Out of the Past

Prim, I admit it. I think the government's policy of forcing mortgage companies to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back was not good policy and was one of the major factors in this mess.

McCain is finally getting aggressive over Obama's connection to the crooks who ran Fannie and Freddie. He has an ad about the Raines connection and another about the Johnson connection and he's talking about it in his speech. This is from Wisconsin earlier today: Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent's trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search. This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote "extensive financial fraud" under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House. My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system. And then McCain falls flat on his face, again, this time in the form of Rick Davis: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!! :lol :lol :lol Good stuff, dude. McCain would be better off without this guy but to somehow equate McCain's ties with a lobbyist who did nothing illegal to Obama's ties with two CEOs who pocketed tens of millions by cooking the books is ridiculous.

I was in favor of a clean bill that would take the toxic assets off the banks BS but if they stuff it with special interest giveaways, as it looks like they will, then screw it and don't pass anything and hope for the best. Interesting that Democrats seem to be in favor of it and Republicans against it but the Democrats don't want to pass it unless the Republicans get behind it as well. I guess they're playing politics with $700 billion. Great.

...

I'm Nicaraguan and I can tell you you're wrong. There are many Nicaraguans who are here illegally - they arrived after NACARA - and it remains a concern within the community, even the ones that are here legally or are naturalized citizens. I am not saying it is their number one issue, but it is a top concern. Among the naturalized citizens, they care about the issue deeply. We can go back and forth on this. I'm engaged to a Nicaraguan and her family and friends are exactly the opposite. Let's see what happens this year, but historically Nicaraguans are the only other latino group that have voted republican consistently in the past. I'm also Nicaraguan and I agree with legacyofCangelosi. Many Nicaraguans fled to the US in the late 70s and throughout the 80s but very few did so in the 90s and many of the ones that came in the 70s and 80s went back. Among my friends and family my guess is about half went back. Immigration is not a major concern for the Nicaraguans that remain in the US. I also agree the majority of Nicaraguans vote solidly Republican.

Oh ok, I didn't know any of that. Guess it's pretty silly for anybody to blame Bush then, since it's clearly all the Democrats fault. I'm with Biden. I blame the Bush tax cuts.

Another major factor for the meltdown not mentioned here is the implementation of mark-to-market accounting. This accounting requiremtn is idiotic.

Politico is in the tank for Obama. Wexler was apparently wrong? Ha.

Please show me where the CRA's constitute a large percentage of the defaulted loans and then I might believe you. Forget Fannie and Freddie. It was lack of oversight and transparency in the market that led to this problem in the first place, and irresponsible lending on the part of banks. The banks made bad decisions and the market is punishing them. Shareholders would have stopped them if there had been more disclosure and less hiding of bad assets/debt. Because these banks held a lot of this bad debt off their books, shareholders really could not demand greater accountability because they simply didn't know what was going on. I am all in favor of the free market, but transparency is key. Excessive information asymetry is what caused this. It's common knowledge the delinquency rate on subprime loans is far higher than for prime loans. There are articles about this all the time. The delinquency rate on subprime is about one in three or some mind buggling number like that and it's obvious the CRA loans banks were forced to make were subprime loans. If the borrowers qualified for prime loans then the banks wouldn't have had to have a gun to their head to make the loan.

True, but we all know who will be to blame for this, and it's not Obama or McCain. The fact is this mess was created because of policies that pushed home ownership among deadbeats who had no business owning homes and Carter, Clinton, Raines, Greenspan and the Democrats in the senate deserve more blame for these policies than Bush. Please. The real fault belongs to the banks that gave out these loans to people they either knew didn't really qualify for them or people they didn't vet. This lack of vetting is an issue - and they're paying for it now. The other issue is lack of transparency - it is incredible that the regulations allow these banks and other financial institutions to hide some of this bad debt off their books. If they had been forced to show this bad debt on their books, shareholders would have held them more accountable and made them institute more careful policies on lending. You are so full of it. How do the Democrats in the Senate deserve much blame? Republicans were in control of Congress from 1994-2006, with a one year period in 2001 when Democrats controlled the Senate 51-49. Forget Raines, this falls squarely on the banks for not doing their jobs correctly, a regulatory system that allowed them to make bad loans and hide bad debt off their books, and bad management by Greenspan. The key is transparency. We need it. I don't know how the hell you could disagree with that. Under Clinton banks were forced to make deadbeat loans because of the CRA. The GOP tried to reform Fannie / Freddie in '05 but the Democrats blocked it. We already went through this. You should step back and try looking at things objectively every now and then.

