you flirt with secession, even now, then this movement is for you. If you are a 'Real American' with no demonstrable interest in 'Real America' then, by God, this movement of alchemists and creationists, of anti-science and hair tonic, is for you"
"-- the proud and ignorant. If you believe that if we still had segregation we wouldn't 'have had all these problems,' this is the movement for you. If you believe that your president is a Muslim sleeper agent, this is the movement for you. If you honor a flag raised explicitly to destroy this country then this is the movement for you. If you flirt with secession, even now, then this movement is for you. If you are a 'Real American' with no demonstrable interest in 'Real America' then, by God, this movement of alchemists and creationists, of anti-science and hair tonic, is for you"
You are correct Dose of Reality, the Fannie and Freddie time bomb was since Jimawh Cater's time. Amazing that the statiests think the solution is to keep repeating the things that caused the problem. Hope to see you at the rally tomorrow.
You are correct Dose of Reality, the Fannie and Freddie time bomb was since Jimawh Cater's time. Amazing that the statiests think the solution is to keep repeating the things that caused the problem. Hope to see you at the rally tomorrow.
I didn't sleep through the part where Obama was the loudest voice in the room when the "financial rescue" was being discussed. TARP was misrepresented, rushed and flawed. The Clinton administration left the derivatives unregulated. Glass Steagall is a good debate because you need to know why it was repealed. On its own merit it was a good law but over regulation of interest rates had created a losing environment for banks and Glass Steagall freed them to make profits through trading. You can argue that the comingling of banking and trading was dangerous. Putting aside the standard anecdotal arguments TARP, Stimulus and Obamacare were misrepresented, rushed, flawed, partisan and destined to be slush funds controlled by the Junior Senator from Illinois and his political operatives. How's the hope and change really working for you? It sure is waking up the right.
I didn't sleep through the part where Obama was the loudest voice in the room when the "financial rescue" was being discussed. TARP was misrepresented, rushed and flawed. The Clinton administration left the derivatives unregulated. Glass Steagall is a good debate because you need to know why it was repealed. On its own merit it was a good law but over regulation of interest rates had created a losing environment for banks and Glass Steagall freed them to make profits through trading. You can argue that the comingling of banking and trading was dangerous. Putting aside the standard anecdotal arguments TARP, Stimulus and Obamacare were misrepresented, rushed, flawed, partisan and destined to be slush funds controlled by the Junior Senator from Illinois and his political operatives. How's the hope and change really working for you? It sure is waking up the right.
See, once again we get down to the issue...that being, you don't know what you are talking about. TARP was a Bush plan, not an Obama plan. Why is it that you won't get off your ass and learn something? This isn't secret knowledge...it requires a few minutes and a freaking calendar. Go try it. Secondly, your understanding of Glass Steagall is minimal.First of all, Glass Steagall has absolutely no involvement in interest rates. Your initial premise is not flawed, but entirely incorrect. Secondly, it doesn't restrict trading. Glass Steagall created a separation between commercial banks and investment banks. Additionally, limited the amount of debt a bank could have with respect to their reserves. There is a required reserve, established by the fed, with regard to commercial lending, but not with respect to investment debt, without Glass Steagall. This is evidenced by the credit default issue. As we have seen recently with Goldmann Sachs, specific debt commmodities (from your checking account to subprime mortgages) were bundled together, with the intention of choosing the ones who are more likely to fail, sold off as derivatives that were also unregulated, and then "insurance" in the form of credit default swaps were sold (but credit default swaps required no reserve or actual capital to back up the insurance if the bundled derivatives failed), and then the original issuer "shorts", or bets against the success of the derivative they have just sold. In doing that, they bundle a group that will surely fail, sell insurance with no capital or support in case of failure, and then bet against it succeeding. By bundling the subprime commodities, the risk is supposed to be spread, that is the entire concept, but when they choose ones that will surely fail, say, bundle 2000 that all have a credit rating of 410, the risk isn't spread out. It is a debt bomb. The classic money multiplier model derives from this. There is a ratio (set at around 12) between reserves and credit-money. This states that if a bank as $1 in reserve it can emit $12 of credit money. This IN THEORY limited the amount of credit money in the system. "Imagine you take a mortgage out with a bank. Let's say $500,000. Under Glass-Steagall that meant that the bank needed to have roughly $45,000 in reserves to match that debt on their books. If they hold onto the loan it means they may not be able to issue more loans. This would limit the amount of credit money banks could issue. But the bank can "securitize" the debt and sell it. The banks would create a product based on the debt (see CDO below) and SELL IT TO THE PUBLIC. The public would then pay $500,000 for the product. So the bank GETS CASH and can LEND AGAIN. This of course leads to an explosive exponential growth in debt money. By turning loans into cash, Securitization bypassed legislation and in fact created vasts amounts of credit money. Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) The way Securitization was achieved was through the creation of a product called CDOs. Most investors, many mutual funds, cannot invest in securities not rated AAA. A AAA security is an obligation that will not lose say more than 3% to defaults, it is then considered "safe". But let's say you have a bunch of sub-prime mortgage that will default at 30%, how do you sell that to mutual funds? The answer is that you create a CDO, which is a company that holds these mortgages, emits equity paper and obligations and takes the cash flows from these crap assets and directs them in priority to the senior paper. If your mortgage default at 30% it means you can pay 70% full and 30% will suck. Roughly speaking your CDO can emit 70% paper that can be rated AAA and the rest will be rated "complete junk". Got it? It is trivial to see. What happens with the toxic assets emitted by CDOs? it was recycled in "synthetic CDOs" where you take the toxic stuff, mix it again and emit new paper. Voila! from subprime you have created AAA paper up to 2 iterations. This paper was GOBBLED UP by investors around the world seeking yield above and beyond the depressed FED rates.
Special Investment Vehicles, SIV The banks were busy running this machine and taking fees. But some of the toxic assets could not be sold, meaning the by-product of securitization was truly nuclear waste. How would they dispose of it? They would create SIV's that would buy the Toxic CDO tranches. These SIV's were considered "off balance sheet" in many cases. From an accounting standpoint, at least in the US of A, if you do not own more than a certain amount of the equity of a company (around 30%) you do not need to include its reporting in yours.
Conflict of Interest all along the chain One feature of this setup, which quickly turned into a problem, is that the origination of the loan is separate from the holding. Why is this a problem? simply put, those that originated the loan in subprime, didn't give a rats ass about its quality since they would not hold the debt, they would get paid out. They thought this was OK since the machine would create CDO tranches that would legitimately get rated AAA. Originate to Securitize was the beginning of a slippery slope of "who cares". The system was ripe with fraud. The rating agencies didn't have the full information, blindly believed the assumptions that went into the CDO creation and rated these AAA and got paid for doing so. At the end of the line, investors wanted to believe in AAA ratings and snapped those up. Due diligence, the art of knowing what you are buying, had completely disappeared from the manufacturing line. This lack of lending standards plays an important role in the breakdown (Minsky narrative of debt explosion to be published).
The net result: credit money EVERYWHERE So what we have just seen was an amazing machine to create and distribute credit-money while bypassing legislation aimed at limiting the amount of credit money in the system. What we have seen is that the simple mathematics of securitization in fact quickly demultiplied the amount of credit money distributed in the system. Legislation was trying to limit the amount of credit money in the system. Securitization had CREATED vast amounts of debt and DISTRIBUTED it everywhere.
Legislation needs to capture Securitization The problem, technically speaking, with the legislation was that it was worded in terms of BALANCE SHEETS. But banks no longer held the bigger part of these loans. The public did. Securitization made sure those assets moved OFF the balance sheets and turned into cash which further enabled the banks to emit more debt. The system was absorbing this debt, way beyond what the money multiplier level (12x->40x) considered safe. Legislation that wants to capture total amount of credit money in the economy needs to encompass THE FLOW of credit money (Securitization) and not just the partial amount on bank balance sheets since in fact credit had moved off the balance sheets and was everywhere in society." Sorry, but I found this to be the greatest explanation as I started writing this, and just decided to copy it. Obamacare is a huge debate, and we can argue that too if you want. I have problems with it too, but I am sure they are not the same ones you have. I just thought that you needed a little bit more information and the aforementioned is a great basic explanation.
