Conservative Harvard student challenges Barney Frank on the financial crisis

[Iriemon]

The 70 year period began with the GSE's and the timeline includes the various incarnations including and up to Frank and Dodd blocking regulation.

"It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), that lay behind the crisis. After regulatory changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act by President Clinton in 1995, Fannie and Freddie went into hyper-drive, channeling literally trillions of dollars into the housing markets, using leverage and implicit taxpayers' guarantees.
President Bush pushed for what the New York Times then called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."… led by Frank, Democrats stood as a bloc against any changes."
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Let The Inquisition Start With Frank

Didn't you already cite this editorial?

I'll repeat as well, since you've not responded to this basic question raised by the assertion of the article you repeatedly have cited:

2. And most importantly, please explain how Frank, as a member of a then minority party of the House of Representative, was able to supposedly "stand as a bloc" against changes, presumably sought by the Republicans, who controlled majorities in the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House.

Even better, let's see the bill Bush sponsored that went for a vote in the HOR, so we can see how Frank and the minority Democratic party were able to block it.

So, let's have you be the second on this thread to answer the question: Would there be a mortgage meltdown today is there had been no GSE's, CRA, Clinton, Cuomo, Dodd and Frank?

If you have to agree that if folks had to put down a larger portion of home prices, and the government if did not take a paternal role in 'helping' people to own homes, then there would have been reason to have more stringent control of financial institutions, thus less chance of the trillions of dollars that have been lost...then welcome to the Conservative Party.

And in the 2006 elections, Democrats took a small majority of 51-49 in the senate and 233-202 in the House of Representatives which they held for the two years leading up to the 2008 election.

You think I should answer your question when you refuse to respond to mine?

I'll give the answer for you. Contrary to the assertions in conservative editorials, there is no way Frank could have "blocked" a bill in the HOR that was sponsored by Bush and the Republicans. The Republican majority could have passed any bill it wanted in the House.

And the *only* bill passed in the House in this time frame to regulate Fannie was a bipartisan bill in 2005 which Frank in fact supported.

Furthermore, the fact that Fannie/Freddie has been around for decades without causing meltdown is evidence they are not at fault for the current crisis. And if current policies in their operations had an effect, the principal blame can only be levided against the party that had complete control of the Govt, including the agency with specific responsibility to oversee Fannie/Freddie (OFHEO), from 2000-06.

For the record, I did respond to your question, post #58.

 

[Iriemon]

You use the name Oxely as though he were the burning bush.

I don't know who he is and why this one opinion outweighs those of the many whose work is reported in the Boston Globe, WSJ, NYTimes, Baltimore Business Journal, Investors Business Daily, American Spectator, ect.
And I wish you would recall that when you posted the same response on an earlier thread, my response stated that President Bush, a politician, and not a Conservative one at that, didn't show the courage to confront the Dems when they threatened to call him a 'racist' if he tried to block risky GSE loans and reform the system.

There ya go. I rest my case that you have gullible-itis brought on by tunnel vision. One would think, if you cared to shrug off that label, that you would immediately Google Mr. Oxely and obtain a little further information. But you can't be bothered because anything other than the 4 publications you've chosen as your bible on this subject might give you doubts. And you can't have that.

there's, uh, six publications listed by my count in the area you colorized. an ability to count would seem essential in any discussion of the financial crisis, IMO.

i'll ask mr oxley his opinion when i run into him.

Is this a debate board or cut-n-paste forum?

We can cut-n-paste opinions and editorials from biased sources back and forth all day. What does that prove except who can collect the most articles?

I'm personally much more persuaded by someone who can rationally explain, for example, who Frank could have blocked Republican efforts to regulate Fannie before Jan 2007, when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the WH.

I agree you an probably find more articles in the financial press that blame Fannie/Fannie and Freddie. That should not surprise anyone, because the financial press (WSJ etc) tends to be conservative and these agencies are designed to help the poor, and conservatives want to get rid of them.

