Cash for trash...

[bullypulpit]

That's what many are calling the proposal for Wall Street's bailout on the back of the tax-payers of the nation. It's also being called the <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html>"Authorization for the Use of Economic Force"</a>, given that it gives power to Henry Paulson that any dictator would kill thousands for...

<blockquote>Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.</blockquote>

This from <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html>Section 8 of the draft proposal</a>.

What so many of the laissez-faire capitalism advocates conveniently forget is that capitalism entails risk in the quest in pursuit of profit. What these bailouts entail is an attempt to secure the profit absent any risk. Since the the cause of this financial melt-down is rooted in tangible assets...as in homes...it would seem more appropriate to have lenders renegotiate the loans at lower interest rates and at prices reflecting the loss in value of these assets. This would keep more people in their homes and reduce their fears of losing everything. the difficulty here lies in that these mortgages were bundled and sold, leaving no clear trail of ownership.

The origins of this whole tangled web can be traced back to The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which ultimately repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down the final barriers between banking and finance that had protected tax-payers and markets from another Great Depression since the Banking act of 1933. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and everyone who clamored for unregulated capital markets are squealing like stuck pigs and wanting to be rescued from their own cupidity and stupidity.

It's worth noting that the first name on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is Gramm, as in Phil Gramm, McCain's financial adviser and possible Secretary of the Treasury in a McCain administration. It is also worth noting that in 1982 McCain voted for the <a href=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/sumner>Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act</a> which deregulated the S & L industry. In 1985, when it was becoming apparent that the S & L industry was beginning its meltdown who was at the heart of the Lincoln S & L scandal and the heart of the Keating 5...? John McCain.

[red states rule]

If you are pissed over the mess, thank libs. They started tinkering with the way home loans were made back during the Pres Peanut's term

Libs were saying how banks were red lining and not giveing enough loans to minorities

Under the threat of legal action, banks started giving risky loans

Every politican loves to boast how they have increased home ownership under there rein, and few said a word

When Pres Bush and McCain wnated to do something, Dems blocked the attempts. As well a few Republicans

Obama, Frank, and Schumer are up to their necks in this mess

It is not capitalism or Wall St who caused this mess - it is do gooder libs who wanted to do some social engineering via the banking system

[bullypulpit]

If you are pissed over the mess, thank libs. They started tinkering with the way home loans were made back during the Pres Peanut's term

Libs were saying how banks were red lining and not giveing enough loans to minorities

Under the threat of legal action, banks started giving risky loans

Every politican loves to boast how they have increased home ownership under there rein, and few said a word

When Pres Bush and McCain wnated to do something, Dems blocked the attempts. As well a few Republicans

Obama, Frank, and Schumer are up to their necks in this mess

It is not capitalism or Wall St who caused this mess - it is do gooder libs who wanted to do some social engineering via the banking system

Wrong, as ever. "Redlining" as it is known was banned. Nice try ya racist little bastich. Now, how's about addressing the issues instead of trying to obscure them and issue apologia for the GOP and the consequences of its deregulatory binge.

[red states rule]

Wrong, as ever. "Redlining" as it is known was banned. Nice try ya racist little bastich. Now, how's about addressing the issues instead of trying to obscure them and issue apologia for the GOP and the consequences of its deregulatory binge.

This mess started in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bill Clinton expaned it

Pres Bush and McCain tried to fix it, but Dems blocked it

Read the history BP - even the NY Times confirmes what I am saying when they OPPOSED reforms to Fannie and Freddie


Can Congress just walk away from a problem it helped create? Maybe, maybe not.

There's now some talk of a grand deal between the Treasury, the Fed and Congress for a "permanent" solution: creating a government agency to buy up all the bad subprime debt, just like the Resolution Trust Corp. did with bad real estate in the 1980s and 1990s.

Already, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the subprime crisis from crashing the world economy. The collapse of twin mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the failures of Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, expose taxpayers to more than $1 trillion in liabilities.

Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, "no one knows what to do" right now.

Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked "no" at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.

Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.

"The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

Only one problem: It's untrue.

Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn't have.

But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

It's pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949

[mundame]

If you are pissed over the mess, thank libs. They started tinkering with the way home loans were made back during the Pres Peanut's term

Libs were saying how banks were red lining and not giveing enough loans to minorities

Under the threat of legal action, banks started giving risky loans

Every politican loves to boast how they have increased home ownership under there rein, and few said a word

When Pres Bush and McCain wnated to do something, Dems blocked the attempts. As well a few Republicans

Obama, Frank, and Schumer are up to their necks in this mess

It is not capitalism or Wall St who caused this mess - it is do gooder libs who wanted to do some social engineering via the banking system


I agree with all of this ------------- and so does the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Lending money to blacks, mostly (oh, yes, the great majority of the liar loans were to blacks in inner city and near-suburb areas), who could not pay them when the housing values turned down, was the WHOLE foundation of this problem, and that was caused 100% by Congress and it's stupid and socialist "up the poor!" attitude, which has ruined us and may well cause major, major catastrophe that will involve us all.

[red states rule]

I agree with all of this ------------- and so does the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Lending money to blacks, mostly (oh, yes, the great majority of the liar loans were to blacks in inner city and near-suburb areas), who could not pay them when the housing values turned down, was the WHOLE foundation of this problem, and that was caused 100% by Congress and it's stupid and socialist "up the poor!" attitude, which has ruined us and may well cause major, major catastrophe that will involve us all.

You want MORE proof? Look at how Dems are reacting

In the lat 2 years Dems have ran Congress we have had hearing on Iraq, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and Scooter Libby (and I am sure I have left some out)

Why are Dems NOT holding hearings on the banking issue? Because they know damn well they are deep in this mess - deeper then Republicans are

Dems know they damn liberal policies set the foundation for this collapse, and the cost to be paid by the taxpayers

[mundame]

Why are Dems NOT holding hearings on the banking issue? Because they know damn well they are deep in this mess - deeper then Republicans are



Well, I believe they are hearing from Bernanke and Paulson today, actually.

That's why the markets are so nervous, this is the week that was. The plan is to get a bill voted by the House Thursday and the Senate Friday and it's done, but the Market feels grave doubts that will happen.........

I can't say I'm really feeling secure myself. I went flat in the market yesterday, actually. That means I backed out to a cash position.

It's just not a good time for little fish to play in the fountain.

[red states rule]

Well, I believe they are hearing from Bernanke and Paulson today, actually.

That's why the markets are so nervous, this is the week that was. The plan is to get a bill voted by the House Thursday and the Senate Friday and it's done, but the Market feels grave doubts that will happen.........

I can't say I'm really feeling secure myself. I went flat in the market yesterday, actually. That means I backed out to a cash position.

It's just not a good time for little fish to play in the fountain.

You can bet the Dems will not allow any questions that would lead the Dems involvement

If you have some time before retirement, do not worry. Now is the time to buy stocks Mundame

[theHawk]

Wrong, as ever. "Redlining" as it is known was banned. Nice try ya racist little bastich. Now, how's about addressing the issues instead of trying to obscure them and issue apologia for the GOP and the consequences of its deregulatory binge.

You're 100% wrong. To this day loans are given to high risk folks. When many loan applications are put through the computer systems of many of these loan companies, they automatically have their rating raised to nearly that of an A rating. The bottom line is that the lenders didn't care if the people were high risk or not, they would end up selling the mortgage in a bundle, and the people buying didn't care either.

Rush very recently played an old speech given by Daniel Mudd to the Congressional Black Caucus. He kissed their asses and bragged about giving the most loans to minorities than any other company in history. The Dems have been pushing policies down the throats of these companies in order to get them to give loans to "high risk" people, i.e. low income minorities. The policies are coming home to roost!