See, once again we get down to the issue...that being, you don't know what you are talking about. TARP was a Bush plan, not an Obama plan. Why is it that you won't get off your ass and learn something? This isn't secret knowledge...it requires a few minutes and a freaking calendar. Go try it. Secondly, your understanding of Glass Steagall is minimal.First of all, Glass Steagall has absolutely no involvement in interest rates. Your initial premise is not flawed, but entirely incorrect. Secondly, it doesn't restrict trading. Glass Steagall created a separation between commercial banks and investment banks. Additionally, limited the amount of debt a bank could have with respect to their reserves. There is a required reserve, established by the fed, with regard to commercial lending, but not with respect to investment debt, without Glass Steagall. This is evidenced by the credit default issue. As we have seen recently with Goldmann Sachs, specific debt commmodities (from your checking account to subprime mortgages) were bundled together, with the intention of choosing the ones who are more likely to fail, sold off as derivatives that were also unregulated, and then "insurance" in the form of credit default swaps were sold (but credit default swaps required no reserve or actual capital to back up the insurance if the bundled derivatives failed), and then the original issuer "shorts", or bets against the success of the derivative they have just sold. In doing that, they bundle a group that will surely fail, sell insurance with no capital or support in case of failure, and then bet against it succeeding. By bundling the subprime commodities, the risk is supposed to be spread, that is the entire concept, but when they choose ones that will surely fail, say, bundle 2000 that all have a credit rating of 410, the risk isn't spread out. It is a debt bomb. The classic money multiplier model derives from this. There is a ratio (set at around 12) between reserves and credit-money. This states that if a bank as $1 in reserve it can emit $12 of credit money. This IN THEORY limited the amount of credit money in the system.
"Imagine you take a mortgage out with a bank. Let's say $500,000. Under Glass-Steagall that meant that the bank needed to have roughly $45,000 in reserves to match that debt on their books. If they hold onto the loan it means they may not be able to issue more loans. This would limit the amount of credit money banks could issue. But the bank can "securitize" the debt and sell it. The banks would create a product based on the debt (see CDO below) and SELL IT TO THE PUBLIC. The public would then pay $500,000 for the product. So the bank GETS CASH and can LEND AGAIN. This of course leads to an explosive exponential growth in debt money.
By turning loans into cash, Securitization bypassed legislation and in fact created vasts amounts of credit money.
Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO)
The way Securitization was achieved was through the creation of a product called CDOs. Most investors, many mutual funds, cannot invest in securities not rated AAA. A AAA security is an obligation that will not lose say more than 3% to defaults, it is then considered "safe". But let's say you have a bunch of sub-prime mortgage that will default at 30%, how do you sell that to mutual funds? The answer is that you create a CDO, which is a company that holds these mortgages, emits equity paper and obligations and takes the cash flows from these crap assets and directs them in priority to the senior paper. If your mortgage default at 30% it means you can pay 70% full and 30% will suck. Roughly speaking your CDO can emit 70% paper that can be rated AAA and the rest will be rated "complete junk". Got it? It is trivial to see. What happens with the toxic assets emitted by CDOs? it was recycled in "synthetic CDOs" where you take the toxic stuff, mix it again and emit new paper. Voila! from subprime you have created AAA paper up to 2 iterations. This paper was GOBBLED UP by investors around the world seeking yield above and beyond the depressed FED rates.
Special Investment Vehicles, SIV
The banks were busy running this machine and taking fees. But some of the toxic assets could not be sold, meaning the by-product of securitization was truly nuclear waste. How would they dispose of it? They would create SIV's that would buy the Toxic CDO tranches. These SIV's were considered "off balance sheet" in many cases. From an accounting standpoint, at least in the US of A, if you do not own more than a certain amount of the equity of a company (around 30%) you do not need to include its reporting in yours.
Conflict of Interest all along the chain
One feature of this setup, which quickly turned into a problem, is that the origination of the loan is separate from the holding. Why is this a problem? simply put, those that originated the loan in subprime, didn't give a rats ass about its quality since they would not hold the debt, they would get paid out. They thought this was OK since the machine would create CDO tranches that would legitimately get rated AAA. Originate to Securitize was the beginning of a slippery slope of "who cares". The system was ripe with fraud. The rating agencies didn't have the full information, blindly believed the assumptions that went into the CDO creation and rated these AAA and got paid for doing so. At the end of the line, investors wanted to believe in AAA ratings and snapped those up. Due diligence, the art of knowing what you are buying, had completely disappeared from the manufacturing line. This lack of lending standards plays an important role in the breakdown (Minsky narrative of debt explosion to be published).