But here's some articles, for those who find this sort of thing impressive.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits

There’s a dangerous — and misleading — argument making the rounds about the causes of our current credit crisis. It’s emanating from Washington where politicians are engaging in the usual blame game but this time the stakes are so high that we can’t afford to fall victim to political doublespeak. In this fact-free zone, government sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the real estate bubble and subprime meltdown. It’s completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims of the credit crisis, not culprits.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits - BusinessWeek

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

Greenspan: Securitization, Not Fannie/Freddie, to Blame

"Many Republican lawmakers on the oversight committee tried to blame the mortgage meltdown on the unchecked growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored mortgage-finance companies that were placed in a government conservatorship last month. Republicans have argued that Democratic lawmakers blocked measures to reform the companies.

But Mr. Greenspan, who was first appointed by President Ronald Reagan, placed far more blame on the Wall Street companies that bundled subprime mortgages into pools and sold them as mortgage-backed securities. Global demand for the securities was so high, he said, that Wall Street companies pressured lenders to lower their standards and produce more “paper.”

“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower,” he said."

The Big Picture

Commentators in the mass media as well as writers who have appeared on these pages have continued to declare as fact that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the originators of the present crisis in the mortgage business. While it is true that those two entities are sitting on about half of American mortgages and that many of these are toxic, they did not invent the subprime and adjustable-rate scams. That happened elsewhere.

What they did was to join the mad march into insolvency by abandoning their strict requirements for mortgage eligibility in mindless emulation of what was loosely referred to as the banking industry. By 2006 the Bush administration was dismissing warnings that housing prices were becoming inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was ahead. And it continued to urge Fannie and Freddie to acquire questionable assets in pursuit of its political objective of raising the rate of home ownership.

Fannie and Freddie cannot be said to have performed with distinction during this loony era but to blame them for the disaster is a bad rap. Their crime was that they became the foolish receivers of properties of dubious value that had been finagled by others.

Fannie, Freddie not totally at fault in mortgage crisis | CITIZEN-TIMES.com | Asheville Citizen-Times

And now we'll see the posts about how all this is left-wing drivel dah dah dah.

What I'd really find more persuasive that cut-n-paste skills is someone who can explain to me exactly how Fannie/Freddie "caused" companies like Merrill Goldman Citi and the rest to buy all these crappy mortgages.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Didn't you already cite this editorial?

I'll repeat as well, since you've not responded to this basic question raised by the assertion of the article you repeatedly have cited:

2. And most importantly, please explain how Frank, as a member of a then minority party of the House of Representative, was able to supposedly "stand as a bloc" against changes, presumably sought by the Republicans, who controlled majorities in the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House.

Even better, let's see the bill Bush sponsored that went for a vote in the HOR, so we can see how Frank and the minority Democratic party were able to block it.

So, let's have you be the second on this thread to answer the question: Would there be a mortgage meltdown today is there had been no GSE's, CRA, Clinton, Cuomo, Dodd and Frank?

If you have to agree that if folks had to put down a larger portion of home prices, and the government if did not take a paternal role in 'helping' people to own homes, then there would have been reason to have more stringent control of financial institutions, thus less chance of the trillions of dollars that have been lost...then welcome to the Conservative Party.

And in the 2006 elections, Democrats took a small majority of 51-49 in the senate and 233-202 in the House of Representatives which they held for the two years leading up to the 2008 election.

You think I should answer your question when you refuse to respond to mine?

I'll give the answer for you. Contrary to the assertions in conservative editorials, there is no way Frank could have "blocked" a bill in the HOR that was sponsored by Bush and the Republicans. The Republican majority could have passed any bill it wanted in the House.

And the *only* bill passed in the House in this time frame to regulate Fannie was a bipartisan bill in 2005 which Frank in fact supported.

Furthermore, the fact that Fannie/Freddie has been around for decades without causing meltdown is evidence they are not at fault for the current crisis. And if current policies in their operations had an effect, the principal blame can only be levided against the party that had complete control of the Govt, including the agency with specific responsibility to oversee Fannie/Freddie (OFHEO), from 2000-06.

For the record, I did respond to your question, post #58.

Yes, I just re-read your #58. But you are wrong, as the pols put pressure on the finacials to give, let's say, more risky loans, under fear of DOJ lawsuits. Same thing ACORN (a fully owned subsidiary of the Democrat party) did, and it was easier to give the loans.

The pols looked the other way when financials came up with new and more creative ways to make money, such as bundling mortgages, and so everyone seemed to benefit.

Until the prices of homes stopped appreciating.

It may have been Johnson who said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," and this should be the motto of the modern Democrat party.

