So who is really at fault for this financial melt-down

[oreo]

Just watched a special on Fox News, October 5, 2008.

Unbelievable!

As we know, in 1999 the Clinton adminstration pressured Fannie & Freddie to lower standards (credit & income) to persuade banks to loan out mortgage money to lower income people & minorities. They went as far as not even requiring down payments. (Easy money raced through our economy--thru new mortgages to refinancing). Not only were lower income & minorities getting homes they could not afford, but others jumped on the band wagon--using this money to buy vacation beach homes.

At this time--government lead by pressuring democrats wanted Freddie & Fannie (government) to back 50% of these new loans in their portfolios to be what we know can honestly say (risky borrowers.)

Wall Street bought up these mortgages in packages to hedge their capital. When housing prices fell--these risky borrowers walked out of the homes they purchased, primarily because they had nothing to lose. No down payment = no investment to lose.

In 2001 the Bush adminstration warned that Freddie & Fannie may be getting out of control. Then again in 2003 the Bush administration brought new legislation in to reign these agencies under control. Then again Allan Greenspan warned. Then in 2005 John McCain sponsored a bill to get tighter regulations on these agencies.

So who blocked these several new pieces of legislation that would have saved us from this 700 BILLION DOLLAR bail-out.

Every time a new piece of legislation was brought up to the banking/finance committee. Every democrat on the board would vote against new regulation, every republican on the board would vote for it. This happened at least 3 different times during the Bush adminstration.

NAMES MENTIONED: Democrat Criss Dodd--democrat Barney Frank--democrat--Charles Schumer whom were adamant that Fannie & Freddie needed no stricter regulations. Criss Dodd being the # 1 donor receipiant of Fannie/Freddie--Barack Obama being the # 2 donor receipiant of Fannie/Freddie.

ACORN--whose sole purpose was to go into banks & scream discrimination--was also a player in this. BTW--Barack Obama is connected to ACORN--& was actually this agencies attorney in his Chicago community organizing days--whom also promoted loans given to people who could not pay them back. (Note that the first bail-out bill that house republicans defeated had $20 BILLION dollars going to ACORN). This outraged them. ACORN is also currently under criminal investigation in several states for voter registration fraud.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind--who is to blame for this financial crisis. The party who started it, the party who ignored it, & the party who voted several times against any new regulation to reign these agencies in. Democrats

 

[Skull Pilot]

FactCheck.org: Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

The Real Deal


So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.


Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.


Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.


Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.


The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.


Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.


Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.


Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.


The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.


An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.


Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

 

[editec]

Who is responsible for this disaster?

Who made money because off it?

 

[newpolitics]

Just watched a special on Fox News, October 5, 2008.

Unbelievable!

As we know, in 1999 the Clinton adminstration pressured Fannie & Freddie to lower standards (credit & income) to persuade banks to loan out mortgage money to lower income people & minorities. They went as far as not even requiring down payments. (Easy money raced through our economy--thru new mortgages to refinancing). Not only were lower income & minorities getting homes they could not afford, but others jumped on the band wagon--using this money to buy vacation beach homes.

At this time--government lead by pressuring democrats wanted Freddie & Fannie (government) to back 50% of these new loans in their portfolios to be what we know can honestly say (risky borrowers.)

Wall Street bought up these mortgages in packages to hedge their capital. When housing prices fell--these risky borrowers walked out of the homes they purchased, primarily because they had nothing to lose. No down payment = no investment to lose.

In 2001 the Bush adminstration warned that Freddie & Fannie may be getting out of control. Then again in 2003 the Bush administration brought new legislation in to reign these agencies under control. Then again Allan Greenspan warned. Then in 2005 John McCain sponsored a bill to get tighter regulations on these agencies.

So who blocked these several new pieces of legislation that would have saved us from this 700 BILLION DOLLAR bail-out.

Every time a new piece of legislation was brought up to the banking/finance committee. Every democrat on the board would vote against new regulation, every republican on the board would vote for it. This happened at least 3 different times during the Bush adminstration.

NAMES MENTIONED: Democrat Criss Dodd--democrat Barney Frank--democrat--Charles Schumer whom were adamant that Fannie & Freddie needed no stricter regulations. Criss Dodd being the # 1 donor receipiant of Fannie/Freddie--Barack Obama being the # 2 donor receipiant of Fannie/Freddie.

ACORN--whose sole purpose was to go into banks & scream discrimination--was also a player in this. BTW--Barack Obama is connected to ACORN--& was actually this agencies attorney in his Chicago community organizing days--whom also promoted loans given to people who could not pay them back. (Note that the first bail-out bill that house republicans defeated had $20 BILLION dollars going to ACORN). This outraged them. ACORN is also currently under criminal investigation in several states for voter registration fraud.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind--who is to blame for this financial crisis. The party who started it, the party who ignored it, & the party who voted several times against any new regulation to reign these agencies in. Democrats

All I need to read here to discount your arguement, is to know your source: FOX NEWS.

