Nancy Pelosi’s Bi-Partisanship at Noon Today
September 29th, 2008 at 03:28pm Kevin Patrick
What the Congressional supporters of this bill fail to comprehend is that this bill bails out Wall Street AND Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the fiscally irresponsible unpopular President.
Tell me again why the House GOP should support this bill? And I write this as someone who supports its passage. If it’s that obvious to me, how freaking blind are Congressional leaders?
Entry Filed under: Congress, Corruption, Democrats
110 Comments
1. Pom Pom Girl | September 29th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Obama must call for Pelosi’s ouster. Obama is the nominee for his party and he must show leadership. Pelosi’s outburst of partisan blame sunk this vote and the Dow. Her lack of common sense must be punished.
2. hermie | September 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Pelosi and the Dems had a chance to get this bill passed, but they couldn’t help themselves and decided to kick the Republicans who swallowed their pride and negotiated in good faith.
This should teach the GOP that the Dems in Congress would rather score political points, any political points, than to work to solve things.
3. js | September 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
doesnt work that way…obama doesnt call any shots…pelosi…reid…and howard dean…they do…
when you get down to the real core of this…this originated under clinton…when they required banks and mortgage companies to give high risk loans to low income people…and guaranteed those loans in fannie mae and freddie mac…that began the subprime mortgage market…the free commissions…nobody was turned away…100% financing…just have a job and a social security number and you got a loan…
the prices on houses skyrocketed…driving rental units up…apartments became condo’s, and the price to rent was the same as a mortgage payment…for a few years…until the interest rates adjusted…then you couldnt find a place to live…it became a real mess…all the while…fannie and freddie guaranteed the loans with tax dollars…not profits…not bonds…but direct guarantee’s from unca’sam…
for the last 8 years they have been warned…so they knew this was going to happen eventually…you dont guarantee bad loans and walk away unscathed…this whole thing was created in the clinton administration under alan greenspan…and the DNC…
there is nobody else to blame…
4. js | September 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Rewind the clock to the early 1990s: President Clinton, with the blessing of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, advanced an agenda which they called, The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream. (Do a Web search.) In short, it encouraged mortgage lenders to loosen-up their requirements for those seeking mortgages, thus making home ownership available to those who otherwise wouldn’t qualify - in other words, for those who couldn’t afford it.
The government, as a result, relaxed requirements for the federal guarantee on those mortgages: lowered income to payment ratio, relaxed income verification, reduced (or eliminated) down payments, etc. Mortgage lenders, as ones who issued those government backed loans, were encouraged - or possibly directed - to follow suit. (I say directed to follow suit because those lenders had to follow government rules if they wanted to continue to be able to issue FHA loans.)
Fast forward to 2000: The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream, is a “….. public-private partnership working to dramatically increase homeownership opportunity in America. Under the directive of President Clinton, the Partnership was formed in 1995 by nearly 60 national organizations that care about homeownership. Today, the Partnership consists of 66 members representing lenders, real estate professionals, home builders, nonprofit housing providers, and federal, state and local governments.
HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo said: “The good news as we mark National Homeownership Week is that homeownership in America is at record levels. But the bad news we face is that many of HUD’s homeownership and other programs are under attack by some members of Congress. The success of our homeownership initiatives proves that HUD in combination with local organizations can further our goal of even more homeownership and fulfill our commitment to liberty and equity for all.”
Okay, isn’t that nice? I wonder? Who were those members of Congress “attacking” it? What were they attacking? And what were they predicting?
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=274037&messageID=2597045
the straw that broke wall streets back…
5. js | September 29th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
so the truth is…capitalism was doing just fine…until clinton and the DNC got thier way…and forced lending institutions to meet thier requirements to dish out risky loans if they wanted to be able to issue FHA backed mortgages…
6. searp | September 29th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Pelosi took Bush to the woodshed. This blog used to be named “blogs for Bush”. Hmm.
I will simply note that this blog is ALSO TAKING BUSH TO THE WOODSHED:
“fiscally irresponsible unpopular President”
So what was not to like in Pelosi’s remarks?
I think this blog is terminally confused.
7. Jeremiah | September 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
From watching Fox News it appears the bill has failed.
8. hermie | September 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Pelosi took Bush to the woodshed?
Then why did it turn out her shooting herself in the foot?
9. searp | September 29th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Hermie: did you listen to her speech? Try it, you will like it, because it is all about the failed policies of a fiscally irresponsible President, just as the blog post here said.
10. Nate | September 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
well, the bill failed and the dow is down almost 800!
11. Pom Pom Girl | September 29th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Bailout Vote Breakdown
The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans joining 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans.
Keep in mind that if the Democrats had thought it was such a great idea and had all voted for it, and if all republicans voted against it the vote would have been 235 to 198.
32% of republicans did back this plan but since the dems could not get 175 of their members to back it or 74.46% they lost. Nancy Pelosi was only able to get 59.5% to go for this plan which is pretty luke warm when you consider that as the majority party in the House they control the end resulting plan.
