USMB Poll (non official)

[CrimsonWhite]

A poll of the board. If the election were held to day, who would you vote for.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Off to a slow start. I bet McKinney gets at least one vote.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

After acquiring Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Wall Street, and the creation of more government, we need to think about changing GOP to National Socialist Party.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Wow, 5 to 1 in favor of Obama, the republicans must not be up yet.

 

[nukeman]

Wow, 5 to 1 in favor of Obama, the republicans must not be up yet.

No their just all at work trying to make money to pay for all of those programs the dems keep enacting to help the "disadvantaged" You know like lending to them even though they are unabel to pay it back.......

 

[Jon]

No their just all at work trying to make money to pay for all of those programs the dems keep enacting to help the "disadvantaged" You know like lending to them even though they are unabel to pay it back.......

Oh, burnt.

 

[Shogun]

When did dems hold a lenders hand in deciding who they must lend to?


tsk tsk tsk..

 

[nukeman]

When did dems hold a lenders hand in deciding who they must lend to?


tsk tsk tsk..

how about this!!!!!

Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act By William Kaufman

"If you're looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."

The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain's chief economic advisor.

But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism -- fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's idea of a tribune of "change"--if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.

This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here's the complete roll call of shame:"

Maybe just maybe right here is where the dems "held the hand of lenders"

 

[DiveCon]

how about this!!!!!



Maybe just maybe right here is where the dems "held the hand of lenders"

meh, this is the fault of both party's
as are most of the mess we have in DC

 

[nukeman]

meh, this is the fault of both party's
as are most of the mess we have in DC

I never stated otherwise infact if you look at the post it has both parties in there including McCain. I for one think BOTH parties are equally to blame!!!!! They all get rich and you and i get stuck with the bill!!

 

[DiveCon]

I never stated otherwise infact if you look at the post it has both parties in there including McCain. I for one think BOTH parties are equally to blame!!!!! They all get rich and you and i get stuck with the bill!!

but it sure looked like you were just blaming the dems
if not, then we agree

 

[xsited1]

A poll of the board. If the election were held to day, who would you vote for.

Obama is winning. God help us all.

 

[Shogun]

how about this!!!!!



Maybe just maybe right here is where the dems "held the hand of lenders"

So dems voted for deregulation. So what. Again, WHEN DID ANYONE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HOLD A LENDERS HAND AND MAKE THEM GIVE RISKY LOANS TO RISKY PEOPLE?

 

[nukeman]

So dems voted for deregulation. So what. Again, WHEN DID ANYONE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HOLD A LENDERS HAND AND MAKE THEM GIVE RISKY LOANS TO RISKY PEOPLE?

Now if you are asking me to show you where the dems or republicans held the hand and made them sign a paper i wasn't in the room with EVERY mortage made. however with the politicle pressure put on the companies and the lifting of constraints and regulations to facilitate the BAD loans I would personally call that some "hand holding" and i would also say they were "pointed" in that direction as well by the fed. Why else do you think they are willing to bail these companies out if not for the fact that they were the creators of this debacle..........

As homeownership rates increased there as self-congratulation all around," Liebowitz writes. "The community of regulators, academic specialists, and housing activists all reveled in the increase in homeownership."

An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the sudden surge in homeownership among minorities, calling it "one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era."

John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, however, claimed in a Fox News article yesterday that the success came at a great price.

According to Lott, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.

Furthermore, claims Lott, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like Countrywide and Bear Stearns (do those names look familiar)– for adopting the slackened policies toward minority applicants.

"Given these lending practices mandated by the Fed and encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," writes Lott, "the resulting financial problems for financial institutions such as Countrywide and Bear Stearns are not too surprising."


Liebowitz' contention that lenders were under pressure to loosen their standards for racial and political goals was confirmed years ago by the companies at the heart of today's crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.
An ominous paragraph of the article reads, "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

Liebowitz likewise predicted in a 1998 paper the risk of sacrificing sound financial policy for social activism.

