Obama tries to screw up banking next

[MaggieMae]

Most of the bad paper was written in Bushes watch ya skank

This shows what anbsolute tard you are. Of course they were... not the point. Go back and do some googleing (that means use Google to do a search) on Frank, Todd, Clinton, etc. and REDLINING.

Bush warned them, as the "watchdogs" of the insustry, repeatedly that a mess was coming.

Now go away cockhuggie.

Why don't you do googleing[sic] and find the links where Bush sent up all these flares. If he was worried at all, Bush wouldn't have expanded on the CRA to include subsidies to cover the down payment for minority borrowers, which he did in January 2004. And yes, I DO have a link for that. But something tells me you're not an avid reader.

 

[CMike]

Fannie & Freddie were always an arm of government lending anyway. They collected and put the money back in the same organization, operating the same way as FHA. The Federal Reserve is a whole different institution.

Government planned, controlled and isntructed risky lending... And who is paying for that landing now? Did Obama cut their bonuses?

Federal Reserve is a private banking institution. How different are they from the others?

The banks take federal guarantees yet they think that the federal legislators cannot regulate them?

They are already federally regulated.

The issue is that new taxes on them will be passed down to the consumer.

So what Obama is doing is screwing the american public.

 

[beowolfe]

The best thing he can do for this country is take a permanent vacation.

It's almost impossible to get credit now, guess Obama is going to keep it that way.

What a schmuck.

Stocks slide as Obama calls for tougher bank rules - Road Runner

Stocks slide as Obama calls for tougher bank rules
Published - Jan 21 2010 04:54PM EST

By STEPHEN BERNARD and TIM PARADIS - AP Business Writers



NEW YORK— The stock market stumbled Thursday as President Barack Obama proposed an overhaul of the nation's banking system that could limit financial companies' ability to make huge profits on trading.

You must've just gotten tot he US in the past 60 days or so. Anyone who has been here longer than a year knows the banks were screwed before Obama was elected. Now you don't have to like Obama or want him as POTUS, but at least tell the truth about what is going on with the banks.

 

[Maple]

You don't limit profits in a free market economy.

When has Obama ever acknowledged that we have a free market economy??

This is typical of Democrats. Banks are making good money at a time when many workers are out of work. The Democrats' solution is to tax the banks so their workers will be out of work too.
Some people have "cadillac" health care plans. The Democrats' solution is to tax them to make sure no one has such a health plan.
Republicans admire success. Democrats envy it.

So who did the banks come crying to when they went broke? You don't see the anomaly in your statement "banks are making good money at a time when many workers are out of work"???? That simply begs the question: Where are the banks getting their money from, then? It sure as hell isn't trickling up anymore, and certainly not from 401K's anymore. They've already cleaned those out. Why are they refusing to loosen up credit so others can be just as "successful" and in turn THEY (the banks) would be more successful???

You people are so misguided on this it's pathetic.

You miss the point entirely it was the Fair Housing Act, then the Community Reinvestment Act during Clinton's years where the government put the gun to the heads of banks FORCING them to make HIGH-RISK loans or be red-lined for growth and opportunities in other neighborhoods. The GOVERNMENT started the whole melt down of the financial industry.

They are not going to loosen up credit as long as they have an economic fool in the White House, they are scared to death to do so. Each day comes a new directive from the White House. Business and banks do not like uncertainty and with this economic moron in there, there will be no assurances of what he is going to do next. They are as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof. That's why the sell-off in the markets. The more he talks about this, the more the markets will crash.

BTW- The only reason he is doing this now, is to re-direct the focus from his failed health care initiative and the catastrophic loss of Massachusetts. If you are fool enough to fall for this non-sense-, go a-head, he is not fooling the majority though, we are on to him.

A tax on the banks is a tax on the rest of us.

 

[RodISHI]

People have been saying for a long time that Obama is trying to kill the country and I have just dismissed it as unreasonable hard core conservatives but I am starting to come around to this view point... There can really only be 2 conclusions from this...

1. He is intentionally trying to lead us into a depression

2. He is just a dumbass with no business sense.


Either one is dangerous for this country...

The only good thing to come of it is the huge Conservative movement you are seeing today...

I will go for number 2 - he is a dumbass. No business sense what-so-ever.

Most businessmen/women know and understand that they must provide insurances and performance bonds to be in business. That is a part of being in business. I understand that the big boys of banking and WAll Street think they are exempts from these types of rules and regulatory legislation but they are accountable also for any failures that they may have. Any contract I ever had with the government required a 15% to 20% retainage or bond.