12. Pal Joey | September 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
History Lesson.
FDR created Fannie Freddie
LBJ privatized it in 1968.
In both instances it was a Democrat congress who gave approval and set it up.
Fannie and Freddie were created to correct a perceived error / injustice in the marketplace because banks would not give loans to mediocre and poor risks. This distorted the marketplace and with each tweak to up the percent of american home ownership the tentacles of this monster worked its way further into the economy. This is a Democrat created socialist program and one has to first understand history before one repeats it.
13. searp | September 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Pom Pom:
Let’s see: the House Republican leadership, Boehner, Blunt, Bachus (Finance), Cantor all voted for the bill. Evidently, they couldn’t get more than about a third of their caucus membership to go along.
Pelosi, Hoyer and Frank all voted for it, and got a significant majority of Dems to go along.
Tell me again who cannot lead?
14. liberalD | September 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I’m sorry I don’t understand your point. You are blaming Pelosi because she wasn’t nice to some people and so they didn’t vote for it. What are we in kindergarten? Pathetic…
15. phnx | September 29th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
syrup:
1. Please provde the specific Bush policies that led to the financial crisis.
2. The dems have a majority in the House and could have passed this if Pelosi and Frank were really leading their party. If the legislation was so good, why do you think that 95 dems voted against the legislation.
3. Do you support this legislation? If so why?
16. phnx | September 29th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
One more question? Why would you support this Bush Administration bill when you have opposed absolutely everything that Bush has done in the past?
Remember WMDs???
17. Retired Spook | September 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Peter Brimelow has a great piece at MarketWatch today that connects some of the dots in this meltdown. Politicians may continue to play the blame game for partisan political advantage, but, IMHO, history will show that this was largely the result of a massive misuse of government power attempt to manipulate the free market.
18. Observer20 | September 29th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I am so tired of it. Hiding behind guises of fairness and justice, the power-wielders tar and feather the opponent under the false flag of truce. Admitting to the faults of the others while ignoring their own, hypocrites and liars all.
Notice how Pelosi acted like the Democrats were blame-free and only pointed out the shortcomings of Republicans. Bi-partisan indeed.
Leaders need to discard their old hatreds to assume true responsibility.
19. liberalD | September 29th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
retired spook - do you understand absolutely nothing? You just want to believe that complete free market economics solves everything - it doesn’t. Without some regulations this caused
(1) the stock market crash that lead to the depression - and was only bailed out by FDR and the new deal
(2) Chile’s failed experiment in the 70s with the chicago Freedman moto that lead to the greatest economic collapse in that countries economic history
shall I go on? Rather than see the writing on the wall you will point and shake and fear that everything has to be completely free market despite the contrary
20. HeyHey | September 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Waaaaa! Think about how bad this is for McCain. He “suspended” his campaign last week and promised to get the House GOP on board. The bill failed today because those very same Republicans bailed once Pelosi hurt their feelings. McCain put his leadership credentials on the line and failed. Not a little fail, but an Epic Fail. And the worst part about it is he and his campaign have been claiming for the past 48 hours that it was McCain’s leadership that got the bill passed.
Sad….
21. FmrMarine | September 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
syrup
yeah real leaders….barney fag, and nancy piglowsey.
True pure partisan hacks.
The whole RAT party stinks to high heaven.
We will be remembered in history for being destroyed from within…..thanks donkRATS!
22. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Can anyone say social engineering? And a failed oversight chiefly due to Franks reluctance to admit anything wrong. Dispute that.
Spook is absolutely right.
23. searp | September 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
phnx:
I was pointing out a little… mmm issue associated with a blog that got upset when Pelosi trashed Bush, even as the blog itself was trashing Bush.
I can take a position on a policy based on the merits, but it is not as if my comments really had anything to do with my personal positions. I am flattered, however, that you are interested.
Let me give it a go:
(1) I feel that all in favor of financial deregulation were wrong. This includes, of course, almost all Republicans and often Democrats. Since Bush has been President since 2001, I figure he could have done a lot of things to let the air out of the housing market more slowly. He didn’t, but he was aided and abetted by a wrongheaded Fed. So: wrong on deregulation, spectacularly wrong, and inactive when he should have done something prudent.
He was too busy trying to spin the Iraq war, I suppose. You know, the walk and chew gum thing.
(2) Ha ha. First, there were many Dems who were opposed to the bill on the merits, as are many ordinary citizens. Second, of course, a majority of Dems voted for it, and not a thin majority. Nothing could get through the Senate without Republican support, and nothing becomes law without the Prez’s signature, so the Republicans had to be on board. They weren’t.
(3) Well, I will watch my retirement savings evaporate until something is done, and since I am 54 I would prefer not to wait a couple of decades for these savings to recover, so yes, I am for it, as long as we buy something with the money and gain if the investment gains.
