Moody's Predicts Democrat Landslide

[ScienceRocks]

Weird, Dems huh?



Jun 16th 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.


http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."



The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans?




Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


YEP, DUBYA'S REGULATOR FAILURE, AS HE CHEERED ON THE BANKSTERS WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE HIT US HARD BUBBA

I don't think bush is stupid. I think they did it on purpose. Who benefitted from the housing crash? The rich. They bought so many houses for nothing.

The banks benefited the most and the people the least. They ended up getting "bailed out" and stopped giving out loans. The so called stimulus package did the exact opposite, the banks had no incentive to give out loans to make money. Instead they took the free govt money and invested it elsewhere. Overall Obama took a fire and poured gasoline on it,min essence destroying the economy. Thats one reason why the recovery never happened. Obaama is actually really at it doing this. Fanning the fires of racial and economic division is how he's taught the Dems to gain more voters.

Wow. So its the dems who are the party for the rich?

At least you're starting to understand the rich have too much power.

What policies should be implemented to make things right?

As we can see with Obamas policies and ideology the same people he claims to help are now suffering the most under him. It's just like Marxism, good on paper. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I asked you what policies you would have implemented.

Please don't say lower corporate taxes when they are sitting on mountains of cash.

Corporate taxes have so many loop holes most of these corporations pay 10-12% at the end of the day. This is if they choose not to outsource or offshore their money.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes, when the Democrats forced the banks to give loans to everybody and his uncle, the shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later.

They were all working. Who know the corporate/GOP evil plot to send all those jobs overseas just so they could break unions, renig on pensions, give the rich and corporations tax breaks,pay Chinese wages hire illegals workers, cut ss and Medicare. All while waging two wars.

It's called disaster capitalism.

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

YOUR TALKING POINT HAS BEEN DESTROYED BUBBA, IT WAS A WORD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, DOZENS OF NATIONS. One Dubya cheered on in the US as he fough tthe regulators dummy!

Deregulation is a very bad idea but they keep running on it and doing it...This leads to pain. The billionaires and royalty are some of the most heartless and fucked up people on this planet.

 

[Dad2three]

They were all working. Who know the corporate/GOP evil plot to send all those jobs overseas just so they could break unions, renig on pensions, give the rich and corporations tax breaks,pay Chinese wages hire illegals workers, cut ss and Medicare. All while waging two wars.

It's called disaster capitalism.

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again



June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

BARNEY FRANK MINORITY MEMBER OF THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE 1995-2007, WHERE SIMPLE MAJORITY RULED? PLEASE tell me he had some super duper powers?

 

[sealybobo]

They were all working. Who know the corporate/GOP evil plot to send all those jobs overseas just so they could break unions, renig on pensions, give the rich and corporations tax breaks,pay Chinese wages hire illegals workers, cut ss and Medicare. All while waging two wars.

It's called disaster capitalism.

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

YOUR TALKING POINT HAS BEEN DESTROYED BUBBA, IT WAS A WORD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST, DOZENS OF NATIONS. One Dubya cheered on in the US as he fough tthe regulators dummy!

Deregulation is a very bad idea but they keep running on it and doing it...This leads to pain. The billionaires and royalty are some of the most heartless and fucked up people on this planet.

What about the dumb middle class that vote for them.

Congress should be 80 democratic and the rich should only be 20% but fools either vote with them or not at all.

 

[sealybobo]

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again



June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

BARNEY FRANK MINORITY MEMBER OF THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE 1995-2007, WHERE SIMPLE MAJORITY RULED? PLEASE tell he had some super duper powers?

Good point. It wasnt Freddy and fanny it was countrywide and quicken loans

 

[sealybobo]

Didn't America almost go bankrupt? And the GOP are asking the poor and middle class to pick up the tab? Sounds like Greece, France, Arab uprising. Isn't Puerto Rico bankrupt?

Last question. What is our national debt? Go look at that and then make fun of Greece. Not only do the bankers (corporations) own you so does china. You only have a savings account as long as the bankers say you do and your home is only worth what they say it's worth.