 

[Iriemon]

So, let's have you be the second on this thread to answer the question: Would there be a mortgage meltdown today is there had been no GSE's, CRA, Clinton, Cuomo, Dodd and Frank?

If you have to agree that if folks had to put down a larger portion of home prices, and the government if did not take a paternal role in 'helping' people to own homes, then there would have been reason to have more stringent control of financial institutions, thus less chance of the trillions of dollars that have been lost...then welcome to the Conservative Party.

And in the 2006 elections, Democrats took a small majority of 51-49 in the senate and 233-202 in the House of Representatives which they held for the two years leading up to the 2008 election.

You think I should answer your question when you refuse to respond to mine?

I'll give the answer for you. Contrary to the assertions in conservative editorials, there is no way Frank could have "blocked" a bill in the HOR that was sponsored by Bush and the Republicans. The Republican majority could have passed any bill it wanted in the House.

And the *only* bill passed in the House in this time frame to regulate Fannie was a bipartisan bill in 2005 which Frank in fact supported.

Furthermore, the fact that Fannie/Freddie has been around for decades without causing meltdown is evidence they are not at fault for the current crisis. And if current policies in their operations had an effect, the principal blame can only be levided against the party that had complete control of the Govt, including the agency with specific responsibility to oversee Fannie/Freddie (OFHEO), from 2000-06.

For the record, I did respond to your question, post #58.

Yes, I just re-read your #58. But you are wrong, as the pols put pressure on the finacials to give, let's say, more risky loans, under fear of DOJ lawsuits. Same thing ACORN (a fully owned subsidiary of the Democrat party) did, and it was easier to give the loans.

The pols looked the other way when financials came up with new and more creative ways to make money, such as bundling mortgages, and so everyone seemed to benefit.

Until the prices of homes stopped appreciating.

It may have been Johnson who said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," and this should be the motto of the modern Democrat party.

The only think I'm aware of the CRA, which prohibits discrimination and "redlining" practices. This law has been on the books for 30 years without causing a meltdown. I have not seen any credible evidence that these kinds of loans caused the big investment banks to put hundreds of billions into securitized sub-prime mortgage packages, or otherwise were represent a significant factor in the crisis.

It wasn't the "pols" that looked the other way. It was the investment bankers who invested in this stuff, fooling themselves into believing they had reduced the risks and were holding relatively safe assets.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only think I'm aware of the CRA, which prohibits discrimination and "redlining" practices. This law has been on the books for 30 years without causing a meltdown. I have not seen any credible evidence that these kinds of loans caused the big investment banks to put hundreds of billions into securitized sub-prime mortgage packages, or otherwise were represent a significant factor in the crisis.

It wasn't the "pols" that looked the other way. It was the investment bankers who invested in this stuff, fooling themselves into believing they had reduced the risks and were holding relatively safe assets.

Think about other Democrat plans for utopia, like the War On Poverty. Reagan had a great line: "Poverty won." Think about the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is what did us in with the CRA, etc.

It is only through Conservative Principles- I didn't say Republican Politics- in public policy, and in the way we raise our children, can we avoid the kind of meltdown that we see today.

But I had a great time on this thread.

Be well.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pk--Ox49L0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pk--Ox49L0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

If you can't understand Barney Frank, here is the transcript of the interplay between Joel Pollack (Harvard Law student) and Frank:

This Joel Pollak is impressive. I had the opportunity to see his interview with Greta Van Susteran and he admits he used to be a left-wiing Democrat in his undergrad days, but had since changed sides. He says that a Conservative will answer questions, while a Liberal will never give you a straight answer. Pollak kept his composure with an audience that was hostile to his stance.

Read full interview below:

FOXNews.com - Exclusive: Frank Talk from Barney's Foe - Greta Van Susteren | On The Record With Greta

Ah, yes, the lad is indeed impressive. I see a bright future ahead for him as a GOP push pollster.

Next.

It has become clear, Empty-Barrel, that your RAISON D’ÊTRE is some sort of cry to be recognized. Your posts lack substance, and are usually merely a copy of another post or some document you were able to find.

On these boards there are many, of all political persuasions, who battle in an interesting and educated manner. Sadly, that is not the case with you.

