Democrats are to blame for financial meltdown
- Thread starter jreeves
- Start date
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,102
- 2,180
are we still playing the blame game? 
Liberals put regulations in place to prevent this stuff. Bush and Delay between 2000-2006 lifted those regulations and let the mortgage companies and banks regulate themselves. Why don't you blame Bush for this? We all warned you, and him, that letting greedy corporations that only care about profit regulate themselves would cause this.
Liberals since the founding fathers have warned us about corporations getting too powerful. Thom Hartmann, Randi rhodes, every liberal talk show have been saying this was going to happen.
The Bushies all said that we were just slowing up progress, tieing the companies hands to make more money, blabla.
Here, check out these cartoons and tell me they aren't spot on:
After Wall Street, anger spreads to Congress - Economy in Turmoil - MSNBC.com
jreeves
Senior Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 6,588
- 319
- 48
- Thread starter
- #85
I'm not excusing the sleasy book cooking CEO's either, but I think CRA was a major factor in the credit crisis. I mean if you require a bank to give a loan to someone who can't repay it, what's so hard to understand, how that could create problems.
are we still playing the blame game?
You'd still be playing it if you had a leg to stand on with your "it's carter and clinton's fault"
Yes dummy, it's an election year. How sweet of you conservatives when your losing your grip on control. HA!!!
Check out these cartoons: After Wall Street, anger spreads to Congress - Economy in Turmoil - MSNBC.com
OohRah Mama
Say it with me: NU-CLE-AR
See, you are trying to suggest that liberal laws helping poor people are to blame.
No one required a bank to give an unpayable loan. They said you must give loans to low income people with steady employment. It was only after the mortgage companies stopped doing background checks on the people they were giving loans to that this problem occured.
Not to mention the GOP allowed banks to free up some of their reserves in 2003. If they didn't to that, then the banks would not be strapped for cash.
There are some fishy things the banks and FDIC did and are doing that lead me to believe they are causing this fake emergency. Local banks have money but FDIC isn't approving any loans. Why not? That's a sure way to crash this mother fucker.
So give them the $700 billion and all will be fine, even though the plan doesn't solve a fucking thing. Get it?
Allie already has zero credibility, but it is great to see you busted her. LOL.
See republicans! See who sides with you? Alliebabble!!!
And that IS a problem, steady income or no, relying on someone with low income to pay a mortgage is undeniably a big risk, a risk the law required them to take. The risk was compounded by the fact that we were on top of housing bubble, so those people that lenders were required to lend to were invariably going to find their morrgages more difficult if not impossible to pay, which lead to the volume of foreclosures that preceeded this mess.
read the law reeves....you are TWISTING IT to make it say, what you just said....
it says to offer loans to low income people, it does not force them to issue loans to people that would not otherwise qualify...
my in laws were dirt, dirt poor, but they were given a loan in 1963 to buy their home....they were considered a risk because of their very low income with 5 children to feed... so the bank gave them a loan for a home that was $8k at the time, a 30 year fixed, but they charged my in laws a higher interest rate than other conventional mortgages....due to them being more of a risk than a prime customer....
What i am saying is that what came out in the report that was done during GHW Bush's administration regarding mortgage discrimination, that Clinton was handed when he took office showed that banks and thrifts were not offering a black man, or a woman, or small business etc the same opportunities to get a loan as my very white, male father in law was given...
And that banks were just redlining complete areas on maps that they refused to service the people within that circle, without even considering the individual that lived in these areas for a loan....
This is why Clinton put some teeth in the CRA law...he did not do this out of the blue, he did this because of this study that was done during the end term of Bush 1.....
What Clinton did, did not cause this mess....the CRA did not cause this mess...President Bush did not cause this mess....Carter did not cause this mess...
BANKERS caused this mess by creating these illogical devices, negligent loans, for their immediate dollar in hand and their disregard for the long term affect of the unsecure loans they were issuing and selling off and masking in with things like MBS, which actually use to be a pretty safe investment....
they only USED the initiative to get more low income people in to mortgages as their pawn in their game to make alot of money, very quickly, and sell off their risk, for doing such until their ponzi schemes hit a wall....
that's how i see it... in simple terms and simple think!
