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.

 

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.

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.

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 CRA only comes into play to enforce lending to people that don't qualify for prime loans. So a great many CRA loans are in the subprime mess. Also, due to the credits that firms get for making CRA loans, some people that may have been eligible for prime loans were suffled into high interest, sub-prime situations in order to cash in on the government mandate. It is an act that must be repealed.

Fannie and Freddie contributed to this but I doubt they were the cause of it.

 

 

By '06 I think somewhere around 20% of outstanding home mortgages were held in the form of privately-issued, asset-backed securities.

 

And I don't think it's really fair to lump together the full doc Alt-A loans that Fannie and Freddie bought, with the no-doc, no credit, no down, interest only, 0% teaser rate ARMs of 2005 and 2006.

 

I'm not absolving the GSEs by any means, btw.

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

True, but we all know who will be to blame for this, and it's not Obama or McCain.

 

And its not Bush.

True, but we all know who will be to blame for this, and it's not Obama or McCain.

 

And its not Bush.

 

The Community Reinvestment Act.

 

I would pretty much ignore the criticism section, it is poorly writted and inadequately supported.

True, but we all know who will be to blame for this, and it's not Obama or McCain.

 

And its not Bush.

 

The Community Reinvestment Act.

 

I would pretty much ignore the criticism section, it is poorly writted and inadequately supported.

 

You want us to ignore the criticisms section because it shows there is disagreement about whether the CRA did indeed contribute to this financial meltdown more than independent mortgage companies which are not covered by the CRA. Clearly, there is no consensus, so don't here and try to act like the CRA is the reason for the meltdown.

True, but we all know who will be to blame for this, and it's not Obama or McCain.

 

And its not Bush.

 

Ok. No one is at fault. This was like an earthquake that no one saw coming. Nope. No one at fault.

 

Please!

...

True, but we all know who will be to blame for this, and it's not Obama or McCain.

 

And its not Bush.

 

Ok. No one is at fault. This was like an earthquake that no one saw coming. Nope. No one at fault.

 

Please!

 

 

It's not BUsh's fault, the main part of the blame goes to the bankers/Greenspan/Lenders who gave anyone who can sign their name hundreds of thousands of dollars in cheap credit that they couldn't pay back once the housing bubble did what was obvious to anyone with a brain did: Burst.

 

and NOW today I read this:

 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080923/financial_crisis_fdic.html

 

The director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which controls Fannie and Freddie, suggested Tuesday they could loosen lending standards to help more homebuyers qualify for a loan and stabilize the market.

 

 

Are you kidding me?!??!?!? This is so f***ing ridiculous, just how dumb are the people who pull the strings? That is how we got in this mess in the first place, loose credit, and now you want to loosen the credit?!?!? Reading sh*t like that makes me :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead times ten. It's almost like somebody put mrmarlinpride in charge of the United States banking industry.

 

I think I might be better off in Cuba at this point.

True, but we all know who will be to blame for this, and it's not Obama or McCain.

 

And its not Bush.

 

Ok. No one is at fault. This was like an earthquake that no one saw coming. Nope. No one at fault.

 

Please!

 

 

It's not BUsh's fault, the main part of the blame goes to the bankers/Greenspan/Lenders who gave anyone who can sign their name hundreds of thousands of dollars in cheap credit that they couldn't pay back once the housing bubble did what was obvious to anyone with a brain did: Burst.

 

and NOW today I read this:

 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080923/financial_crisis_fdic.html

 

The director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which controls Fannie and Freddie, suggested Tuesday they could loosen lending standards to help more homebuyers qualify for a loan and stabilize the market.

 

 

Are you kidding me?!??!?!? This is so f***ing ridiculous, just how dumb are the people who pull the strings? That is how we got in this mess in the first place, loose credit, and now you want to loosen the credit?!?!? Reading sh*t like that makes me :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead times ten. It's almost like somebody put mrmarlinpride in charge of the United States banking industry.

 

I think I might be better off in Cuba at this point.

 

Like I've said previously, we're looking at a number of factors that brought us to where we are today. First and foremost, bad lending practices. The buck starts with the mortgage companies and the banks for making bad loans. Second, the lack of transparency provided an incentive for lenders to keep giving out bad loans and to hide the bad assets they were holding. Had investors and shareholders been fully aware of the state of many of the bad assets these institutions were holding, they would have pressured those institutions to revamp their lending practices. There are rules, promulgated by the SEC and other bodies, that require certain levels of disclosure in financial statements (quarterly, yearly, etc.) and there are other rules that allow these institutions not to show certain assets unless certain events occur (but they're really just policing themselves). Over the course of the last 7-8 years, a few things have happened. First, the regulations have been weakened. Second, the SEC has not been enforcing the rules on the books (I know this for a fact because I know attorneys that work at the SEC).

 

So, in sum, the reasons for the collapse are bad lending practices and a lack of transparency. I guarantee you that shareholders would have held these lending institutions accountable had they known exactly what was going on. This lack of transparency can be traced to a loosening of regulations and the lack of enforcement of the existing rules.

 

I agree with the second part of your statement. If someone can't pay off the loan, don't give them one.

I should add that Greenspan is also partly at fault.

 

Regardless, you hold the incumbent party responsible, otherwise no one is responsible and we should stop having elections.

I'm to the point of turning off the TV and avoiding news. The talk on Washington is ridiculous on both sides.

 

I hope the GW administration stands firm and avoid loading this bail out with stuff to "help working families" (quoting politicians).

 

Can someone explain to me how the he11 is this a bail out on wall street? The value of those corporations is pretty close to worthless!