(4) As I explained above, I actually take positions based on my perceptions of merit. No Child Left Behind = OK. Big tax cuts that have bankrupted the government because that same president and his lapdog congress spent like drunken sailors = stupid. Wars started on incorrect premises = reprehensible. Social Security “reform” = I eat dog food if I dare to retire since my damn 401 has cratered, so that sucks big time.
Hope that clarifies things.
24. searp | September 29th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
FmrMarine: your condition is showing.
25. Obama08 | September 29th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Although plenty of Democrats voted against the package, the impetus for the opposition came, I am sorry to say, from conservative Republicans. (Two-thirds of House Republicans voted “nay”, compared to fewer than 50% of Democrats.) Hearing the explanation of some Republicans — that they were offended by Nancy Pelosi’s speech in which she blamed Bush for our current woes — makes the outcome even more risible and baffling. Petulance at Democratic partisanship is no reason to send the economy down the tubes. At a moment like this, I am ashamed to call myself a conservative.
-Max Boot
26. searp | September 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Spook: I think that article is hilarious. You would think that someone put a gun to the bankers’ heads and said: “make bad loans or else”.
And then the dark hints of collusion between unnamed people on Wall Street and unnamed people in Washington on the LTCM bail out. Hey, people collude, and if that guy had done him homework he would have had some names for us.
What a piece of trash.
27. Rich | September 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
So is Obama for tis plan or against it? he has not stated publicly. He claims he has been making calls. Great, what has he been telling them to do?
28. searp | September 29th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Rich: McCain clearly didn’t round up his people, and he was the one that wanted to be our savior. Guess that worked real well.
29. bongoman | September 29th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
It’s Clinton’s fault!!!!
LOL.
30. Jim Oliver | September 29th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Tom Tancredo supported it. Quote:
“This vote I cast today would be the one I have to live with for the rest of my life,” Tancredo said. “I tossed and turned with it. I asked the Lord for guidance.”
And then he voted yes.
So, Jesus is for the bill (or Tancredo and all those “consevatives” who claim to hear guidance from the Lord are lying?)
Mark and the yahoos here are against it.
Go Figure.
31. SEW | September 29th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Jim Oliver states Trancredo is Jesus? What a yahoo. Jesus is for the bill?
Here’s one from an Indiana Democrat.
“We are now in the golden age of thieves. And where I come from we put thieves in jail, we don’t bail them out.” — Rep. Pete Visclosky, Democrat
32. Rich | September 29th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Searp- is obama for the plan or against it? has he been telling members of congress to vote for it or against it? If you don’t know his position, why don’t you know his position? I’m waiting to hear you spin this.
33. Moosetracks | September 29th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
McCain’s first test of leadership and he failed. His march on Washington to solve the “crisis” seems to have fizzled. He wants to lead the country and can’t even get a few Repugs to vote for the country’s best interest instead of their own.
If he can’t lead then at least send Palin.
34. steinerla | September 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
so house repub.s voted based on Pelosi’s words? Seems pretty spineless and partisan to me.
Hopefully this won’t be erased for being “off topic” but, here goes: The bank I bank with, a local credit union has lost…guess how many loans. Go ahead, guess. Alright, I’ll tell you: zero. That’s right. In their fifty or sixty year history they haven’t lost one loan. Why? Is it because Clinton passed a law allowing them to loan to whomever they pleased? No. It’s, wait for it, BECAUSE THEY DON”T LOAN TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T DESERVE THE MONEY!!!!!!
Want to hear something even more unsettling: I live in or around many recent Mexican immigrants and am intimately familiar with their lives. Guess what a lot of them did. Go ahead..guess. Alright, I’ll tell you: They refinanced into a relatives name(probably using an ITIN number(which is easily fraudulently attained - I’ll explain if you like)), got someone to overvalue their home, sent that cash to Mexico then walked away from their loans….
The point is, you want to spread the blame around, spread it all around: our whole entire system is broken and corrupt. From illegal immigration to healthcare(some say skyrocketing costs is one reason many can’t pay their mortgages) to outsourcing to the financial system. Neither one of these clowns is going to fix it. How about this Barr guy? Maybe Nader?
Anyone ever read “Atlas Shrugged”? Read it now and it will send chills down your spine.
35. js | September 29th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
the world is crumbling around the liberals…and the best thing they can do is deny…deny..deny…
still doesnt change the truth…
capitalism was doing great until clinton and his cronies made banks give loans to people who couldnt afford them…the rest was greed…exploiting the hole in money bags…
the whole thing lies on the demoncrats…no excuses
36. js | September 29th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
so why didnt this bill include cutting the FHA…in real life…FHA loans and guarantee’s are what propelled the whole mess…no FHA…and capitalism will have to deal with real life…
37. Moosetracks | September 29th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
FmrMarine | September 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
With comments such as these, me thinks you spent the day having your heads filled with mush by comedian Rush Limbaugh and baby jesus Hannity.
38. William of Orange | September 29th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
..I guess the ultimate message that can be taken from this is that congress and government were the root cause of this dating from..
..when?
..and they were not prescient enough to see the problem coming, got themselves boxed in at the last moment and, in the final analysis, blinked.