True, but we all know who will be to blame for this, and it's not Obama or McCain. The fact is this mess was created because of policies that pushed home ownership among deadbeats who had no business owning homes and Carter, Clinton, Raines, Greenspan and the Democrats in the senate deserve more blame for these policies than Bush.

I think this is a desperation last recourse measure. No matter what happens it is probably going to be bad. But not doing anything, would have been worst (i.e. Depression). Welcome to socialized economy.... I'm thinking of this as some breathing room to put my financial house in order. Time to prepare for the next decade Honestly, a depression would have been better for this. We needed it. It's like we have a huge band aid on our nuts right now and instead of ripping it off in one motion and getting it over with (a depression) we are slowly pulling it off, putting it back on, ripping it a quarter of a way off, putting it back on, slowly pulling it off, pretending to rip it off, leaving it....leaving it...rippiiiiiiiiinnnnnng ...no just kidding lets leave it a little longer..... I wonder where are we getting the +1 trillion dollars needed for this mega plan? You gotta love it, borrow from your enemies (i.e. China) to buy debt that probably will never be collected. Only in America I've seen the $1 trillion number all over but whoever came up with it probably just pulled it out of his ass and the way the $1 trillion gets mentioned in the media it's as if they think the $1 trillion will be the cost but they forget or don't understand these are assets that will eventually get sold. On AIG, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up as a money maker for the goverment with the 11% interest on the $85 billion loan. AIG shareholders are trying to raise the money themselves to pay it off before the government takes the 80% ownership.

McCain is finally getting aggressive over Obama's connection to the crooks who ran Fannie and Freddie. He has an ad about the Raines connection and another about the Johnson connection and he's talking about it in his speech. This is from Wisconsin earlier today: Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent's trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search. This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote "extensive financial fraud" under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House. My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system.

Bush and Co. have made our economic situation worse, by borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a war in Iraq that was a complete farce, and then despite claiming that our nation is at 'war', giving several rounds of tax cuts, by borrowing MORE money. I don't believe that if Gore had been president, we would be in Iraq. It is debatable whether or not he would have authorized so many tax cuts. I tend to think not. Except that wars have in the past have had a positive impact on the economy. I know you like making everything about the war and blaming Bush, but really what's happening in the economy now is a result of activities that predate Bush and may even predate Clinton. I don't think they predate Clinton. I think the government did not do enough a few years ago to help us avoid this problem. We've seen this coming, but President Bush didn't do anything. You forget the GOP tried to reform Fannie and Freddie back in '05 but the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. What were they going to do? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190 You may want to google news it and look in '05.

Bush and Co. have made our economic situation worse, by borrowing trillions of dollars to fight a war in Iraq that was a complete farce, and then despite claiming that our nation is at 'war', giving several rounds of tax cuts, by borrowing MORE money. I don't believe that if Gore had been president, we would be in Iraq. It is debatable whether or not he would have authorized so many tax cuts. I tend to think not. Except that wars have in the past have had a positive impact on the economy. I know you like making everything about the war and blaming Bush, but really what's happening in the economy now is a result of activities that predate Bush and may even predate Clinton. I don't think they predate Clinton. I think the government did not do enough a few years ago to help us avoid this problem. We've seen this coming, but President Bush didn't do anything. You forget the GOP tried to reform Fannie and Freddie back in '05 but the Democrats blocked it in the Senate.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20...eorge_Bush.html If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness! full-fledged? WTF And you're point is? There are always people who say outrageous things, like the people that tied Iraq to 9-11. So what? My point is how the race card is being played...and not by only the left wing media, but by the Obama camp as well. He should be ashamed of his latest latino tv ad. Are you referring to the Limbaugh one? That one is absurd most of all because Limbaugh and McCain have nothing to do with one another. In fatc, Limbaugh does not like McCain, and it's possible the feeling is mutual. Either way McCain is much more pro-immigration than even Obama is, based on the fact that he sponsored the 'amnesty' bill, where Barack, who did vote for it, does not have pro-immigration credentials yet. Obama is definitely misrepresenting facts in that ad. I agree, but you don't see the media banging him in the head about the lies in the ad the way they on McCain with the education ad and the education ad was factually correct. Obama also has a Social Security ad out that's an outright lie but he gets another pass from the media. The bias this cycle has taken several steps for the worse.