Banks are not exempt from legislation, regulations and percentages retained or bonded to insure that they perform nor should they be.

 

[RodISHI]

Government planned, controlled and isntructed risky lending... And who is paying for that landing now? Did Obama cut their bonuses?

Federal Reserve is a private banking institution. How different are they from the others?

The banks take federal guarantees yet they think that the federal legislators cannot regulate them?

They are already federally regulated.

The issue is that new taxes on them will be passed down to the consumer.

So what Obama is doing is screwing the american public.

Banks are also subject to what the market will bear. Maybe they better look at getting a better business model. Pay cuts for those execs is what I would be looking at first if it were my business or I'd be selling my shares and be looking for a new gig.

 

[MaggieMae]

What you don't see to understand is that small businesses are NOT clamoring for loans right now. Given high gas prices..the looming threats of government healthcare, cap and tax, and multiple other taxes businesses are NOT pursuing growth or taking on new employees.

What an imagination. Gas prices? Surely you jest. Why then were they all still in business in the summer of 07 when gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon?

Good grief Maggie. Every time I start to think that maybe you're NOT an idiot, you prove me wrong. If you can't see the correlation between high energy prices and slowdowns in economic activity then you are simply beyond teaching. Right now, small businesses are tending to hunker down and hold what they've got while the economic climate is so unstable. If you'll go back and check, you'll find that businesses were, by and large, not taking on new employees or new debt when gas prices were $4.00 per gallon.

Perhaps you should have removed the words "right now." Businesses were not falling faster than houses on a Monopoly Board in 2007, and they were not laying off people at the rate that began the following summer of 2008. Of course small businesses are worried NOW but primarily because they cannot get credit to keep those businesses going. How health care will unfold is secondary to that prime concern, whether you recognize that or not.

You guys also keep tossing other issues into the mix totally unrelated to the bank crisis, like cap and trade. That has been run aground, thanks mostly to the right wing media which in their usual fashion dismissed the independent reporting that utility rates would indeed NOT rise to unrealistic amounts. But in any event, cap and trade is dead from all I read, so there's just no sense in losing anymore sleep over at least that gripe. And I presume that most small businessmen are also aware of the current status of cap and trade and don't consider it a factor in projections for the immediate future.

 

[MaggieMae]

This was part of McCain's letter in 2006

McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail."

So? I guess that means McCain was also unaware that Fannie & Freddie should have been the least of their worries. By 2004, F&F weren't the ones making most of the subprime mortgages anyway; they were already trying to chase down their own existing bad loans and didn't need an act of Congress to tell them to do what they were already doing.

 

[MaggieMae]

Here is a link where they have the actual text of McCain's letter in 2006 warning about what will happen with Fannie and Freddie.

McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie. What did Obama do? :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

Here's what John McCain said on 25 May 2005, speaking to the Senate:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Well good for McCain. His effort was at least noble. But let's see, who was president in 2005? And who, only one year earlier had proudly contributed to the subprime mess by announcing a new government program which added subsidies for low-interest, no down payment loans for minorities? And therefore who would have put the kibosh on any such reform?

 

[MaggieMae]

The best thing he can do for this country is take a permanent vacation.

It's almost impossible to get credit now, guess Obama is going to keep it that way.

What a schmuck.

Stocks slide as Obama calls for tougher bank rules - Road Runner

Stocks slide as Obama calls for tougher bank rules
Published - Jan 21 2010 04:54PM EST

By STEPHEN BERNARD and TIM PARADIS - AP Business Writers



NEW YORK— The stock market stumbled Thursday as President Barack Obama proposed an overhaul of the nation's banking system that could limit financial companies' ability to make huge profits on trading.

And it stumbled again today the Dow down 230 points. He lacks economic sense, he is a clueless fool.


Words of wisdom. Author unknown.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Surely there must be a thread somewhere called I HATE OBAMA where you can contribute your regurgitated drivel. Yes indeed, the Republic will survive Obama. After all, we survived George W. Bush, didn't we?

 

[MaggieMae]

Here is a link where they have the actual text of McCain's letter in 2006 warning about what will happen with Fannie and Freddie.

McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie. What did Obama do? :: Political News and commentaries :: Hyscience

Here's what John McCain said on 25 May 2005, speaking to the Senate:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Bush warned several times too. Barney Frank and his co-horts didn't listen.

Sure.

 

[Annie]

It would be a good thing if Obama and the defenders of him on USMB, would just get over Bush.