I honestly do not believe that the great unwashed will care a whit whether the problem has an (R) or a (D) after it as their businesses can’t get credit, start to fail, and their investments melt away to nothing.
Guess that’s why congress has the 9% approval rating.
While I do believe everyone’s fingerprints are all over this, should Obama get elected along with Reid and Pelosi, they sure as sh-t should begin delivering.
I doubt that John Q. Public want to keep hearing that “it’s the Republicans’ fault” much longer.
39. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG | September 29th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
js | September 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Well yet again you are wrong. This did not happen because of anything Clinton did it happened because there was a notional desire by those within the housing market both on the mortgage lending side and the borrowing side who conspired to have things they could not afford. The Lenders who sold mortgages to Bear Stearns and had them backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saw only profit and never thought they would be stumped in the end.
While it is easy to politicize this debacle the question that the markets begged today were what happens next. My prediction is that the credit market will exhale over the Rosh Hashana holidays staying a few hundred points lower to flat over the next two sessions.
The Dow really means less in this than the TED Spread and the price of gold.
The average American is allowing class jealousy to be used to hang an entire generation of America’s children. This is a bailout but it is a necessary bailout. The largest investment banks were so frightened to allow anyone to know just how deep in debt they were due to loss of collateral value of mortgage paper that no bottom could ever have been reached. If the Treasury had pushed the likes of Bear and Lehman in October 2007 you would never have been passed the talking point about the CRA or even had to deal with anything more than a Dow that slipped to 12 000 and an S&P that went no lower than 1300.
Now your goose is cooked and there is no time to fix it. The T bill Eurodollar spread was over 350; the credit market isn’t tight old boy the crfedit market has been strangled.
40. Jim Oliver | September 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Guys, the reason the bill failed is that everyone wanted somebody else to pass the bill.
It’s not rocket science, it’s just that there were too many pols on both sides thinking they could get away with a “no” vote and still let the thing pass.
That’s why Tancredo voted for it–he’s retiring. He doesn’t have to face the voters and knows the bill was likely to be the only one that would come up–presumably he thought the republican negotiators weren’t just a bunch of idiots and they got the best bill written that they could under the circumstances.
So he voted yes, because he thought action was needed, and that this bill would provide some relief. And now we have a bunch of polls offering mindless populist platitudes, which, judging by the reactions around here, seem to be having the desired effect.
Politics as usual–but no doubt we’ll have a bigger bill on Thursday, filled with bridges to nowhere and anti flag-burning amendments and God knows what, and Nancy and George will have better counts of the Yeas and Nays before the vote starts. I’ll be it’ll be even bigger than before, and worse.
Unless a few banks fail before then, and take our savings with them…THEN the howling will really start, about those nasty obstructionist republicans and how they hate America. Nothing new, just more debt that will never be repaid and even lower ratings for just about every politician from here to Wassilla. John McCain will have started and stopped his campaign 3 times by then, and Obama will have made, oh at least a dozen phone calls.
So chill out all–we lowly folks get screwed, as always, and China keeps printing monopoly money and gives it to us–were you really expecting anything different?
41. Moosetracks | September 29th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
35. js | September 29th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Too funny that after all these years Repugs still give the Bill Clinton did it excuse. Who in the hell was in charge of Congress during much of the Clinton years? Who drafted the bills full of deregulation policies? Who released the bills full of deregulation policies from committee? Repugs, Repugs, Repugs.
I really LOL when I hear the wingnut spin that a bunch a poor people and illegal immigrants took down the Harvard and Wharton educated Wall Street types by “tricking” them into giving them loans they could not afford.
42. JinnyB | September 29th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
My 401(k): Destroyed or severely Damaged. I accept this.
The United States Constitution: Saved. This was worth an election, if it ends up costing that.
The ABSOLUTE RAGE of Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, and Reid at being “cheated” out of “their” billions and millions in kickbacks.
PRICELESS…
43. JinnyB | September 29th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Everyone on the news is in an absolute panic - the SKY IS FALLING, WaMU went into receivership, Wachovia got sold off, and OTHER BANKS MAY FAIL. They’re all but screaming -
The market is down 777 points - woe, doom, and gloom.It’s the end of the world ! It;s going to be like the 1929 depression by Wednesday!!!!
WE MUST PASS A BAILOUT !!!! PANIC!!!!!!! You won’t be able to buy a house with bad credit!!!! You won’t be able to buy a new car with bad credit!!!!!!! You won’t be able to buy a washer and dryer with bad credit!!!!!!! It’s THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bull-crap. Just stop. Take a deep breath. And calm down. GET A GRIP. Everyone needs to stop letting the media whip them into a frenzy - which the media will do if you let them - that’s what they are good at.