[mundame]

You're 100% wrong. To this day loans are given to high risk folks. When many loan applications are put through the computer systems of many of these loan companies, they automatically have their rating raised to nearly that of an A rating. The bottom line is that the lenders didn't care if the people were high risk or not, they would end up selling the mortgage in a bundle, and the people buying didn't care either.



All true, except the "to this day" part. That has stopped cold. Indeed, the real problem is that NO ONE can get loans easily, including banks to banks.

I don't think there will be any more liar loans, at least in the short term. And there should never be.

The question now is whether well-off people with good jobs and credit will be able to get mortgages, either.

[bullypulpit]

This mess started in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act

Bill Clinton expaned it

Pres Bush and McCain tried to fix it, but Dems blocked it

Read the history BP - even the NY Times confirmes what I am saying when they OPPOSED reforms to Fannie and Freddie


Can Congress just walk away from a problem it helped create? Maybe, maybe not.

There's now some talk of a grand deal between the Treasury, the Fed and Congress for a "permanent" solution: creating a government agency to buy up all the bad subprime debt, just like the Resolution Trust Corp. did with bad real estate in the 1980s and 1990s.

Already, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the subprime crisis from crashing the world economy. The collapse of twin mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the failures of Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, expose taxpayers to more than $1 trillion in liabilities.

Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, "no one knows what to do" right now.

Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked "no" at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.

Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.

"The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

Only one problem: It's untrue.

Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn't have.

But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

It's pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949

Once again, the "Cut-and-Paste King" misses the forest for the trees. The Community Reinvestment Act did nothing to roll back ANY of the measures of the Glass-Steagall Act or the Banking Act of 1933. It did address the practice in the banking industry of redlining minority neighborhoods and communities...nothing more.

That didn't come until the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed by a GOP dominated Congress and signed into law by one of the best friends Wall Street ever had, Bill Clinton. It was this tearing down of the walls between banking and finance that led to the derivative market based on bundled mortgage loans, the collapse of which has led us to our current straights.

But the mortgage based derivatives are only a part of this house of cards...there somewhere in the neighborhood of some 1000 TRILLION dollars in derivatives floating around in world financial markets. If you think the $700 billion proposed in Henry Paulson's bailout scheme is a one time only good deal, the tanking of the derivatives market will be the gift that keeps on taking...with trillion dollar annual US budget deficits for as far as the eye can see.

Wake up and smell the coffee boyo.

[red states rule]

Once again, the "Cut-and-Paste King" misses the forest for the trees. The Community Reinvestment Act did nothing to roll back ANY of the measures of the Glass-Steagall Act or the Banking Act of 1933. It did address the practice in the banking industry of redlining minority neighborhoods and communities...nothing more.

That didn't come until the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed by a GOP dominated Congress and signed into law by one of the best friends Wall Street ever had, Bill Clinton. It was this tearing down of the walls between banking and finance that led to the derivative market based on bundled mortgage loans, the collapse of which has led us to our current straights.

But the mortgage based derivatives are only a part of this house of cards...there somewhere in the neighborhood of some 1000 TRILLION dollars in derivatives floating around in world financial markets. If you think the $700 billion proposed in Henry Paulson's bailout scheme is a one time only good deal, the tanking of the derivatives market will be the gift that keeps on taking...with trillion dollar annual US budget deficits for as far as the eye can see.

Wake up and smell the coffee boyo.


The link PROVES Dems tried to pressure banks to lend money to people who could not pay it back

Did ou read where Barney frank said there was no problem with Freddie and Fannie?

Or how Pres Bush tried to reform them?

Hillary was on TV today giving the same lame excuses for her husbands mistakes

[bullypulpit]

The link PROVES Dems tried to pressure banks to lend money to people who could not pay it back

Did ou read where Barney frank said there was no problem with Freddie and Fannie?

Or how Pres Bush tried to reform them?

Hillary was on TV today giving the same lame excuses for her husbands mistakes

The killer for the proposal was that it "...would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws...".