Yes, when the Democrats forced the banks to give loans to everybody and his uncle, the shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later.

They were all working. Who know the corporate/GOP evil plot to send all those jobs overseas just so they could break unions, renig on pensions, give the rich and corporations tax breaks,pay Chinese wages hire illegals workers, cut ss and Medicare. All while waging two wars.

It's called disaster capitalism.

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

I'll give you credit you're taking on all three or more of us by yourself. I give you credit. And you make good points. I hope and think you Republicans are starting to come along. You know the GOP suck. It's why none of the GOP politicians are beating fiorino, carson or trump. Even you guys don't like the GOP.

Now that doesn't mean you wouldn't get on your knees and go balls deep on jeb Cruz Walker or Christie. We know you would.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes, when the Democrats forced the banks to give loans to everybody and his uncle, the shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later.

They were all working. Who know the corporate/GOP evil plot to send all those jobs overseas just so they could break unions, renig on pensions, give the rich and corporations tax breaks,pay Chinese wages hire illegals workers, cut ss and Medicare. All while waging two wars.

It's called disaster capitalism.

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

I'll give you credit you're taking on all three or more of us by yourself. I give you credit. And you make good points. I hope and think you Republicans are starting to come along. You know the GOP suck. It's why none of the GOP politicians are beating fiorino, carson or trump. Even you guys don't like the GOP.

Now that doesn't mean you wouldn't get on your knees and go balls deep on jeb Cruz Walker or Christie. We know you would.

Unlike him I don't want cut, slash and burn! Deregulations is stupid...

So what exactly is best for our country??? I say funding infrastructure, science, r&d and education is.

 

[Dad2three]

They were all working. Who know the corporate/GOP evil plot to send all those jobs overseas just so they could break unions, renig on pensions, give the rich and corporations tax breaks,pay Chinese wages hire illegals workers, cut ss and Medicare. All while waging two wars.

It's called disaster capitalism.

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Fannie And Freddie "Followed Rather Than Led Wall Street And Other Lenders In The Rush For Fool's Gold."

McClatchy: During Bubble Years, "Private Investment Banks -- Not Fannie And Freddie -- Dominated The Mortgage Loans That Were Packaged And Sold."

McClatchy: "Federal Housing Data Reveal That Charges" Against Fannie And Freddie "Aren't True."


Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused The Crisis Is "The Big Lie" Of Financial Crisis.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

[...]

Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

 

[sealybobo]

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Fannie And Freddie "Followed Rather Than Led Wall Street And Other Lenders In The Rush For Fool's Gold."

McClatchy: During Bubble Years, "Private Investment Banks -- Not Fannie And Freddie -- Dominated The Mortgage Loans That Were Packaged And Sold."

McClatchy: "Federal Housing Data Reveal That Charges" Against Fannie And Freddie "Aren't True."


Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused The Crisis Is "The Big Lie" Of Financial Crisis.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

[...]

Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

I forgot about the bundling up all the bad loans and selling them. Makes me so mad when they blame Obama for paying the ransom when the banks held America up on bushs watch. Republicans wanted Obama to do what? Take on the banks? The bankers that own both parties and all of us? Do they think trump will take on these bankers? Maybe he will.

Bernie Sanders will. Elizabeth Warren would. Ron Paul would.

 

[Dad2three]

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Fannie And Freddie "Followed Rather Than Led Wall Street And Other Lenders In The Rush For Fool's Gold."

McClatchy: During Bubble Years, "Private Investment Banks -- Not Fannie And Freddie -- Dominated The Mortgage Loans That Were Packaged And Sold."

McClatchy: "Federal Housing Data Reveal That Charges" Against Fannie And Freddie "Aren't True."


Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused The Crisis Is "The Big Lie" Of Financial Crisis.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

[...]

Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

I forgot about the bundling up all the bad loans and selling them. Makes me so mad when they blame Obama for paying the ransom when the banks held America up on bushs watch. Republicans wanted Obama to do what? Take on the banks? The bankers that own both parties and all of us? Do they think trump will take on these bankers? Maybe he will.

Bernie Sanders will. Elizabeth Warren would. Ron Paul would.

GOP "believes" the banks should have been left to drown, unfortunately the US would've ALSO drowned. Their "beliefs" in the "free market" is just nonsense, what happens is you get guys like Harding/Coolidge who ramped up the great depression, then Ronnie with his regulator failure with the S&L, finally Dubya';s subprime bubble he cheered on. The "invisible hand' needs to be slapped once in a while!

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

une 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Fannie And Freddie "Followed Rather Than Led Wall Street And Other Lenders In The Rush For Fool's Gold."

McClatchy: During Bubble Years, "Private Investment Banks -- Not Fannie And Freddie -- Dominated The Mortgage Loans That Were Packaged And Sold."

McClatchy: "Federal Housing Data Reveal That Charges" Against Fannie And Freddie "Aren't True."


Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused The Crisis Is "The Big Lie" Of Financial Crisis.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

[...]

Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

I forgot about the bundling up all the bad loans and selling them. Makes me so mad when they blame Obama for paying the ransom when the banks held America up on bushs watch. Republicans wanted Obama to do what? Take on the banks? The bankers that own both parties and all of us? Do they think trump will take on these bankers? Maybe he will.

Bernie Sanders will. Elizabeth Warren would. Ron Paul would.

GOP "believes" the banks should have been left to drown, unfortunately the US would've ALSO drowned. Their "beliefs" in the "free market" is just nonsense, what happens is you get guys like Harding/Coolidge who ramped up the great depression, then Ronnie with his regulator failure with the S&L, finally Dubya';s subprime bubble he cheered on. The "invisible hand' needs to be slapped once in a while!

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

une 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

You just made me realize when Obama got into office the GOP acted a lot like the Greeks are acting. We had to raise the debt ceiling just like the Greeks have to pay back the debt they owe. But both were stubborn.

So now in both countries the bill is due. Republicans want us to pay most of the bill. Or Republicans don't want to tip.

That's the problem nowadays. Back in the old days the politicians and rich knew we went dutch but they picked up the tip. That's how things work. And occasionally we are short and the rich have to pick up the entire bill. That's the way it worked.

But starting with Reagan the rich got greedy and waged class warfare on us.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

 

[sealybobo]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

Now after 30 years of tax breaks to the rich our infrastructure is crumbling because of their trucks and they want us to pay for the roads.

Don't forget lowering their taxes as the debt keeps skyrocketing means they've shifted the bill more onto us.

PS. I just heard a bunch of job losses coming are military jobs. Isn't that a good thing? We don't need more defense jobs. This is where we can pay down the debt. We're bankrupting ourselves. Meanwhile you let haloburton put all their money overseas. They aren't even an American company anymore.

 

[Two Thumbs]

That got laughed at last time you posted it.

fdr truned a depression into the only Great Depression
obama extended the 2008 recession to today

obama copied fdr

move along child, the adults are talking

Biggest Lie Ever!

I backed my claim up with history, you got nothing.

fdr and obama upped spending
fdr and obama upped taxes
fdr and obama created a program that added to the debt
fdr and obama slowed recovery with their idiotic ideas


you stand corrected by facts

FDR and Obama fixed the worst Republican economic disasters of their era

by making it worse and last longer than it should have.

history tells us, clearly, that cutting taxes and spending brings depressions-recessions to much quicker ends.

obama has a college degree and hire people with degrees, so they should have known history

Republican alternative realities do not substitute for facts

Cutting taxes and escalating spending results in massive debt......little else

correct, that's an equal plan that leads to equal disaster.

look what the hated Harding did (hated by the people that rank the most evil man to sit the WH, fdr, as their besty); He cut taxes and spending, it resulted in the Roaring 20's.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

 

[Dad2three]

Biggest Lie Ever!