For one thing, this is called a market CORRECTION which would normally happen every few years - and the stock market hasn’t had a major correction in nearly 20 years now. In 1987 I happened to be at my computer working on a piece of stock-market tracking software - called MetaStock - and watched the market drop, tick by tick, in real time. Humph, I said… And I say the same thing today. Humph…
The S&L crisis in 1987 saw 747 S&Ls fail, and over 1,600 bank failures. Black Monday they called it - Wall Street Bankers were jumping out of windows. But, average people, like me, for example, weren’t affected one bit and I suspect that the majority of the rest of you won’t be affected either.
Tonight, I’m going to WATCH THE WORLD STOCK MARKETS MELT DOWN and TOMORROW WE’LL ALL BE UNEMPLOYED AND STARVING. * NOT *. Tonight I’ll go to bed as usual, tomorrow I’ll get up, eat breakfast, as usual, and since I don’t buy washers and dryers, or new cars on a daily basis, I’m not likely to notice that much of anything is happening as I catch the bus to work, nor is anyone else.
If this is a normal correction - then the market has a long ways to go to find support - it needs to retrace to about 9,000. That’s another 2,000 points of correction that is likely to take place over the next couple of days. It is NOT the END OF THE WORLD. It is a long-overdue normalization.
Quite frankly, most of the market panic and most of todays 777 point drop is due to speculators that bought in expecting to make money when the 700 Billion dollar bailout passed. Now they’re selling, because those stocks aren’t worth much, really, except as a gamble on a bailout. Take a look at the sectors of the market that got hit the worst, and at those that DIDN’T.
Just calm down, don’t panic, and go to work tomorrow, as usual. If you shut off the TV news for a couple of days, you won’t even be able to tell anything is “going on”…
Yet another “manufactured crisis”, whipped up by people that aren’t old enough to remember 1987, and who, frankly, don’t have the slightest clue about what just happened in the House today. Think about this - when voting for a President - experience MATTERS!
Today a war with an outcome no less serious than WWII was won by brave men that took a stand.
Today 228 heroes stood up in the House of Representatives and saved the United States Constitution.
Today 205 traitors tried to shred it, and turn the United States into a socialist state.
One voted “Present”.
It would be wise to remember the names of those 228 heroes, support their campaigns, and vote for them on election day.
It would be equally wise to remember the names of the 205 traitors that just tried to destroy the United States, come election day.
And it would be also be VERY wise to remember that people that vote “PRESENT” aren’t heroes, they’re just traitors that are too cowardly to go “on the record” as having taken a stand either way…
44. Fredrick Schwartz | September 29th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Happy New Year Wingnuts!
The more I hear you guys blaming Clinton and lying about the source of the credit crisis caused by the housing bubble the more I laugh.
Which do you think is changing more minds. The lies about CRA and FHA that most people in America don’t understand or don’t care about or the power of Tina Fey to channel the greatest political blunder in the history of politics– the nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be GOP VP?
Enjoy weasels I’m off for 2 days.
45. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Moosetracks,
8th cheerleaders use the words “me thinks”.
Trying to explain the origin od this mess to someonw of your intellect would be like explaining it to those 8th grade cheerleaders and I just don’t have vocabulary that equals “me thinks”
Pound sand. You’re too stupid to understand.
46. JinnyB | September 29th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
You’re off for 2 days?
HALLELUHA ! PRAISE THE LORD!
Ding-dong the troll is gone, which old troll, the Schwartz-gate troll. Ding-dong the stupid troll is gone….
47. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
By 2004, all of the elements of the current financial collapse had been in place for several years. The aggressive approach to enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) started under Bill Clinton in 1998, and the seemingly endless appetite for paper by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had turned massive amounts of bad loans into mortgage-backed securities to spread their cancer throughout the system. In 2004, a year after the Bush administration tried to tighten regulation and oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress was told yet again that disaster loomed. The Democratic response is instructive to seeing who really sat back and allowed this collapse to occur (via Power Line):
Highlights of this eight-minute video:
Maxine Waters: Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasnt broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines. [Raines would barely avoid prosecution for fraud.]
Gregory Meeks: Im just pissed off at OFHEO [the regulators trying to warn Congress of insolvency at the GSEs], because if it wasnt for you, I dont think wed be here in the first place. Theres been nothing that indicated thats wrong with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own The question that then comes up is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs.
Lacy Clay: This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.
Barney Frank: I dont see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems.
Take a good look through this video in 2004, and ask yourself who on this panel wanted more regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and which members spent their time attacking the regulators. When Barack Obama talks at debates about how the past eight years of regulatory laissez-faire created the problem, he may want to review the transcripts of these hearings and note that Democrats repeatedly undermined regulators and called them everything from incompetent to bigoted in their rush to keep the status quo at Fannie and Freddie.
In 2005, Fortune published a lengthy anaylsis of the impending crash of Fannie Mae, and included this altercation between OFHEO and Congress:
Two weeks later Falcon and Raines faced off against each other in a hearing before the House subcommittee on capital markets, which was chaired by Baker. Consider the circumstances. Falcon was Fannies regulator and had leveled serious charges, amounting to fraud, against Fannie Mae. Most CEOs would have seen the wisdom of humility at this point, but Raines showed little. These accounting standards are highly complex and require determinations on which experts often disagree, he said, adding that there were no facts that supported OFHEOs charge that Fannie executives had deferred an expense in 1998 to earn bonuses.