Secondly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not have taken on so many bad loans had the provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 not been tossed aside under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.

Sorry, you lose again.

[red states rule]

The killer for the proposal was that it "...would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws...".

Secondly, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not have taken on so many bad loans had the provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 not been tossed aside under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.

Sorry, you lose again.

I did not lose the first time

Don't forget that back in 2003 Bush tried to address the problem and the Dems in congress shot it down...then in 2005 McCain a few others tried to address it and the Dems in congress shot it down

[bullypulpit]

I did not lose the first time

Don't forget that back in 2003 Bush tried to address the problem and the Dems in congress shot it down...then in 2005 McCain a few others tried to address it and the Dems in congress shot it down

Tell me, please...How did the Democrats "shoot it down" when there was an airtight GOP majority in both houses of Congress at the time? And don't forget that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the bloated monsters they were thanks, in large part, to a bill he supported and voted for...You know...Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

[red states rule]

Tell me, please...How did the Democrats "shoot it down" when there was an airtight GOP majority in both houses of Congress at the time? And don't forget that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the bloated monsters they were thanks, in large part, to a bill he supported and voted for...You know...Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

By blocking anything from moving in the Senate

You know, how you guys explain how the Reid/Pelosi Congress have accomplished nothing in the last 2 years

However, in this case it is factually correct

For example:

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON

September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

”The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

”These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration’s package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company’s mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

”We welcome the administration’s approach outlined today,” Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company’s 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ”responsible proposal.”

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance

[bullypulpit]

Paragraph 7...As I pointed out earlier was the deal killer. As for the so called Democratic majority in Congress...It's non-existent in the Senate, which is where most current legislation is being bottled up by Republican's more loyal to party and president than to the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.

There's plenty of blood on both parties hands in this economic melt-down.

[red states rule]

Paragraph 7...As I pointed out earlier was the deal killer. As for the so called Democratic majority in Congress...It's non-existent in the Senate, which is where most current legislation is being bottled up by Republican's more loyal to party and president than to the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.

There's plenty of blood on both parties hands in this economic melt-down.

There is blame to go all around BP

Dems however set the foundation for the collapse, and a few years ago Barney Frank said there was not a problem when Pres Bush and McCain wanted to fix the problem

And Obama hires Raines as his economic advisor. I guess Obama wnats to do the entire country what Raines did to Fannie

[mundame]

And Obama hires Raines as his economic advisor. I guess Obama wnats to do the entire country what Raines did to Fannie


Ummmm......you are kidding about this, right?

It's not actually happening?

As far as I know Raines has been hiding under a rock afraid to show his face since he got run out of Fannie Mae a couple years ago for simple thievery.

[red states rule]

Ummmm......you are kidding about this, right?

It's not actually happening?

As far as I know Raines has been hiding under a rock afraid to show his face since he got run out of Fannie Mae a couple years ago for simple thievery.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/09/so-is-franklin-raines-obama-economic.html

[mundame]

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/09/so-is-franklin-raines-obama-economic.html


Very interesting.

Well, this meltdown and the FBI investigation will put an end to any contact between Raines and Oobopaloobop. Raines is a poison pill now.

Interesting to watch the attacks on Obama via crooked prominent black men. Hey, fair enough, IMO. There have been too many; they've gotten away with too much because everyone is afraid to call them on their bad deeds.

[red states rule]

Very interesting.

Well, this meltdown and the FBI investigation will put an end to any contact between Raines and Oobopaloobop. Raines is a poison pill now.

Interesting to watch the attacks on Obama via crooked prominent black men. Hey, fair enough, IMO. There have been too many; they've gotten away with too much because everyone is afraid to call them on their bad deeds.

Yet Obama runs around talking about the giovernment making sure CEO's do not get big payouts as part of the bailout plan. Is he going to demand Raines give back HIS bonus money?