Last edited:
user_name_guest
Member
- Sep 19, 2008
- 704
- 43
- 16
Blame our Federal Government, Wall Street, and you all. We elected dogs (wag the tail = point the finger) into the Federal Government who cater from these Wall Street execs (equivalent to wolves) for campaign donations (feast). Now when the wolves (Wall Street) go hungry, they start going to the porch of these Congressional dogs for some more food to eat ($700 billion bailout). Meanwhile, we watch the political drama unfold. The divide and conquer media using information as ammo for right or left-ist sides. If you had Bill Gates wealth, would you give $700 billion to these Wall Street institutions that started this mess?
bull on that bern! low income people only qualify for houses that don't cost that much, it is comparable with their income...most mortgages require that your mortgage not be more than 30% of ones income, 37% of ones total debt....
What went on the past 5 years, with all of these ''created by the banks'' high risk to their stock holder subprime loans, was just plain irresponsible and negligent on their part....
in fact, CRA has a part in it that requires the banks to be responsible to their stock holders while being fair with their lending.
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,928
- 0
- Banned
- #95
Which is exactly what got us into this mess.
The government has no place in policing the economy. When they do, this is what happens. And it's ludicrous that there are (albeit a small handful) people out there who think the same dillholes who got us into this mess are capable of getting us out.
The government has no place in policing the economy. When they do, this is what happens. And it's ludicrous that there are (albeit a small handful) people out there who think the same dillholes who got us into this mess are capable of getting us out.
If the regulations were good enough so that only people who were capable of paying were qualifed, how do you explain the massive amount of foreclosures? Again this took two to tango. People who took out loans, when a shred of forsight would have told them the value of whatever home they bought was going to go down and lenders with amazingly lenient lending policies.
jreeves
Senior Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 6,588
- 319
- 48
- Thread starter
- #97
Michael J. Gaynor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_21385.shtml
Blame Obama's ACORN for the Financial Crisis
By Michael J. Gaynor
MichNews.com
Sep 29, 2008
Prior to law school, Barack Obama worked as an organizer for their affiliates in New York and Chicago. He always has been an ACORN person -- meeting and working with them to advance their causes. Through his membership on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago and his friendship with Teresa Heinz Kerry, Obama has helped ensure that they remain funded well.
Question: Which presidential candidate warned years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were important problems that needed to be fixed?
Answer: John McCain.
Question: Which political party took control of Congress and blocked the reforms called for by both the Bush administration and McCain?
Answer: Democrat
Question: Will enough voters be fooled into believing that Democrat control of the White House and Congress will be good for the American economy?
Answer: We will know soon.
Question: What should a voter who puts America first do?
Answer: Don't be insane--VOTE FOR McCAIN!
Don’t expect the mainstream media to identify ACORN and its favorite community organizer and lawyer, rookie United States Senator and current Democrat presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. among the villains in the current financial crisis.
But media bias does not change facts.
Pittsburgh Tribune Review, “Barack Obama’s Closet,” Dateline D.C., January 14, 2007:
“…in Chicago, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is more important than Iraq or Washington. ACORN and its associated Midwest Academy, both founded in the 1970s, continue to train and mobilize activists throughout the country, often using them to manipulate public opinion through ‘direct action.’ It's sometimes a code for illegal activities.
“Prior to law school, Barack Obama worked as an organizer for their affiliates in New York and Chicago. He always has been an ACORN person -- meeting and working with them to advance their causes. Through his membership on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago and his friendship with Teresa Heinz Kerry, Obama has helped ensure that they remain funded well.
“Since he graduated from law school, Obama's work with ACORN and the Midwest Academy has ranged from training and fundraising, to legal representation and promoting their work.”
Note: Terry Kerry’s husband John made Obama a national figure by letting him deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democrat National Convention.
In the case of Hurricane Katrina, the Democrats and their liberal media allies cleverly (but incorrectly) put the blame of the Bush Administration and, ironically, scapegoated former FEMA director Michael D. Brown (even though he had foreseen the possibility of such a catastrophe and worked to prepare for it to the extent the rest of the Bush Administration and Congress would let him).
Katrina really was primarily a Democrat scandal. Louisiana had been dominated by Democrats at the state level since Reconstruction ended and it had not prepared well at all, in either the long term or the short term, for The Big One that finally struck in 2006.