And most of the Democrats present agreed with him. This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines, said Congressman William Lacy Clay of Missouri. Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank said, I see nothing in here that suggests that safety and soundness are an issue. Other Democrats complained that the mere fact of releasing the report could increase the cost of home-ownership.
Is it possible that by casting all of these aspersions you potentially are weakening this institution in the market, that you are potentially weakening the housing market in this country? Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama demanded. When Falcon tried to answer, Davis acted like a prosecutor grilling a hostile witness. He wanted a one-word answer: yes or no. Is that possible? he asked again.
I have never seen anyone treated as disrespectfully as Armando Falcon was by the Democrats and by Franklin Raines, recalls one congressional aide. Adds Andrew Cuomo: I credit him for not folding and not caving and not running, because he took a tremendous beating.
Unfortunately for the Democrats at this hearing, Raines then doubled down and demanded that the SEC give a second opinion on his business practices. After an investigation, the SEC agreed with Falcon and demanded that Fannie Mae restate its earnings all the way back to 2001 at which point Raines fraud got uncovered. OFHEO had been correct, and the Democrats in this committee meeting had done their level best to interfere with the regulator to cover up for Raines fraud.
The Democrats attacking the regulator here didnt do so out of some deep conviction against government regulation. They wanted to keep the gravy train rolling on questionable mortgages in order to endear themselves to the working class, and didnt mind smearing the OFHEO regulator as a racist in order to succeed. The Republicans who wanted more oversight didnt demand it as socialists looking for a government takeover of the financial sector, either, but because they saw the impending disaster looming for Fannie Mae.
Democrats distorted the market through the CRA and through Fannie and Freddies massive securitizing of bad debt, and then blocked regulators from doing their jobs. Thats the real story of this collapse.
48. Observer20 | September 29th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
JinnyB,
Thank you for posting that. That was a breath of fresh air.
Looking at the immediate world around me, I’m not really affected that much. I don’t have many savings in stocks. Yet I guess we all feel obligated to look at the world not immediately around us and assume what it does to others.
While I don’t think we can say one way or the other what, exactly, this current crisis entails, you do bring up a good point about how the market always resets itself, and emphasizes how important it is to look back at our past.
49. phnx | September 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Thanks for answering searp.
I think you miss the point of the support or lack of support from those conservatives on this blog. If there is one thing hat most of us are upset about is the complete lack of fiscal responsibility from Washington. We expect that of Democrats, we do not expect that of Repiblicans and if there is one major failing of President Bush is that he, with the complicity of congress, has buried us in debt.
I asked you those questions to understand your position, which seems to be pretty well baised on partanship on one hand, and self interest on the other. I am not saying this is wrong. But I don’t think that we…you, me and the average taxpayer has any idea if this is the right course of action.
The President, the Dem leadership, and Paulson (former hear of Goldman Sachs), were and are all too eager to throw money at this problem without a reasoned debate and discusssion about the options.
Over 400 economists including sevderal nobel laureats are against the quick fix has been proposed.
As originally proposed Paulson wanted a $700 billion balnk check. Congress is proud to say they are only giving him a $250 Billion blank check, along with a $100 Billion blank check for the President, and a promise of another $350 Billion if they need it. For what? How is this going to be used.
We are told that this is a good deal and we’ll actually make money on this investment. Huhh??? We will be buying non performing loans for $$$$ that are worth pennies, on the hope that some time in the future the property values will increase and allow us to recover our investment and then some. Hogwash.
If you are 54 you are old enough to remember the RTC, Resolution Trust Corporation, that cost us taxpayers a pretty penny. This will make that look like chump change.
There are other issues lurking in the background that few seem to know about much less understand.
The NYT saturday edition had an intersting and scary article about Credit Default Swaps which spells REALLY BIG TROUBLE down the road. Credit Default Swaps were created to permit lenders to buy an insurance policy in the event that one of their debtors defaults. Sounds good so far. Problem is that theseare completey unregulated. They have been used to permit SPECULATORS to essentially BET against companies, ie. banks, insurance companies, brokerages and the like, and if they fail, the speculators collect.
Just as increases in short interest will drive down stock prices, increases in Default Credit Swaps destroy confidence in companies and the markt as a whole.
We are now debating a $700 Billion bailout package. Sounds like a lot of money doesn’t it?
Well it might interest you to know that the amount of Credit Default Swaps increased from $631 Billion in 2001 to $10 TRILLION by 2005, which was equal to the amount of Bank and non bank loans as well as all Corporate and Foreign Bonds.
The amount of Bank and non bank loans combined with Corporate and Foreign Bonds which can be insured now totals about $17 Trillion while Credit Default Swaps outstanding total over $55 TRILLION. Big time speculators are betting on the demise of the world financial system.
I doubt that most of the politicians in washington understand this. But Paulson certainly does. Pardon me for being suspicious.