The most conservatively spun news ever. What does that mean? They left out TONS of facts that would hold the conservatives guilty for as much, if not more, for our economic downturn. No doubt dem's have their share of blame for this. I think it would be more fair to say, is that it was simply 'Washington politics" that did this. Each side will believe that it was the other, but in reality it was both. Fox only tells you one side, becuase they have a very conservatively-spun agenda, beyond what I consider appropriate. They're more of a propogandist channel as far as I'm concerned, because they try to represent the party that is already in power, and to promote certain ideas and ideals as being 'right.' MSNC and CNN only poke fun and expose holes in certain political figures, not try to argue for an entire ideology. Fox is shameless.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Who had eight years to stop it? The current administration.

They didn't. They pushed more deregulation. They exacerbated it. ( I always wanted to use that word.)

It happened on your watch. You own it. Live with it.

 

[bigdaddygtr]

Just watched a special on Fox News, October 5, 2008.

Unbelievable!

As we know, in 1999 the Clinton adminstration pressured Fannie & Freddie to lower standards (credit & income) to persuade banks to loan out mortgage money to lower income people & minorities. They went as far as not even requiring down payments. (Easy money raced through our economy--thru new mortgages to refinancing). Not only were lower income & minorities getting homes they could not afford, but others jumped on the band wagon--using this money to buy vacation beach homes.

At this time--government lead by pressuring democrats wanted Freddie & Fannie (government) to back 50% of these new loans in their portfolios to be what we know can honestly say (risky borrowers.)

Wall Street bought up these mortgages in packages to hedge their capital. When housing prices fell--these risky borrowers walked out of the homes they purchased, primarily because they had nothing to lose. No down payment = no investment to lose.

In 2001 the Bush adminstration warned that Freddie & Fannie may be getting out of control. Then again in 2003 the Bush administration brought new legislation in to reign these agencies under control. Then again Allan Greenspan warned. Then in 2005 John McCain sponsored a bill to get tighter regulations on these agencies.

So who blocked these several new pieces of legislation that would have saved us from this 700 BILLION DOLLAR bail-out.

Every time a new piece of legislation was brought up to the banking/finance committee. Every democrat on the board would vote against new regulation, every republican on the board would vote for it. This happened at least 3 different times during the Bush adminstration.

NAMES MENTIONED: Democrat Criss Dodd--democrat Barney Frank--democrat--Charles Schumer whom were adamant that Fannie & Freddie needed no stricter regulations. Criss Dodd being the # 1 donor receipiant of Fannie/Freddie--Barack Obama being the # 2 donor receipiant of Fannie/Freddie.

ACORN--whose sole purpose was to go into banks & scream discrimination--was also a player in this. BTW--Barack Obama is connected to ACORN--& was actually this agencies attorney in his Chicago community organizing days--whom also promoted loans given to people who could not pay them back. (Note that the first bail-out bill that house republicans defeated had $20 BILLION dollars going to ACORN). This outraged them. ACORN is also currently under criminal investigation in several states for voter registration fraud.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind--who is to blame for this financial crisis. The party who started it, the party who ignored it, & the party who voted several times against any new regulation to reign these agencies in. Democrats

You're that 17yr old right? Ok, because of that I'll giggle at your post and place it under the umbrella of neive

Secondly little teenager, if the House and Senate Repub's truly wanted to pass legislation to stop this madness you say Bill Clinton started(By the way, it started long before him) they could of

Now, go back to school and decide on who your going to homecoming with

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anatomy of a Train Wreck
Causes of the Mortgage Meltdown
Stan J. Liebowitz

http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf

This piece is 29 pages but here are some excerpts. i hope you all take time to read the entire essay.

How did this come about? Why were there so
many defaults when the economy was not particularly
weak? Why were the securities based upon these
mortgages not considered anywhere as risky as they
actually turned out to be?
It is the thesis of this report that this large increase
in defaults had been a potential problem waiting to
happen for some time. The reason is that mortgageunderwriting
standards had been undermined by
virtually every branch of the government since the
early 1990s. The government had been attempting
to increase home ownership in the U.S., which had
been stagnant for several decades. In particular, the
government had tried to increase home ownership
among poor and minority Americans...