"After the warm fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off," Liebowitz wrote, "we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that led to bad loans. … It will be ironic and unfortunate if minority applicants wind up paying a very heavy price for a misguided policy based on a badly mangled idea."

And though some have speculated that lenders in the '90s dove into sub-prime mortgages in an effort to gouge new markets, the president and chief operating officer of Freddie Mac in 1999, David Glenn, confessed his company was pushed by a federal agenda.
"The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership," Glenn said in his remarks at the annual convention of the Mortgage Banker Association of America.

"The federal government in the meantime has increased pressure on lenders to seek out minorities, as well as low-income groups and borrowers with poor credit histories," Glenn said. "Fannie Mae recently reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers. That means half the mortgages bought by Fannie Mae would be from those income brackets."

 

[Shogun]

I wouldn't call it hand holding at all. Do you think lenders DIDNT have a giant fucking hardon about deregulation? Why do you think THEY chose to abuse the system? Further, wold THEY have chosen to abuse the system regardless of who signed for deregulation?

If I deregulate the speed on the highway to 70 is it my fault that some dickhead crashes in a fiery ball of gas and steel after flying down the fucking road at 105 mph?

 

[nukeman]

I wouldn't call it hand holding at all. Do you think lenders DIDNT have a giant fucking hardon about deregulation? Why do you think THEY chose to abuse the system? Further, wold THEY have chosen to abuse the system regardless of who signed for deregulation?

If I deregulate the speed on the highway to 70 is it my fault that some dickhead crashes in a fiery ball of gas and steel after flying down the fucking road at 105 mph?

It is if you took away all the police and their ability to prosecute the "dickhead". so yes you do have a certain amount of culpability...... If you deregulate and ALOW things to happen with carte blance your as responsible.....

 

[Shogun]

It is if you took away all the police and their ability to prosecute the "dickhead". so yes you do have a certain amount of culpability...... If you deregulate and ALOW things to happen with carte blance your as responsible.....

uh, so how would the police have kept a speeding dickhead from driving at 105 DESPITE THE FUCKING DEREGULATED SPEED LIMIT? Is there no speeding in your state despite cops galore and a speed limit? No one said, "hey, i think i'll deregulate and let LENDERS have the option to abuse the system!" Just like no one say, "Hey, i'll raise the speed limit AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE SPEEDING".


You act like deregulation not only enabled but DEMANDED lenders abuse deregulation. Thats about as retarded as it gets.

 

[Missourian]

When did dems hold a lenders hand in deciding who they must lend to?


tsk tsk tsk..

Carter"s Community Reinvestment Act

The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators

Clinton's revisions

In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.


These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years.

 

[Shogun]

I see no hand holding. I see Dems bending to the standard republican mantra of deregulation with absolutely no requirement to offer high risk, variable interest loans to high risk people. Perhaps you can be clearer...

 

[nukeman]

uh, so how would the police have kept a speeding dickhead from driving at 105 DESPITE THE FUCKING DEREGULATED SPEED LIMIT? Is there no speeding in your state despite cops galore and a speed limit? No one said, "hey, i think i'll deregulate and let LENDERS have the option to abuse the system!" Just like no one say, "Hey, i'll raise the speed limit AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE SPEEDING".


You act like deregulation not only enabled but DEMANDED lenders abuse deregulation. Thats about as retarded as it gets.

Ok smart ass WHO derregulated the banking industry??? If not the feds than WHO.

By deregulating they made it EASIER to bend the rules and cause these types of problems and with little to NO oversight the problems were compounded but I suppose in your sunny little fucking world NO ONE is to blame for the mess it "just happend" Your so narrow minded you can't see past your own dick.......

When you take away the rules and the guidlines YOU will ALWAYS have some who abuse the system that is why there are RULES. Or did you miss that while growing up???? Jackass!!!!!