I backed my claim up with history, you got nothing.

fdr and obama upped spending
fdr and obama upped taxes
fdr and obama created a program that added to the debt
fdr and obama slowed recovery with their idiotic ideas


you stand corrected by facts

FDR and Obama fixed the worst Republican economic disasters of their era

by making it worse and last longer than it should have.

history tells us, clearly, that cutting taxes and spending brings depressions-recessions to much quicker ends.

obama has a college degree and hire people with degrees, so they should have known history

Republican alternative realities do not substitute for facts

Cutting taxes and escalating spending results in massive debt......little else

correct, that's an equal plan that leads to equal disaster.

look what the hated Harding did (hated by the people that rank the most evil man to sit the WH, fdr, as their besty); He cut taxes and spending, it resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Roaring 20's UNTIL it popped, like Ronnie's S&L crisis and Dubya;'s subprime boom remember?

Spending was cut BECAUSE the war ended, lol

 

[Dad2three]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

The half of the nation averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY? lol

 

[Synthaholic]

Nothing pumps my nads like the thought of at least 8 more years of riots and degenerates roaming the streets.

Don't you live in a gated trailer park? What do you have to worry about?

 

[Roudy]

No actually it's called disaster socialism where Democrats force the banks to give out loans to people who weren't qualified to get loans. And then greedy Wall Street financial firms and advisors create exotic investment plans with these bad loans. The economy wasn't doing bad, the roof of banks came crashing down in them, and ended up taking everybody down with them.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Fannie And Freddie "Followed Rather Than Led Wall Street And Other Lenders In The Rush For Fool's Gold."

McClatchy: During Bubble Years, "Private Investment Banks -- Not Fannie And Freddie -- Dominated The Mortgage Loans That Were Packaged And Sold."

McClatchy: "Federal Housing Data Reveal That Charges" Against Fannie And Freddie "Aren't True."


Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused The Crisis Is "The Big Lie" Of Financial Crisis.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

[...]

Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

Whatever! It wasn't Bush.

 

[Roudy]

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Fannie And Freddie "Followed Rather Than Led Wall Street And Other Lenders In The Rush For Fool's Gold."

McClatchy: During Bubble Years, "Private Investment Banks -- Not Fannie And Freddie -- Dominated The Mortgage Loans That Were Packaged And Sold."

McClatchy: "Federal Housing Data Reveal That Charges" Against Fannie And Freddie "Aren't True."


Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused The Crisis Is "The Big Lie" Of Financial Crisis.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

[...]

Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

I forgot about the bundling up all the bad loans and selling them. Makes me so mad when they blame Obama for paying the ransom when the banks held America up on bushs watch. Republicans wanted Obama to do what? Take on the banks? The bankers that own both parties and all of us? Do they think trump will take on these bankers? Maybe he will.

Bernie Sanders will. Elizabeth Warren would. Ron Paul would.

GOP "believes" the banks should have been left to drown, unfortunately the US would've ALSO drowned. Their "beliefs" in the "free market" is just nonsense, what happens is you get guys like Harding/Coolidge who ramped up the great depression, then Ronnie with his regulator failure with the S&L, finally Dubya';s subprime bubble he cheered on. The "invisible hand' needs to be slapped once in a while!

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

une 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004

You just made me realize when Obama got into office the GOP acted a lot like the Greeks are acting. We had to raise the debt ceiling just like the Greeks have to pay back the debt they owe. But both were stubborn.

So now in both countries the bill is due. Republicans want us to pay most of the bill. Or Republicans don't want to tip.

That's the problem nowadays. Back in the old days the politicians and rich knew we went dutch but they picked up the tip. That's how things work. And occasionally we are short and the rich have to pick up the entire bill. That's the way it worked.

But starting with Reagan the rich got greedy and waged class warfare on us.

Well then, maybe Obama is part Greek, because govt. spending, national debt, and people dependent on govt. services grew to record highs under Obama.

Should we be looking for his real birth certificate in Athens? Ha ha ha.