After the government succeeded in weakening
underwriting standards, mortgages seemed to require
virtually no down payment, which is the main
key to the problem, but few restrictions on the size
of monthly payments relative to income, little examination
of credit scores, little examination of
employment history, and so forth also contributed.
This was exactly the government’s goal.
The weakening of mortgage-lending standards
did succeed in increasing home ownership (discussed
in more detail later). As home ownership rates increased
there was self-congratulation all around.
The community of regulators, academic specialists,
and housing activists all reveled in the increase in
home ownership and the increase in wealth brought
about by home ownership. The decline in mortgageunderwriting
standards was universally praised as an
“innovation” in mortgage lending.
The increase in home ownership increased the
price of housing, helping to create a housing “bubble.”
The bubble brought in a large number of speculators
in the form of individuals owning one or two
houses who hoped to quickly resell them at a profit.
Estimates are that one quarter of all home sales were
speculative sales of this nature.
Speculators wanted mortgages with the smallest
down payment and the lowest interest rate. These
would be adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), option
ARMs, and so forth. Once housing prices stopped
rising, these speculators tried to get out from under
their investments made largely with other peoples’
money, which is why foreclosures increased mainly
for adjustable-rate mortgages and not for fixed-rate
mortgages, regardless of whether mortgages were
prime or subprime. The rest, as they say, is history....

1. The Birth of “Flexible
Underwriting Standards”
After the warm and fuzzy glow of “flexible
underwriting standards” has worn off, we may
discover that they are nothing more than standards
that led to bad loans.

2. Relaxed Lending Standards—
Everyone’s Doin’ It

Within a few months of the appearance of the Boston
Fed study, a new manual appeared from the Boston
Fed. It was in the nature of a “Nondiscriminatory
Mortgage Lending for Dummies”3 booklet. The
president of the Boston Fed wrote in the foreword:
The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston wants to
be helpful to lenders as they work to close the
mortgage gap [higher rejection rate for minorities].

I especially like this part:

The part of this document that is of greatest interest
to us is the section on underwriting standards.
This is where we find the seeds of today’s mortgage
meltdown. It starts out:
Even the most determined lending institution
will have difficulty cultivating business from
minority customers if its underwriting standards
contain arbitrary or unreasonable measures
of creditworthiness.

All this in just the first 10 pages. Please read the rest.

 

[WillowTree]

starts with a D.

 

[editec]

As we know, in 1999 the Clinton adminstration pressured Fannie & Freddie to lower standards (credit & income) to persuade banks to loan out mortgage money to lower income people & minorities.

I was hawking NINA mortgages in Connecticut in 1989, folks. ALL of the people I sold them to were white people buying homes in towns like CosCob and Wilton Connecticut.

This is how I know this argument blaming Clinton for this problem is pure partisan nonsense.

Often the reason that )as one example) the anestheisologist making $400,000 a year would go with a NINA is because he already owned so much real investment estate (he was buying up one and two bedroom condos in mostly affluent middle class neighbohoods) that he would not have qualified to take on any more debts otherwise.

In point of fact I never managed to get one of those NINAs approved for poor people.

Every one of them went to basically very affluent people who were gaming the real estate market.

Every one of them.

Now, I don't doubt that times changed, but to suggest that Clinton was solely responsible for a policy that started before he was in office is simply ignorant.

 

[sealybobo]

I was hawking NINA mortgages in Connecticut in 1989, folks. ALL of the people I sold them to were white people buying homes in towns like CosCob and Wilton Connecticut.

This is how I know this argument blaming Clinton for this problem is pure partisan nonsense.

Often the reason that )as one example) the anestheisologist making $400,000 a year would go with a NINA is because he already owned so much real investment estate (he was buying up one and two bedroom condos in mostly affluent middle class neighbohoods) that he would not have qualified to take on any more debts otherwise.

In point of fact I never managed to get one of those NINAs approved for poor people.

Every one of them went to basically very affluent people who were gaming the real estate market.

Every one of them.

Now, I don't doubt that times changed, but to suggest that Clinton was solely responsible for a policy that started before he was in office is simply ignorant.

Yes, it is laughable to blame Clinton or Carter, but these people have nothing else. I said before that no matter what Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton did, Bush 2 had 6 years to make it right. And those bills the GOP tried to pass between 2002-2006 were crap. They would have grown government and not fixed anything.

I compare their solution to Bush's wish that we give Paulson $700 billion to fix the mess that he created and with ZERO oversite.

This was the GOP solution. It was mearly to rob the treasury and to say later, "see, we tried". CYA. Cover Your Ass!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, it is laughable to blame Clinton or Carter, but these people have nothing else. I said before that no matter what Carter, Reagan, HW Bush or Clinton did, Bush 2 had 6 years to make it right. And those bills the GOP tried to pass between 2002-2006 were crap. They would have grown government and not fixed anything.

I compare their solution to Bush's wish that we give Paulson $700 billion to fix the mess that he created and with ZERO oversite.