I think it represents about 3% of the overall market but the S&P 500 is about 70%. It pisses me off in the news when they give you the Dow and the Nasdaq but ignore the S&P which is the one that matters to me.

I don't know why people look at the Dow... it's like looking at batting average.

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005 The United States Senate May 25, 2006 Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: 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. That'sthe same Franklin Raines who is Obama's economic adviser. Fannie / Freddie were in bed with Obama and the Democrats. McCain needs to ties them around Obama's neck. It's shouildn't be hard to do.

I'll put in the logical response to appease people like FutureGM "Look at the source" In fairness, there are a lot of giants of our economy that are supporting Obama. Warren Buffet being one of them. I just don't think Republicans have a monopoly on this issue, as many claim. Has Warren Buffet really come out to support Obama? I'd love to see that, I don't doubt you but I just don't see Buffet coming out to support Obama, and if he did I'd like to read what he has to say; I highly respect his opinion. I hope you don't mean donating money either, as it is quite common for large corporations (Buffet at this point is a corporation, of course) to donate money to both sides. He's supporting Obama. Read here: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iEoh4t...k875VIJDcq3FOKg Thanks. Like I said I do respect what the sage has to say, although I wish he gave some reasons as to why he is supporting Obama? He has always being a huge supporter of Democrats.

The S&P 500 is 24% off it's high last October. This is a bear market.

I hope my mortgage company goes belly up. Then hopefully I can find a way to payoff my note on pennines on the dollar. :lol Not so fast. They'll just sell those mortgages to another company and you'll have to pay them instead. You're not getting a free ride on someone else's failure. If he wants he could just walk away from the mortgage and rather than being called a deadbeat he would be called a victim. No, he would be a deadbeat. You have the mistaken belief that Democrats/liberals are okay with personal irresponsibility. That couldn't be the furthest thing from the truth. Like it or not the driving force behind the Democtratic party is to take care of the ones who don't take care of themselves with no questions asked.

While I am probably not going to vote for Obama, I have been fairly critical of the Bush regime and their liberal economic policy. The issue your candidate might have is his several of his top economic advisers in his campaign Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson were both CEO's of Fannie Mae. This mortgage mess is owned by both parties . Johnson was in charge of Obama's VP selection committee.

I don't know how you could call Roosevelt's foreign policy 'fascist'. I would, however, call Reagan, Bush Sr, some of Clinton, and certainly Bush Jr.'s policies very fascist. We are once again starting to try and overthrow democratically elected governments in South America that we don't like (Bolivia and Venezuela for instance). Reagan did the same thing in Central America and the Caribbean with his use of both overt and covert wars against governments we didn't like, but certainly posed no threat to us. Reagan and Bush Sr (until 1991) were good friends with Saddam's regime in order to go after the Iranians, until he invaded Kuwait. What "democratically elected governments" in Central America did Reagan try to overthrow? Well? not all in central america,but we have done it. Panama, Nicaragua, and Chile. In the middle east Iran. Those are off the top of my head. RONALD REAGAN DID NOT TRY TO OVERTHROW ANY DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN CENTRAL AMERICA. FutureGM is clueless about this. I hope he answers.

I don't know how you could call Roosevelt's foreign policy 'fascist'. I would, however, call Reagan, Bush Sr, some of Clinton, and certainly Bush Jr.'s policies very fascist. We are once again starting to try and overthrow democratically elected governments in South America that we don't like (Bolivia and Venezuela for instance). Reagan did the same thing in Central America and the Caribbean with his use of both overt and covert wars against governments we didn't like, but certainly posed no threat to us. Reagan and Bush Sr (until 1991) were good friends with Saddam's regime in order to go after the Iranians, until he invaded Kuwait. What "democratically elected governments" in Central America did Reagan try to overthrow? Well?