Dull, insipid, boring, jejune, you continue to show what passes in kindergarten for cleverness, opting for a dismissive comment like "next," as though you have actually digested a post, and have another viewpoint.

Since I have made this point before with reference to you, I now leave it to you to prove my thesis by commenting on this.

My previous comment spoke to the efficacy of his posing a loaded question, which, of course, defines push polling.

My present comment is to apologize for employing the subtlety of allusion in a response to you.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Yes, I just re-read your #58. But you are wrong, as the pols put pressure on the finacials to give, let's say, more risky loans, under fear of DOJ lawsuits. Same thing ACORN (a fully owned subsidiary of the Democrat party) did, and it was easier to give the loans....

According to Jason Lewis, it's the other 'way 'round:

LEWIS: You guys don't get it. The Democrat Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN, of MoveOn.org, of MSNBC....

Media Matters - The Limbaugh Wire for 03/12/2009

 

[Iriemon]

The only think I'm aware of the CRA, which prohibits discrimination and "redlining" practices. This law has been on the books for 30 years without causing a meltdown. I have not seen any credible evidence that these kinds of loans caused the big investment banks to put hundreds of billions into securitized sub-prime mortgage packages, or otherwise were represent a significant factor in the crisis.

It wasn't the "pols" that looked the other way. It was the investment bankers who invested in this stuff, fooling themselves into believing they had reduced the risks and were holding relatively safe assets.

Think about other Democrat plans for utopia, like the War On Poverty. Reagan had a great line: "Poverty won."

Reagan was great at soundbites wasn't he? But the fact is poverty rates fell by about half after Johnson's "Great Society" legislation was passed.

Think about the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is what did us in with the CRA, etc.

It is only through Conservative Principles- I didn't say Republican Politics- in public policy, and in the way we raise our children, can we avoid the kind of meltdown that we see today.

I think there are lots of lessons to be learned to avoid or mitigate another meltdown.

But I'd make a little bet that 20 years from now we'll be seeing another one of some sort.

But I had a great time on this thread.

Be well.

Likewise!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, I just re-read your #58. But you are wrong, as the pols put pressure on the finacials to give, let's say, more risky loans, under fear of DOJ lawsuits. Same thing ACORN (a fully owned subsidiary of the Democrat party) did, and it was easier to give the loans....

According to Jason Lewis, it's the other 'way 'round:

LEWIS: You guys don't get it. The Democrat Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN, of MoveOn.org, of MSNBC....

Media Matters - The Limbaugh Wire for 03/12/2009

A good one!

A distinction without a difference, methinks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, yes, the lad is indeed impressive. I see a bright future ahead for him as a GOP push pollster.

Next.

It has become clear, Empty-Barrel, that your RAISON D&#8217;ÊTRE is some sort of cry to be recognized. Your posts lack substance, and are usually merely a copy of another post or some document you were able to find.

On these boards there are many, of all political persuasions, who battle in an interesting and educated manner. Sadly, that is not the case with you.

Dull, insipid, boring, jejune, you continue to show what passes in kindergarten for cleverness, opting for a dismissive comment like "next," as though you have actually digested a post, and have another viewpoint.

Since I have made this point before with reference to you, I now leave it to you to prove my thesis by commenting on this.

My previous comment spoke to the efficacy of his posing a loaded question, which, of course, defines push polling.

My present comment is to apologize for employing the subtlety of allusion in a response to you.

Now that one is on a little higher level.

See what happens when you put a bit of effort into it?

 

[Yurt]

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm going to assume that answering my "litmus test" question honestly would have puctured your argument, and required admission that it is a philosophical problem more than a financial one.

Answer: YES.
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Sun, Oct. 12, 2008

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: October 27, 2008 03:12:24 PM

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.


Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

McClatchy Newspapers 2008
[article NOT copywrited]

wait a cotton pickin minute, you bitch about bias from the WSJ, and then use McClatchy as a source?
are you fucking serious?

The difference is that the McClatchy article used Federal Reserve statistics. It wasn't an opinion piece, other than commentary on existing factual data.

That said, why do you think McClatchy is biased? It operates news outlets in many states, from Alaska to the deep south. The WSJ, while reporting solid information beyond its opinion page, is now skewed by Rupert Murdoch. And the American Spectator is run by undoubtedly one of the most rabid neocon iconoclasts, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.