 

We shouldn't be losing sleep nowbecause a fricking CEO is walking out with 50 million. If you want to open a special investigation, do it outside this bill! Investors are ultimately responsible for putting management at the head of those corporations.

I should add that Greenspan is also partly at fault.

 

Regardless, you hold the incumbent party responsible, otherwise no one is responsible and we should stop having elections.

 

Obamapolitics, heh .. is working, so why change it

I should add that Greenspan is also partly at fault.

 

Regardless, you hold the incumbent party responsible, otherwise no one is responsible and we should stop having elections.

 

Chris Dodd is responsible for killing a bill that would have provided oversight for Fannie and Freddie , I doubt he will get booted out of office.

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 should add that Greenspan is also partly at fault.

 

Regardless, you hold the incumbent party responsible, otherwise no one is responsible and we should stop having elections.

 

 

I think your error is that you don't see the presidential election/position for what it really is: A popularity contest that is won by whoever markets their candidate better.

 

Just like Bill Clinton wasn't responsible for the 'boom' in the 90's, GWB isn't responsible for this mess. Until we can change what the presidency has become, and people start choosing their presidents based off of real issues and solutions and instead of petty pandering, the president will remain a puppet.

 

We need a game changer at the position.

I should add that Greenspan is also partly at fault.

 

Regardless, you hold the incumbent party responsible, otherwise no one is responsible and we should stop having elections.

 

Chris Dodd is responsible for killing a bill that would have provided oversight for Fannie and Freddie , I doubt he will get booted out of office.

 

Again, they had control of both chambers of Congress. You can't say one guy killed it. That's ridiculous.

You can't say that Bush shouldn't share ANY blame. That's absurd. I know that Clinton would be getting hammered a lot harder than Bush if this happened in say, 1998 instead of 2008. He's mostly being ignored now because he became irrelevant years ago, and we're about a month from selecting a new president who will have to deal with this mess for some time.

I should add that Greenspan is also partly at fault.

 

Regardless, you hold the incumbent party responsible, otherwise no one is responsible and we should stop having elections.

 

Chris Dodd is responsible for killing a bill that would have provided oversight for Fannie and Freddie , I doubt he will get booted out of office.

 

Again, they had control of both chambers of Congress. You can't say one guy killed it. That's ridiculous.

 

I assume you are familiar with how the senate works , one person can muck up, thwart , stall , many things , and as you no doubt are aware in the senate even the minority party provided they have at least 40 votes can block legislation . I would suggest you look at Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, Chris Dodd, then was the ranking member of the Banking Committee and is now its chair .The bill never made it out of committee. Chris Dodd is part of the problem not part of solution(btw he is one of many on both political sides who need to go)

The bottom line is that the party in power has to take responsibility. You keep on wanting to make little itty examples of Dodd being opposed to it, but last I checked Dodd is not the entire Democratic party. And, believe it or not, the rest of the Senate could have kept going if they had wanted to. You make Dodd sound like superman.

The bottom line is that the party in power has to take responsibility. You keep on wanting to make little itty examples of Dodd being opposed to it, but last I checked Dodd is not the entire Democratic party. And, believe it or not, the rest of the Senate could have kept going if they had wanted to. You make Dodd sound like superman.

 

 

I would recommend you check out how support for this legislation broke down by party . It is troubling the pass corrupt politicians like Dodd are receiving. I am sure you are aware while he was defending the way business was being conducted in the mortgage industry he received a sweetheart "VIP" mortgage from countywide. As far as little itty examples, if you feel oversight of fannie and freddie is a little itty example than I guess you feel one the major factors responsible for the economic downturn is not important.

You are excusing an entire party because one guy in the minority party was obstructing the legislation. The problem with your argument is that then politicians can always give excuses and not be held accountable. The only way to hold people accountable is to vote them out. If Dodd was indeed an obstructionist, then you should give money to the campaign of his opposition or some other way.

 

Bottom line is that the party in control has to take responsibility. In 1994, the American people punished Clinton because things had not gone all that well, so they elected a Republican Congress. The truth is that Republicans were obstructionists and didn't let him do what he wanted. But the fact of the matter was still that Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, so the blame had to go on Clinton and the Democrats. If this disaster had happened under Clinton's watch, you'd be calling for their heads, and rightly so. Spare me all this bulls***.

You are excusing an entire party because one guy in the minority party was obstructing the legislation. The problem with your argument is that then politicians can always give excuses and not be held accountable. The only way to hold people accountable is to vote them out. If Dodd was indeed an obstructionist, then you should give money to the campaign of his opposition or some other way.

 

Bottom line is that the party in control has to take responsibility. In 1994, the American people punished Clinton because things had not gone all that well, so they elected a Republican Congress. The truth is that Republicans were obstructionists and didn't let him do what he wanted. But the fact of the matter was still that Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, so the blame had to go on Clinton and the Democrats. If this disaster had happened under Clinton's watch, you'd be calling for their heads, and rightly so. Spare me all this bulls***.

 

First settle down there is no need to come unhinged we are exchanging viewpoints in a civil way or so I thought. Second , my response is based on your blame Bush for everything mentality. With respect to the economy Fannie and Freddie are major reasons for our downturn. Chris Dodd and alot of Democrats and some Republicans obstructed a bill that would provide real oversight over these institutions.

I am for holding everyone who helped protect Fannie and Freddie accoutable regardless of party . From your responses it appears you are for holding Bush and Republicans responsible but no Democrats when it is clear who wanted some oversight and who did not.