He's out of office over a year. Try to impeach him now or try him via ICC or what have you, but stop using him as an excuse for what is happening today.

Unemployment is up in 47 states. New home sales are down. Resale homes are down. Business is down. Money is more than tight, it's non-existent for the most part.

States and counties are raising taxes; income, property, and sales. People do not have the money to pay.

Foreclosures are speeding on once again.

Those with jobs are not spending, rather buying gold, as their confidence in the US government has been seriously undermined, along with China.

So often I hear posters from the left saying, 'give him a break, don't wish him to fail.' I concur, problem is, when are you all going to admit he is failing and needs to tack a different direction?

 

[MaggieMae]

When has Obama ever acknowledged that we have a free market economy??

This is typical of Democrats. Banks are making good money at a time when many workers are out of work. The Democrats' solution is to tax the banks so their workers will be out of work too.
Some people have "cadillac" health care plans. The Democrats' solution is to tax them to make sure no one has such a health plan.
Republicans admire success. Democrats envy it.

So who did the banks come crying to when they went broke? You don't see the anomaly in your statement "banks are making good money at a time when many workers are out of work"???? That simply begs the question: Where are the banks getting their money from, then? It sure as hell isn't trickling up anymore, and certainly not from 401K's anymore. They've already cleaned those out. Why are they refusing to loosen up credit so others can be just as "successful" and in turn THEY (the banks) would be more successful???

You people are so misguided on this it's pathetic.

You miss the point entirely it was the Fair Housing Act, then the Community Reinvestment Act during Clinton's years where the government put the gun to the heads of banks FORCING them to make HIGH-RISK loans or be red-lined for growth and opportunities in other neighborhoods. The GOVERNMENT started the whole melt down of the financial industry.

They are not going to loosen up credit as long as they have an economic fool in the White House, they are scared to death to do so. Each day comes a new directive from the White House. Business and banks do not like uncertainty and with this economic moron in there, there will be no assurances of what he is going to do next. They are as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof. That's why the sell-off in the markets. The more he talks about this, the more the markets will crash.

BTW- The only reason he is doing this now, is to re-direct the focus from his failed health care initiative and the catastrophic loss of Massachusetts. If you are fool enough to fall for this non-sense-, go a-head, he is not fooling the majority though, we are on to him.

A tax on the banks is a tax on the rest of us.

Once again, the CRA did not FORCE banks to do a goddamned thing. Stop making up shit. And you're not "on to" squat. You just like to think you are. My advice is to read some unbiased history of the bank failures. If you don't trust Wikipedia, then go to any number of other online encyclopedias where most have already spelled out the historic details, going way back to the CRA which you completely mischaracterize.

 

[MaggieMae]

It would be a good thing if Obama and the defenders of him on USMB, would just get over Bush.
It's a little difficult to do when the attackers seem to believe that all of this mess has occurred in just a year under Obama's watch. Trying to set the record straight requires mention of Bush's contributions to said mess. Yet I guess you have no problem with criticism of Clinton, and skipping the Bush years completely?

He's out of office over a year. Try to impeach him now or try him via ICC or what have you, but stop using him as an excuse for what is happening today.

Unemployment is up in 47 states. New home sales are down. Resale homes are down. Business is down. Money is more than tight, it's non-existent for the most part.

States and counties are raising taxes; income, property, and sales. People do not have the money to pay.

Foreclosures are speeding on once again.

Those with jobs are not spending, rather buying gold, as their confidence in the US government has been seriously undermined, along with China.

So often I hear posters from the left saying, 'give him a break, don't wish him to fail.' I concur, problem is, when are you all going to admit he is failing and needs to tack a different direction?

I think Obama IS moving in a different direction. But there isn't an economist alive who hasn't echoed his repeated statement that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression and it will NOT be over in a year, and probably not even in ten years.

 

[Annie]

It would be a good thing if Obama and the defenders of him on USMB, would just get over Bush.
It's a little difficult to do when the attackers seem to believe that all of this mess has occurred in just a year under Obama's watch. Trying to set the record straight requires mention of Bush's contributions to said mess. Yet I guess you have no problem with criticism of Clinton, and skipping the Bush years completely?

He's out of office over a year. Try to impeach him now or try him via ICC or what have you, but stop using him as an excuse for what is happening today.

Unemployment is up in 47 states. New home sales are down. Resale homes are down. Business is down. Money is more than tight, it's non-existent for the most part.

States and counties are raising taxes; income, property, and sales. People do not have the money to pay.