The net result: credit money EVERYWHERE
So what we have just seen was an amazing machine to create and distribute credit-money while bypassing legislation aimed at limiting the amount of credit money in the system. What we have seen is that the simple mathematics of securitization in fact quickly demultiplied the amount of credit money distributed in the system. Legislation was trying to limit the amount of credit money in the system. Securitization had CREATED vast amounts of debt and DISTRIBUTED it everywhere.
Legislation needs to capture Securitization
The problem, technically speaking, with the legislation was that it was worded in terms of BALANCE SHEETS. But banks no longer held the bigger part of these loans. The public did. Securitization made sure those assets moved OFF the balance sheets and turned into cash which further enabled the banks to emit more debt. The system was absorbing this debt, way beyond what the money multiplier level (12x->40x) considered safe. Legislation that wants to capture total amount of credit money in the economy needs to encompass THE FLOW of credit money (Securitization) and not just the partial amount on bank balance sheets since in fact credit had moved off the balance sheets and was everywhere in society."
Sorry, but I found this to be the greatest explanation as I started writing this, and just decided to copy it.
Obamacare is a huge debate, and we can argue that too if you want. I have problems with it too, but I am sure they are not the same ones you have. I just thought that you needed a little bit more information and the aforementioned is a great basic explanation.
Tex, in spite of vast knowledge, you don't comprehend well. Glass-Steagall did not regulate interest rates and I never said it did. I also believe the mix of banking and trading is dangerous. I appreciate the education but quoting what caused the panic doesn't justify the failed policies that followed.
TARP was Bush's plan? All by his little self?
Tex, in spite of vast knowledge, you don't comprehend well. Glass-Steagall did not regulate interest rates and I never said it did. I also believe the mix of banking and trading is dangerous. I appreciate the education but quoting what caused the panic doesn't justify the failed policies that followed.
Wait a second. You blamed Clinton and Obama, but when explained that part of it was Bush's Presidency, you come back with that? You know, if you want to be taken seriously, you can't act like children. Just a thought. Secondly, you say you don't like the mix of banking and trading, but you argue that Glass Steagall should not be brought back? Seriously, do you have any clue how contradictory you are being?
Wait a second. You blamed Clinton and Obama, but when explained that part of it was Bush's Presidency, you come back with that? You know, if you want to be taken seriously, you can't act like children. Just a thought. Secondly, you say you don't like the mix of banking and trading, but you argue that Glass Steagall should not be brought back? Seriously, do you have any clue how contradictory you are being?
I have never made a statement against Glass/Steagall. I, in fact, said it was a good law.
I don't blame Bush for TARP. I don't blame Clinton for lying about WMD's, financial regulation failures or the Community Reinvestment Acts. I don't even blame Obama for mismanging TARP, since the money is coming back, or for the massive failure of the stimulus bill. Unlike leftist nut cases and some excessively harsh right wingers, I don't put more blame on presidents than they richly deserve. Obama didn't author the stimulus bill, the apollo alliance did, but he repeatedly misrepresented it.
I have never made a statement against Glass/Steagall. I, in fact, said it was a good law.
I don't blame Bush for TARP. I don't blame Clinton for lying about WMD's, financial regulation failures or the Community Reinvestment Acts. I don't even blame Obama for mismanging TARP, since the money is coming back, or for the massive failure of the stimulus bill. Unlike leftist nut cases and some excessively harsh right wingers, I don't put more blame on presidents than they richly deserve. Obama didn't author the stimulus bill, the apollo alliance did, but he repeatedly misrepresented it.
Dose, how can I put it? Me too, my mistake if I read your response wrong. I blame Clinton and his Congress for quite a bit. However, so far, I dig the stimulus package. We'll see.
Dose, how can I put it? Me too, my mistake if I read your response wrong. I blame Clinton and his Congress for quite a bit. However, so far, I dig the stimulus package. We'll see.
»
This Forum needs a fire lit under it.
As for the forum, this format will never work. There is no way to see which threads were last posted to without opening all of them.
Bush did it! Stimulus was great! Deregulation, bad! Democrat Party Platform?
"Imagine you take a mortgage out with a bank. Let's say $500,000. Under Glass-Steagall that meant that the bank needed to have roughly $45,000 in reserves to match that debt on their books. If they hold onto the loan it means they may not be able to issue more loans. This would limit the amount of credit money banks could issue. But the bank can "securitize" the debt and sell it. The banks would create a product based on the debt (see CDO below) and SELL IT TO THE PUBLIC. The public would then pay $500,000 for the product. So the bank GETS CASH and can LEND AGAIN. This of course leads to an explosive exponential growth in debt money.