As Katrina approached Louisiana, Democrats—Governor Kathleen Blanco, a white woman, and Mayor Ray Nagin, a black Democrat—were feuding and would not cooperate with Brown, even after Brown had President Bush personally intervene. New Orleans’ supposed disaster plan was a disaster.
Similarly, the truth is that the current financial crisis is a result of a reckless form of affirmative action or reparation of sorts.
Stan Liebowitz, professor of Economics at the University of Texas’ Business School at Dallas, explained the genesis of the financial crisis without malarky or malice in “The Real Scandal: How Feds Invited the Mortgage Mess,” published in The New York Post on February 5, 2008.
Professor Liebowitz:
”PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mortgage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.
“At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.
“Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness?
“From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and ‘progressive’ political forces.
“In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of ‘redlining’ - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
“In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
“Yet a ‘landmark’ 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.
“That study was tremendously flawed - a colleague and I later showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.
“Yet the political agenda triumphed - with the president of the Boston Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the currency seconding the motion.
“No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: ‘discrimination may be observed when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.’
“Some of these ‘outdated’ criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant's ability to manage debt.
“Sound crazy? You bet. Those ‘outdated’ standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
“Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.
“Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with ‘100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns.’ Credit counseling is required, of course.
“Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed ‘the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.’ That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.
“Who was that virtuous lender? Why - Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward bankruptcy.
“In an earlier newspaper story extolling the virtues of relaxed underwriting standards, Countrywide's chief executive bragged that, to approve minority applications that would otherwise be rejected ‘lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.’ He's not bragging now.
“For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage caused by relaxed lending standards.
“This damage was quite predictable: ‘After the warm and fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off, we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that lead to bad loans . . . these policies will have done a disservice to their putative beneficiaries if . . . they are dispossessed from their homes.’ I wrote that, with Ted Day, in a 1998 academic article.
“Sadly, we were spitting into the wind.
“These days, everyone claims to favor strong lending standards. What about all those self-righteous newspapers, politicians and regulators who were intent on loosening lending standards?
“As you might expect, they are now self-righteously blaming those, such as Countrywide, who did what they were told.“
parts were self regulated, and some crookedness took place that the fbi is investigating, parts were regulated but recently deregulated, parts of it are not regulated at all with big sums, that fell under the radar....this mess has many, many arms to it...
but getting to your question about how banks used to lend, verses what they did this last decade....they self regulated themselves...they chose the 30%/37% figures themselves based on their own history of loans analyzed over time...in my parents day and age the rule of thumb by the banks was no more than 25% of your income could be spent on a mortgage.... and that's all one could qualify for....
the bankers themselves lifted their own rules and created these very, unsecure, high risk, adjustable loans themselves....they were able to sell them off to others the next day, releasing themselves of their risk because of recent 1999 deregulations....
they created the high risk loans because they got alot of money upfront with closing costs...the more loans issued the better....the risk of default did not matter anymore, because they now could sell these mortgages off to some other sucker and even if they didn't sell them off, they saw an opportunity to make even more money if the subprimer defaulted 3 - 5 years down the road, because they foolishly thought the real estate market, would always continue on their climb upwards, so they could sell their defaulted properties for much more money at the time of any default....
they gambled, and were wrong....
the high risk mortgages they created and sold off, they merged them in with other prime mortgages in a tool called mortgage backed securities....the people buying them, could not see clearly, what they were buying....how much were in prime loans vs. how much were in subprime....(no regulation on this has hurt us....)
anyway, it didn't matter to those buying the MBS's because even if the subprimer defaulted, they would still own the home and home prices going up meant that foreclosure would be a good thing....also, these MBS's were rated by their self governing agencies as triple A high quality investments...(fbi is investigating this, coersion between the sellers and the agency that was suppose to oversee them for the fake ratings of solid investments)....
well, there is sooooo much more too that went on in this whole mess, and mainly because of their own self governess and not because of regulation and oversight, but the lack there of....is what i have concluded so far...
I will say that i am learning more and more as each day passes on this with all the reading i have been doing...
care
New Topics
-
Should americans prioritise their common colonial ancestry and legacy- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 0
-
Mayor Bass Reflexively Skips Town After Seeing L.A. Burning Again- Started by Votto
- Replies: 0
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss- Latest: P F Tinmore
-
-