Foreclosures are speeding on once again.

Those with jobs are not spending, rather buying gold, as their confidence in the US government has been seriously undermined, along with China.

So often I hear posters from the left saying, 'give him a break, don't wish him to fail.' I concur, problem is, when are you all going to admit he is failing and needs to tack a different direction?

I think Obama IS moving in a different direction. But there isn't an economist alive who hasn't echoed his repeated statement that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression and it will NOT be over in a year, and probably not even in ten years.

About your red...Where did I blame Clinton for anything other than treating terrorism as civil matter? I still think that was a mistake, same one that Obama is now making and Bush did too, until 9/11.

 

[MaggieMae]

It would be a good thing if Obama and the defenders of him on USMB, would just get over Bush.
It's a little difficult to do when the attackers seem to believe that all of this mess has occurred in just a year under Obama's watch. Trying to set the record straight requires mention of Bush's contributions to said mess. Yet I guess you have no problem with criticism of Clinton, and skipping the Bush years completely?

He's out of office over a year. Try to impeach him now or try him via ICC or what have you, but stop using him as an excuse for what is happening today.

Unemployment is up in 47 states. New home sales are down. Resale homes are down. Business is down. Money is more than tight, it's non-existent for the most part.

States and counties are raising taxes; income, property, and sales. People do not have the money to pay.

Foreclosures are speeding on once again.

Those with jobs are not spending, rather buying gold, as their confidence in the US government has been seriously undermined, along with China.

So often I hear posters from the left saying, 'give him a break, don't wish him to fail.' I concur, problem is, when are you all going to admit he is failing and needs to tack a different direction?

I think Obama IS moving in a different direction. But there isn't an economist alive who hasn't echoed his repeated statement that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression and it will NOT be over in a year, and probably not even in ten years.

About your red...Where did I blame Clinton for anything other than treating terrorism as civil matter? I still think that was a mistake, same one that Obama is now making and Bush did too, until 9/11.

Didn't say YOU blamed Clinton (actually the CRA under Clinton). I suggested you seem to have a problem bringing up the Bush administration but don't seem to have a problem [when someone] brings up the Clinton administration. That was my intent.

 

[Vel]

What an imagination. Gas prices? Surely you jest. Why then were they all still in business in the summer of 07 when gas prices hit $4.00 a gallon?

Good grief Maggie. Every time I start to think that maybe you're NOT an idiot, you prove me wrong. If you can't see the correlation between high energy prices and slowdowns in economic activity then you are simply beyond teaching. Right now, small businesses are tending to hunker down and hold what they've got while the economic climate is so unstable. If you'll go back and check, you'll find that businesses were, by and large, not taking on new employees or new debt when gas prices were $4.00 per gallon.

Perhaps you should have removed the words "right now." Businesses were not falling faster than houses on a Monopoly Board in 2007, and they were not laying off people at the rate that began the following summer of 2008. Of course small businesses are worried NOW but primarily because they cannot get credit to keep those businesses going. How health care will unfold is secondary to that prime concern, whether you recognize that or not.

You guys also keep tossing other issues into the mix totally unrelated to the bank crisis, like cap and trade. That has been run aground, thanks mostly to the right wing media which in their usual fashion dismissed the independent reporting that utility rates would indeed NOT rise to unrealistic amounts. But in any event, cap and trade is dead from all I read, so there's just no sense in losing anymore sleep over at least that gripe. And I presume that most small businessmen are also aware of the current status of cap and trade and don't consider it a factor in projections for the immediate future.

I said..businesses are not clamoring for loans right now and that's exactly what I meant to say. And gas prices are certainly part of the economic uncertainty. Do you have any idea how much money an extra dollar per gallon pulls out of the general economy? Were it not for people getting their tax returns, retail sales would be completely in the toilet.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It would be a good thing if Obama and the defenders of him on USMB, would just get over Bush.
It's a little difficult to do when the attackers seem to believe that all of this mess has occurred in just a year under Obama's watch. Trying to set the record straight requires mention of Bush's contributions to said mess. Yet I guess you have no problem with criticism of Clinton, and skipping the Bush years completely?

He's out of office over a year. Try to impeach him now or try him via ICC or what have you, but stop using him as an excuse for what is happening today.

Unemployment is up in 47 states. New home sales are down. Resale homes are down. Business is down. Money is more than tight, it's non-existent for the most part.

States and counties are raising taxes; income, property, and sales. People do not have the money to pay.

Foreclosures are speeding on once again.