By turning loans into cash, Securitization bypassed legislation and in fact created vasts amounts of credit money.
Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO)
The way Securitization was achieved was through the creation of a product called CDOs. Most investors, many mutual funds, cannot invest in securities not rated AAA. A AAA security is an obligation that will not lose say more than 3% to defaults, it is then considered "safe". But let's say you have a bunch of sub-prime mortgage that will default at 30%, how do you sell that to mutual funds? The answer is that you create a CDO, which is a company that holds these mortgages, emits equity paper and obligations and takes the cash flows from these crap assets and directs them in priority to the senior paper. If your mortgage default at 30% it means you can pay 70% full and 30% will suck. Roughly speaking your CDO can emit 70% paper that can be rated AAA and the rest will be rated "complete junk". Got it? It is trivial to see. What happens with the toxic assets emitted by CDOs? it was recycled in "synthetic CDOs" where you take the toxic stuff, mix it again and emit new paper. Voila! from subprime you have created AAA paper up to 2 iterations. This paper was GOBBLED UP by investors around the world seeking yield above and beyond the depressed FED rates.
Special Investment Vehicles, SIV
The banks were busy running this machine and taking fees. But some of the toxic assets could not be sold, meaning the by-product of securitization was truly nuclear waste. How would they dispose of it? They would create SIV's that would buy the Toxic CDO tranches. These SIV's were considered "off balance sheet" in many cases. From an accounting standpoint, at least in the US of A, if you do not own more than a certain amount of the equity of a company (around 30%) you do not need to include its reporting in yours.
Conflict of Interest all along the chain
One feature of this setup, which quickly turned into a problem, is that the origination of the loan is separate from the holding. Why is this a problem? simply put, those that originated the loan in subprime, didn't give a rats ass about its quality since they would not hold the debt, they would get paid out. They thought this was OK since the machine would create CDO tranches that would legitimately get rated AAA. Originate to Securitize was the beginning of a slippery slope of "who cares". The system was ripe with fraud. The rating agencies didn't have the full information, blindly believed the assumptions that went into the CDO creation and rated these AAA and got paid for doing so. At the end of the line, investors wanted to believe in AAA ratings and snapped those up. Due diligence, the art of knowing what you are buying, had completely disappeared from the manufacturing line. This lack of lending standards plays an important role in the breakdown (Minsky narrative of debt explosion to be published).
The net result: credit money EVERYWHERE
So what we have just seen was an amazing machine to create and distribute credit-money while bypassing legislation aimed at limiting the amount of credit money in the system. What we have seen is that the simple mathematics of securitization in fact quickly demultiplied the amount of credit money distributed in the system. Legislation was trying to limit the amount of credit money in the system. Securitization had CREATED vast amounts of debt and DISTRIBUTED it everywhere.
Legislation needs to capture Securitization
The problem, technically speaking, with the legislation was that it was worded in terms of BALANCE SHEETS. But banks no longer held the bigger part of these loans. The public did. Securitization made sure those assets moved OFF the balance sheets and turned into cash which further enabled the banks to emit more debt. The system was absorbing this debt, way beyond what the money multiplier level (12x->40x) considered safe. Legislation that wants to capture total amount of credit money in the economy needs to encompass THE FLOW of credit money (Securitization) and not just the partial amount on bank balance sheets since in fact credit had moved off the balance sheets and was everywhere in society."
Sorry, but I found this to be the greatest explanation as I started writing this, and just decided to copy it.
Obamacare is a huge debate, and we can argue that too if you want. I have problems with it too, but I am sure they are not the same ones you have. I just thought that you needed a little bit more information and the aforementioned is a great basic explanation.
Tex, in spite of vast knowledge, you don't comprehend well. Glass-Steagall did not regulate interest rates and I never said it did. I also believe the mix of banking and trading is dangerous. I appreciate the education but quoting what caused the panic doesn't justify the failed policies that followed.
I don't blame Bush for TARP. I don't blame Clinton for lying about WMD's, financial regulation failures or the Community Reinvestment Acts. I don't even blame Obama for mismanging TARP, since the money is coming back, or for the massive failure of the stimulus bill. Unlike leftist nut cases and some excessively harsh right wingers, I don't put more blame on presidents than they richly deserve. Obama didn't author the stimulus bill, the apollo alliance did, but he repeatedly misrepresented it.