This was the GOP solution. It was mearly to rob the treasury and to say later, "see, we tried". CYA. Cover Your Ass!!!

God forbid anyone say that the causes of this mess are not as black and white (sorry, is that racist?) as you would like to think. It was the GOP and no one else no other causes need be considered

 

[sealybobo]

God forbid anyone say that the causes of this mess are not as black and white (sorry, is that racist?) as you would like to think. It was the GOP and no one else no other causes need be considered

What if the GOP did this on purpose? Because from pre planning the Iraq war before 2000 to all the deregulations that led us to this financial mess to allowing oil companies to gouge us and we know it was from speculation, and not what the GOP said was the cause.

If you add everything up, you would have to be stupid to not think they did all this on purpose. The CEO's made millions/billions and the poor got poorer.

I don't think the guys at the top think our economy is bad. McCain 3 weeks ago was saying it was great. They said it was great for 8 years, even though WE knew it wasn't great. The only reason they say it's not a great economy now is because it is an election year. So get your head out of your ass please.

Your wet dream is about to be over. Time to wake up.

Why McCain is Leaving Michigan--and What It Means for Nov. 4
Without Michigan--which the campaign has now all but admitted that it will lose - it's very difficult to see how McCain can emerge victorious on Nov. 4. For months, McCain has made Michigan the centerpiece of his electoral offense, and with good reason. Iowa, a state that George W. Bush won in 2004, is almost certain to swing to Obama; he currently leads there by more than 10 points on average. Same goes for New Mexico, where Obama's ahead by 8. When combined with John Kerry's 251 electoral votes, those two states alone would put Obama within seven of the magic 270 mark; a single, additional win in either Colorado, Virginia, Ohio or Florida--all of which currently favor the Democrat--would put him over the top. Which is why McCain, desperate to make up ground, has long pinned his hopes on Michigan. The Arizona senator was polling within 2 points of his Illinois opponent as recently as Sept. 10.

Unfortunately, the recent avalanche of distressing economic news--especially impactful in a state with the nation's highest level of unemployment--seems to have moved the expensive Great Lakes State out of McCain's reach.



Stumper : Why McCain is Leaving Michigan--and What It Means for Nov. 4

 

[Ravi]

Okay, okay. I admit it. It's my fault.

 

[dilloduck]

Okay, okay. I admit it. It's my fault.

I knew that shopping spree would kill us.

 

[Ravi]

I knew that shopping spree would kill us.

*sob* it's that addiction I have to shoes. Now if ya'll will just pay for my therapy, I promise it won't happen again.

 

[dilloduck]

*sob* it's that addiction I have to shoes. Now if ya'll will just pay for my therapy, I promise it won't happen again.

Step into my office

 

[Ravi]

Step into my office

Hell no! You are well known for your foot fetish...you'll just make it worse.

 

[dilloduck]

Hell no! You are well known for your foot fetish...you'll just make it worse.

ok ok--you can keep your damn shoes on .

 

[sealybobo]

God forbid anyone say that the causes of this mess are not as black and white (sorry, is that racist?) as you would like to think. It was the GOP and no one else no other causes need be considered

And isn't it funny that one day you guys suggest "everyone" shares responsibility but then the next day you say Carter and Clinton had something to do with it.

This is reminding me of when you guys went after Clinton. Half of you were saying she was the most liberal person on the planet, but then when she was running against Obama, HE was the most liberal.

Based on what?

So you guys don't eveR want to take all the blame but you sure do like to place blame. Hell, you don't even care if your accusations make sense. Because most people will not look into it to realize how silly blaming Carter or Clinton is. You are a perfect example.

I say the GOP did this on purpose. Just like they lied us into Iraq so a few defense buddies could milk the treasury for billions, the CEO's purposely trashed their companies, walked away with billions and KNEW Bush would bail them out. Sorry, WE would bail them out. Suckers.

 

[dilloduck]

And isn't it funny that one day you guys suggest "everyone" shares responsibility but then the next day you say Carter and Clinton had something to do with it.

This is reminding me of when you guys went after Clinton. Half of you were saying she was the most liberal person on the planet, but then when she was running against Obama, HE was the most liberal.

Based on what?

So you guys don't eveR want to take all the blame but you sure do like to place blame. Hell, you don't even care if your accusations make sense. Because most people will not look into it to realize how silly blaming Carter or Clinton is. You are a perfect example.

I say the GOP did this on purpose. Just like they lied us into Iraq so a few defense buddies could milk the treasury for billions, the CEO's purposely trashed their companies, walked away with billions and KNEW Bush would bail them out. Sorry, WE would bail them out. Suckers.

Please list the party affiliation of all the CEOs who took the cash and walked.