Those with jobs are not spending, rather buying gold, as their confidence in the US government has been seriously undermined, along with China.

So often I hear posters from the left saying, 'give him a break, don't wish him to fail.' I concur, problem is, when are you all going to admit he is failing and needs to tack a different direction?

I think Obama IS moving in a different direction. But there isn't an economist alive who hasn't echoed his repeated statement that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression and it will NOT be over in a year, and probably not even in ten years.

Obama is not heading in any direction at all because he is a politician, but not a political leader. His role in the recent scramble by the Dems to pass health care/insurance legislation was that of an ineffective cheerleader, not of a leader. While his original package of banking regulations can be attributed to ignorance and ideological bias, the new rules announced in his current outburst against the banking industry and most of his other rhetorical assaults against against the financial industry were intended to do nothing but deflect some of the public's anger over his failure to propose a coherent economic policy that might promote economic growth and reduce our deficits from himself on to a scapegoat.

America's problem is not that Obama is an evil socialist who will lead us to ruin, but that while he still has some effective campaigning skills, he seems incapable of providing any leadership at all even within his own WH, and this leaves the nation rudderless, without any clear purpose or direction. The problem is not what Obama might do, but that he appears incapable of doing anything other than spewing high sounding speeches full of empty phrases and promises he cannot keep.

 

[CMike]

Good grief Maggie. Every time I start to think that maybe you're NOT an idiot, you prove me wrong. If you can't see the correlation between high energy prices and slowdowns in economic activity then you are simply beyond teaching. Right now, small businesses are tending to hunker down and hold what they've got while the economic climate is so unstable. If you'll go back and check, you'll find that businesses were, by and large, not taking on new employees or new debt when gas prices were $4.00 per gallon.

Perhaps you should have removed the words "right now." Businesses were not falling faster than houses on a Monopoly Board in 2007, and they were not laying off people at the rate that began the following summer of 2008. Of course small businesses are worried NOW but primarily because they cannot get credit to keep those businesses going. How health care will unfold is secondary to that prime concern, whether you recognize that or not.

You guys also keep tossing other issues into the mix totally unrelated to the bank crisis, like cap and trade. That has been run aground, thanks mostly to the right wing media which in their usual fashion dismissed the independent reporting that utility rates would indeed NOT rise to unrealistic amounts. But in any event, cap and trade is dead from all I read, so there's just no sense in losing anymore sleep over at least that gripe. And I presume that most small businessmen are also aware of the current status of cap and trade and don't consider it a factor in projections for the immediate future.

I said..businesses are not clamoring for loans right now and that's exactly what I meant to say. And gas prices are certainly part of the economic uncertainty. Do you have any idea how much money an extra dollar per gallon pulls out of the general economy? Were it not for people getting their tax returns, retail sales would be completely in the toilet.

Prove that businesses are not trying to get loans right now?

 

[CMike]

So who did the banks come crying to when they went broke? You don't see the anomaly in your statement "banks are making good money at a time when many workers are out of work"???? That simply begs the question: Where are the banks getting their money from, then? It sure as hell isn't trickling up anymore, and certainly not from 401K's anymore. They've already cleaned those out. Why are they refusing to loosen up credit so others can be just as "successful" and in turn THEY (the banks) would be more successful???

You people are so misguided on this it's pathetic.

You miss the point entirely it was the Fair Housing Act, then the Community Reinvestment Act during Clinton's years where the government put the gun to the heads of banks FORCING them to make HIGH-RISK loans or be red-lined for growth and opportunities in other neighborhoods. The GOVERNMENT started the whole melt down of the financial industry.

They are not going to loosen up credit as long as they have an economic fool in the White House, they are scared to death to do so. Each day comes a new directive from the White House. Business and banks do not like uncertainty and with this economic moron in there, there will be no assurances of what he is going to do next. They are as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof. That's why the sell-off in the markets. The more he talks about this, the more the markets will crash.

BTW- The only reason he is doing this now, is to re-direct the focus from his failed health care initiative and the catastrophic loss of Massachusetts. If you are fool enough to fall for this non-sense-, go a-head, he is not fooling the majority though, we are on to him.

A tax on the banks is a tax on the rest of us.

Once again, the CRA did not FORCE banks to do a goddamned thing. Stop making up shit. And you're not "on to" squat. You just like to think you are. My advice is to read some unbiased history of the bank failures. If you don't trust Wikipedia, then go to any number of other online encyclopedias where most have already spelled out the historic details, going way back to the CRA which you completely mischaracterize.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.

Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:

For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.

Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."