[mundame]

Yet Obama runs around talking about the giovernment making sure CEO's do not get big payouts as part of the bailout plan. Is he going to demand Raines give back HIS bonus money?


No, I imagine all this is forward looking. If somebody already stole his millions, he can keep them.

[red states rule]

No, I imagine all this is forward looking. If somebody already stole his millions, he can keep them.

and being a loyal Dem suporting the messiah does not hurt

[bullypulpit]

There is blame to go all around BP

Dems however set the foundation for the collapse, and a few years ago Barney Frank said there was not a problem when Pres Bush and McCain wanted to fix the problem

And Obama hires Raines as his economic advisor. I guess Obama wnats to do the entire country what Raines did to Fannie

And most of that blame lies at the foot of Republican administrations and when Congress is controlled by the GOP. Starting with the Depository Institutions Act of 1982 under Reagan and a GOP controlled Congress, which led to the collapse of the S&L industry to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act written by Phil Gramm and supported by John McCain.

It was this GOP driven deregulatory binge, not the Community Reinvestment Act, not the banning of red-lining, which has brought us to our current straights. This laissez-faire atmosphere led to the creation of desktop underwriting, first by Freddie Mac and later by Fannie Mae. Even under CRA, borrowers had to meet certain income to debt ratios. Ideally this ration was 26/34, the top number being the percentage of income devoted to housing and the bottom number being the percentage of income devoted to recurring debt...car loans, student loans, revolving credit. In other words, there was 40% of one's income to apply to the cost of living...food, utilities, savings etc. With desktop underwriting, people were approved for loans with debt ratios as high as 50/50...leaving nothing for the cost of living, and such loans were doomed to failure.

[red states rule]

And most of that blame lies at the foot of Republican administrations and when Congress is controlled by the GOP. Starting with the Depository Institutions Act of 1982 under Reagan and a GOP controlled Congress, which led to the collapse of the S&L industry to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act written by Phil Gramm and supported by John McCain.

It was this GOP driven deregulatory binge, not the Community Reinvestment Act, not the banning of red-lining, which has brought us to our current straights. This laissez-faire atmosphere led to the creation of desktop underwriting, first by Freddie Mac and later by Fannie Mae. Even under CRA, borrowers had to meet certain income to debt ratios. Ideally this ration was 26/34, the top number being the percentage of income devoted to housing and the bottom number being the percentage of income devoted to recurring debt...car loans, student loans, revolving credit. In other words, there was 40% of one's income to apply to the cost of living...food, utilities, savings etc. With desktop underwriting, people were approved for loans with debt ratios as high as 50/50...leaving nothing for the cost of living, and such loans were doomed to failure.

BP, go ahead and ignore my links showing it was the Clinton folks who strongarmed lenders to make more loans to minorities - which turned out to be risky

Also, go ahead and ignore how Obama did the same in Chicago. Now Obama has Raines as his economic advisor who made millions while driving the company into the ground

Yet, you want to blame Republcians and give a pass to the Dems

Why am I not surprised

[red states rule]

BP, here is a history lesson for you


Democrats would love to blame the Bush administration for a disaster they mostly helped to create. But, according to the White House, as early as April 2001, the administration warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large (government-sponsored enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity." As recently as June of this year, President Bush asked Congress to take the necessary measures to address growing foreclosures. "We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," he said. In July, Congress passed reform legislation, but it was too late.

It is an affront to the nation that some of the people who brought on the crisis (and financially and politically benefited from the status quo) were asking the questions at the Banking Committee hearing. They should have been in the witness chair. Dodd said the crisis was "entirely foreseeable and preventable." Then why didn't he try to prevent it? He should have been answering questions about the PAC contributions he received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (according to opensecrets.org, he's the Senate's no. 1 recipient of campaign contributions, $133,900, Barack Obama is no. 3, $105,849), his sweetheart Countrywide Financial mortgage rate and whether they influenced his inattentiveness to the growing mortgage crisis.

http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/09/25/judgment_day