Remember what caused the economic crash of 2008: DEMOCRAT POLICIES

A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)
 
(continued from above)


In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."

At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and as of this writing (in 2008) there are no bills pending to do so.
 
You know, Forbes Magazine would whittle that down a bit: Clinton's subprime loan debacle caused the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Any other reason is deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Clinton had nothing to do with it.

The greed of the financial institutions had everything to do with it.

Wrong..........It was the government, primarily liberal policies. Greedy lending institutions and as the OP pointed out, an ignorant public. I know it's not a liberal policy, but put the blame where it belongs.
 
You know, Forbes Magazine would whittle that down a bit: Clinton's subprime loan debacle caused the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Any other reason is deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Clinton had nothing to do with it.

The greed of the financial institutions had everything to do with it.

Wrong..........It was the government, primarily liberal policies. Greedy lending institutions and as the OP pointed out, an ignorant public. I know it's not a liberal policy, but put the blame where it belongs.
Silverado Savings and Loan.....Enron....1929 economic collapse....We are now in the the age of disinformation....that's how cons are able to get away with blaming liberals for everything. even though Raygun tripled the national debt....Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years...and Shrub Jr. doubled it again by giving $3 trillion to millionaires in tax welfare, and wasting $10 trillion on the Iraq/Afghan wars.....yeah the ones that are still going on 13 years later....three times longer than WWII.
 
Last edited:
You know, Forbes Magazine would whittle that down a bit: Clinton's subprime loan debacle caused the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Any other reason is deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Clinton had nothing to do with it.

The greed of the financial institutions had everything to do with it.

Wrong..........It was the government, primarily liberal policies. Greedy lending institutions and as the OP pointed out, an ignorant public. I know it's not a liberal policy, but put the blame where it belongs.
Silverado Savings and Loan.....Enron....1929 economic collapse....We are now in the the age of disinformation....that's how cons are able to get away with blaming liberals for everything. even though Raygun tripled the national debt....Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years...and Shrub Jr. doubled it again by giving $3 trillion to millionaires in tax welfare, and wasting $10 trillion on the Iraq/Afghan wars.....yeah the ones that are still going on 13 years later....three times longer than WWII.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything in the OP, but I hate it anyway. So I'll do my best to change the subject, call Republicans names, lying about what they did, etc. Then maybe someone somewhere will think there was something wrong in the OP even though I can't name anything.
 
You know, Forbes Magazine would whittle that down a bit: Clinton's subprime loan debacle caused the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Any other reason is deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Clinton had nothing to do with it.

The greed of the financial institutions had everything to do with it.

Wrong..........It was the government, primarily liberal policies. Greedy lending institutions and as the OP pointed out, an ignorant public. I know it's not a liberal policy, but put the blame where it belongs.
Silverado Savings and Loan.....Enron....1929 economic collapse....We are now in the the age of disinformation....that's how cons are able to get away with blaming liberals for everything. even though Raygun tripled the national debt....Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years...and Shrub Jr. doubled it again by giving $3 trillion to millionaires in tax welfare, and wasting $10 trillion on the Iraq/Afghan wars.....yeah the ones that are still going on 13 years later....three times longer than WWII.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything in the OP, but I hate it anyway. So I'll do my best to change the subject, call Republicans names, lying about what they did, etc. Then maybe someone somewhere will think there was something wrong in the OP even though I can't name anything.
Can't speak English, can you.
 
You know, Forbes Magazine would whittle that down a bit: Clinton's subprime loan debacle caused the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Any other reason is deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Clinton had nothing to do with it.

The greed of the financial institutions had everything to do with it.

Wrong..........It was the government, primarily liberal policies. Greedy lending institutions and as the OP pointed out, an ignorant public. I know it's not a liberal policy, but put the blame where it belongs.
Silverado Savings and Loan.....Enron....1929 economic collapse....We are now in the the age of disinformation....that's how cons are able to get away with blaming liberals for everything. even though Raygun tripled the national debt....Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years...and Shrub Jr. doubled it again by giving $3 trillion to millionaires in tax welfare, and wasting $10 trillion on the Iraq/Afghan wars.....yeah the ones that are still going on 13 years later....three times longer than WWII.

Compare and contrast Reagan debt or anyone else's to that on Obama's watch. Repeat after me "2008 debt was 10 Trillion. When Obama leaves office it will be 20 Trillion."

If the Democrats are what you claim they are, how come we're still in Afghanistan and what are we doing in Syria? Misinformation is right PAL.
 
You know, Forbes Magazine would whittle that down a bit: Clinton's subprime loan debacle caused the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Any other reason is deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie.

Clinton had nothing to do with it.

The greed of the financial institutions had everything to do with it.