 

[Xenophon]

Frank was very uneasy with a simple question, blaiming everyone but himself for what happened.

The fact that it was his job to oversite and he didn't do it seems not to matter.

When he asked the kid what he should have done, the boy should have answered him:

'Your job'

 

[MaggieMae]

And now we'll see the posts about how all this is left-wing drivel dah dah dah.

What I'd really find more persuasive that cut-n-paste skills is someone who can explain to me exactly how Fannie/Freddie "caused" companies like Merrill Goldman Citi and the rest to buy all these crappy mortgages.

The problem is that with a catastrophe of this magnitude, it's only natural for people to want something BIG to blame, which carries over to which political party made the most blunders. Frankly, I don't think the "politicians" even understood what was going on, when rumblings first began about the housing bubble threatening to burst. They ALL just ho-hummed through all the red flag warnings.

The right desperately wants to blame the left, because Republicans had oversight responsibility during the majority of time it was all going down and creeping to a disastrous crescendo. The left wants to blame the right and at the same time absolve themselves of all responsibility, which doesn't cut it either.

The reactions by the left and right are exactly as they were when the blame game started over the 911 attacks, when the truth is probably quite simply that nobody was watching the pot while it slowly simmered and finally burned a whole in the bottom and set the whole house on fire.

 

[midcan5]

The echo chamber born, breed, and brain washed boy needs to come out of the make believe world where it is always the others fault. How that moron got into Harvard is beyond me; he obviously cannot think.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, I just re-read your #58. But you are wrong, as the pols put pressure on the finacials to give, let's say, more risky loans, under fear of DOJ lawsuits. Same thing ACORN (a fully owned subsidiary of the Democrat party) did, and it was easier to give the loans....

According to Jason Lewis, it's the other 'way 'round:

LEWIS: You guys don't get it. The Democrat Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN, of MoveOn.org, of MSNBC....

Media Matters - The Limbaugh Wire for 03/12/2009

It's become SOP on blogs and message boards that buzz words that will send conservatives into orbit are Fannie and Freddie and ACORN. Doesn't matter what the topic is, just insert one of those and all the pretend political geniuses who live and die with Fox and LimbaughCo will come rushing in with an opinion.

 

[MaggieMae]

__________________
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

~ US Constitution

Ah that damned ambiguous Constitution. "...from time to time..." I guess that's the part BushCo's budget preparers relied on when they decided to use "supplementals" to the annual budget in order to fund the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

Yes, I just re-read your #58. But you are wrong, as the pols put pressure on the finacials to give, let's say, more risky loans, under fear of DOJ lawsuits. Same thing ACORN (a fully owned subsidiary of the Democrat party) did, and it was easier to give the loans....

According to Jason Lewis, it's the other 'way 'round:

LEWIS: You guys don't get it. The Democrat Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN, of MoveOn.org, of MSNBC....

Media Matters - The Limbaugh Wire for 03/12/2009

It's become SOP on blogs and message boards that buzz words that will send conservatives into orbit are Fannie and Freddie and ACORN. Doesn't matter what the topic is, just insert one of those and all the pretend political geniuses who live and die with Fox and LimbaughCo will come rushing in with an opinion.

Yep -- which is why, only by chance, of course, I just happened to have that link handy.

 

[Yurt]

__________________
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

~ US Constitution

Ah that damned ambiguous Constitution. "...from time to time..." I guess that's the part BushCo's budget preparers relied on when they decided to use "supplementals" to the annual budget in order to fund the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

are you obsessed with bush?

 

[MaggieMae]

According to Jason Lewis, it's the other 'way 'round:

LEWIS: You guys don't get it. The Democrat Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN, of MoveOn.org, of MSNBC....

Media Matters - The Limbaugh Wire for 03/12/2009

It's become SOP on blogs and message boards that buzz words that will send conservatives into orbit are Fannie and Freddie and ACORN. Doesn't matter what the topic is, just insert one of those and all the pretend political geniuses who live and die with Fox and LimbaughCo will come rushing in with an opinion.

Yep -- which is why, only by chance, of course, I just happened to have that link handy.

I just remembered that when I was posting on AOL boards, I finally figured it out that if I wanted people to READ a new thread I was about to post and comment on it, I needed to give it a catchy title which included the word(s) du jour whether they were applicable or not.