Wrong..........It was the government, primarily liberal policies. Greedy lending institutions and as the OP pointed out, an ignorant public. I know it's not a liberal policy, but put the blame where it belongs.
Silverado Savings and Loan.....Enron....1929 economic collapse....We are now in the the age of disinformation....that's how cons are able to get away with blaming liberals for everything. even though Raygun tripled the national debt....Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years...and Shrub Jr. doubled it again by giving $3 trillion to millionaires in tax welfare, and wasting $10 trillion on the Iraq/Afghan wars.....yeah the ones that are still going on 13 years later....three times longer than WWII.

Compare and contrast Reagan debt or anyone else's to that on Obama's watch. Repeat after me "2008 debt was 10 Trillion. When Obama leaves office it will be 20 Trillion."

If the Democrats are what you claim they are, how come we're still in Afghanistan and what are we doing in Syria? Misinformation is right PAL.
...not to even mention the 220+ trillion in unfunded liabilities.
 
Political Correctness, greed and stupidity caused the meltdown. But emphasis on political correctness.
 
Was libertarian Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates too low for too long a Democrat policy?

Was Greenspan's refusal to more closely regulate CMO's - even though he admitted he didn't understand them - Democrat policy?

When the ratings agencies gave shit CMO's AAA ratings because if they didn't the issuers would go to another ratings agency, was that Democrat policy?

Was the complete lack of regulation that allowed banks to short CMO's right after they sold a ton of them Democrat policy?

Was the complete lack of regulatory standards that allowed AIG to sell credit default swaps without the resources to back them up Democrat policy?

Nope!


The Meltdown was a group effort.
.
 
A summary I wrote more than six years ago. Even more timely today, with the Democrats re-starting the same policies that led to the economic crash of 2008: Millions of risky housing loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back.

----------------------------------------

An hour-long program on the origins of the current financial crisis, was put together by Fox News in 2008. It contains a great many clips from various officials who were involved, interviews by news people, etc. They called it "Saving Our Economy". Someone put it on YouTube, in six segments. Go there and do a search on that title, and you should get all six segments. They vary from 5 to 10 minutes each, about 45 minutes running time total (no commercials).

It's an excellent explanation of how the crisis started, who did what, what the results were, etc. A real must-see.

Here's a summary:

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression, to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".


(to be continued)
 
(continued from above)


In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."

At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and as of this writing (in 2008) there are no bills pending to do so.
 
The banks WANT a crash so after stealing the money they have now, they crash the market then get bailed out with all that tax payer money. They know the crash is coming. They dont care. Its more profit for them. Look at history. Its a plan to make their profits then claim poverty and get MORE billions form me. 21 trillion usd's have made they're way into corporate pockets since and including 2008. And not just American companys either. When ben bernanke was asked to say what foreign banks received the bail out money, all he said was "no" and "I diont know"....didja get that?...ben bernanke doesnt know where 21 trillion dollars went. Lol...do ya STILL think that theres still gold in fort knox?
 
Last edited:
and as soon as the banks investments are safe from loss, guess what, the next crash and the next bailout will occur. The middle class have no money to spend so the corporations fix their eyes on tax payer revenue for their profit. This practice will increase 10 fold as the country dies.
 
As expected, no one can refute anything mentioned in the OPs.

Just change the subject, bring up irrelevancies, etc., the usual diversionary tactics.

The fact is the Great Recession had many father's, and some MFers, one way to understand an issue is to follow the money. Who won and who lost. It's true, the road to hell can be good intentions, but hell itself is visited when the intentions are self serving and good only for the few, not the many.

Partisan hacks can excuse those whose greed superseded sound judgment, and lay the blame on those who give a damn for all citizens out of compassion, not considering the unintended consequences which might follow a policy.

Banks and insurance companies need to be regulated, there is no such thing as a free market when the seller makes the rules, and the buyer cannot understand the legalese at the bottom of every contract, in fine print, meant to protect only the seller.
 
Democrats owned 2/3 of the federal government when Fannie Mae collapsed. Democrat Barney Frank was the chairperson of the powerful House Banking Committee that had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae. Frank frankly (I couldn't resist the pun) told Americans that Fannie Mae was solvent when it was in desperate trouble. Since democrats were in charge and they had the liberal media covering their backs nobody ever asked Frank what the hell happened. It's possible that Frank's democrat conspiracy initiated the biggest October surprise in history just in time to get Barry Hussein elected.

You've proved to be a fool, that is the only thing to be learned from your echo of Republican propaganda posted above!
 
Republicans work six years and use reconciliation three times to destroy our economy. Then they insist Democrats did it overnight. Are they bad liars or delusional.
 

Forum List

Back
Top