Unless this is addressed, we have no hope of begining to dig our way out of this mess.
50. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG | September 29th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Australian markets tumble 5% in first 25 minutes this morning.
Japan’s Nikkei down only 5.5% after futures showed as much as an 8% drop.
51. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Is there any liberal smart enough to address post #47?
52. Sarah Bloch | September 29th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
47. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Ugh!
Enough already!
Virtually everyone in the Known Universe knows this is a lie. Where are the bankers and the loan officers and the vice presidents of CRA regulated banks that would be howling this from rooftops if this were the case? I’d suggest neocon you stop looking for people to blame based on your partisan beliefs, pop up some popcorn and watch a once in a lifetime correction of capitalism.
53. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Sarah,
If you thought with any thing other than with what’s between your legs, you’d realize this is not a market problem, this is a unregulated greed problem and governments desire to manipulate the market making mortgages affordable to those that can’t afford them.
Just lay on your back, it’s what you do best anyway.
54. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Virtually everyone in the Known Universe knows this is a lie. - idiot liberal woman
This in response to the FACTS laid out in post #47, and the actual responses from Democratic leaders.
Facts are now lies, according to liberals. Just so everyone knows.
55. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG | September 29th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
47. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm.
I’ll have a go.
The size of the US housing marjet is about 46 MMMM USD. The percentage of that that was issues by CRA banks is a mere 9 MMMM USD. The default rate of all loans issued by CRA banks is 6.8% or 612 MMM USD. That figure represents 1% of what the total value of the US housing market was at the peak of the housing bubble in the winter of 2005,– 70 MMMM USD.
I know you wish to lay partisan blame but in the end what made this go pear shaped was the greed of the lenders and those who bundled crap mortgage paper with prime mortage paper and profited from the effort.
I guarantee that after this election and when the bottom is found in credit, housing and equities whether nothing is done and it hurts really bad for two quarters or the system is rescued and there is a bounce by April 2009 that no one will ever repeat any of these right wing talking points.
How come none of the talking heads on Fox have not said a word about “banks being forced” to make risky loans? Are you mad?? Banks could not be forced to make risky loans they made risky loans because they had a place to dump their risk!
But I get it mate that you are catering to the dumbest of the right wing constituency those who revile those who can make money in finance and those who feel when Wall Street loses somehow Main Street wins.
56. searp | September 29th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
A reasoned debate isn’t going to make a cowpie any easier to eat. It may sweeten it somehow, but it won’t turn it into a hamburger.
If, as some here say, we don’t have any reason to be worried, I say great, I will just ride out the correction and things will be OK. I am not of this persuasion.
My brother the restaurant owner says it is a bloodbath in Clearwater - restaurants are the canary in the coal mine. Automakers will go next, they run on credit. Unemployment will shoot up as more businesses close. There is a reason all the business organizations are for action, like yesterday.
I am aware of the credit swaps and the securitized credit card debt, etc. I suppose this can either make us freeze up solid or we get to work trying to get the credit markets and therefore the economy running again.
As to dumping my 401K to save the Constitution, I didn’t actually realize we were at such a dramatic pass. Perhaps I can be given a citation? Something like “if the government intervenes in the economy then this document is null and void” will do nicely.
Now as to the blame: plenty to go around, but myself, I think the anti-government, anti-regulation ideology of the Republicans basically ensures bracing disasters of this sort on a regular basis. Perhaps, as some suggest, it is better to be poor but shorn of any taint of moral hazard.
Blaming Freddie, Fannie and lax regulation for our current sorry pass is so… myopic that it is difficult to comment. I will just say that phnx is right, there is plenty more crap sloshing around in the system, and Fannie and Freddie were minor offenders in the mortgage debacle - more of their loans were pretty good quality.
Nope, there is a systemic problem because in the absence of regulation Ponzi schemes flourish. Simple as that - many “greater fools” out there.
57. Jay24 | September 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole thing was planned in advance by the liberals. What with the election coming up by the time the press pounds it into the ground that the GOP broke the “bipartisan” compromise that McCain was ’supposed” to broker, his chances will likely suffer.
58. phnx | September 29th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Sarah,
You don’t seem to understand the issues do you.
Greed on the part of mortgage lenders co-incided with the interests of Demorcats to provide cost free benefits to their constituents. Community Activist groups like ACORN and NACA, were all to eager to collect the $2000 origination fee from every one of their low income clients that they were able to put into a mortgage. They used provisions in the CRA to force banks to make a percentage of loans they would never make to unqulaified applicants. As long as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were willing to accept these loans everything was hunky dory.
The Red flags on this practise were raised by the Bush administaration, in 2003, by OFHEO, and Republicans in 2004, and by John McCain in 2005 and 2006. Each time the dems blocked any increased oversight or regulation.
The Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae house of cards initiated what we are now exeriencing.
59. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I know you wish to lay partisan blame but in the end what made this go pear shaped was the greed of the lenders and those who bundled crap mortgage paper with prime mortage paper and profited from the effort. - Carlton
You’re exactly right Carlton and many of those bankers, mortgage brokers etc, should be prosecuted and imprisoned. That doesn’t excuse the fact that people like Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson and Barney Frank created a great enviroment for them to be greedy and then failed to impose regulation, as urged, when red flags wet up, claiming nothing was wrong.
Barney Frank should be investigated and should resign.
Now that being said, I’d like every member of congress to submit their resignations and all of them should be up for a special election next yera. We just don’t need change, we need top to bottom reform.
Again, this isn’t a problem with capitalism, this is a problem with governments manipulation of the market and their partisan and cowardly manner of not owning the responsibility.
60. phnx | September 29th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
The CRAs are only part of the problem. Republican constituents like the construction industry insisted upon loose credit so they could continue to grow. So while Republicans may have been decrying the CRA abus, virtually nothing was said about the practise of zero down loans and reverse equity loans popular in Florida and California. Anyone with any sense knew that this was a bad practise and would come crashing down as soon as the market demand cooled off.
Ponzy scheme does come to mind and it seems that there is enough complicity to go around both parties.
BTW: To our the smug foreigners on the blog…if you think that todays 2% loss of your currency against the dollar, or the 4% slide in you equity markets was big…just wait until tomorrow.
61. CanadianObserver | September 29th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
57. Jay24 | September 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole thing was planned in advance by the liberals.
————————————–
Wow! That sure would take some super duper planning. Didn’t think I would ever hear liberals given so much credit by the opposition.
If liberals could engineer such an exercise, then running the country should be a cake walk, eh, Jay 24?
62. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
To correct this problem; people need go to jail and partisans need to resign. Pelosi was an absolute disgrace today and failed to lead 40% of her party to approve her endorsed program. She is also stabbing in the heart the very people across the aisle she needs support of. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MORE INCOMPETENT LEADER.
With the possible exception of Harry Reid.
Where’s the private capital? This needs to be JV between government and private sector. Buffet infuse $5 billion in Goldman, and today Citi buys Wachovia. This demonstrates that institutions that make sound financial decisions can survive, and that there is still plenty of private firms that can step up and help.
The reason is the lack of confidence in Pelosi and Reid. Get them the hell out of there.
63. uffy | September 29th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
1. This bill could have passed the House. The House DEMS did NOT need the Republicans to pass this bill. Didn’t Reid say in a very loud voice several times last week that they didn’t need McCain and wanted him gone from DC? Didn’t the DEMS say this was Obama’s bill?
2. The Congress nor the President explained this bill in layman’s terms to the American tax payer. How difficult would it have been for the President along with 1 Republican and 1 Democrat to go on tv and explain in the simplest language why this bill needed the full support of Main Street?
3. Why does the Congress make everything so difficult for the average Joe and Jane on the street? Why does it always have to be partisan yelling and name calling? Doesn’t anyone in Congress have a clue about the average citizen?
4. The average American tax payer looks at this bill as a huge scam. One that benefits the fat cats and greedy. Once again, I go back to point 2.
5. Why did the House call for a vote when they knew there was no possibility for the bill to pass? Why did they put at risk the stock market? Is this really a scam perpetrated on the American citizen by those who want Obama in power? Would the DEMS risk a bankrupt America to get Obama in power?
64. William of Orange | September 29th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Observer20 writes:
“Looking at the immediate world around me, I’m not really affected that much. I don’t have many savings in stocks. Yet I guess we all feel obligated to look at the world not immediately around us and assume what it does to others.”
Observer,
I am about 70% invested in stocks — whoops, now 60% — no, 50% — now 45%.
Seriously, I would be in a bald lather had I not experienced Black Monday in 1987. I guess it’s called perspective and you and JinnyB have it nailed when you advise to chill out. The only thing I can add is that each time you see a price quoted on a market ticker that represents a someone selling stock and someone buying as well. If you can jump onto a good company for a decent price, you’ll be sitting pretty when the market turns.
Besides, I believe (and have posted here) that the economy will miraculously get better in February of next year when the Democrats are in power. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.) I mean they have been bitching for so long when the how the Republicans have created “the worst economy since the depression”. (Another miracle since we have not had two consecutive quarters on negative growth in years.) But, since they will have their hands on the tiller they and the MSM will proclaim that the lame can walk and the blind can see.
To be honest, chilling out might just as well apply to the election as well. While I would love for McCain to win, it might be interesting to see how the community organizer handles this monumental task come January. My money is on him failing miserably, a Carter II or worse. Personally, I think that there will be some great ju-jitsu going down when Obama and the Democrats get handed this bag of sh-t. The Trolls here will have to live with what we have lived with these past years: the constant harping and whining of an electorate who is pissed at the job government is doing and those of us in a seething rage because that dildo has dragged our country into the mud and slime.
Be careful what you wish for, trolls..2012 will be 1980 all over again.
65. Casper | September 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
neocon,
Tell you what, I’d have no problem with Reid and Pelosi resigning if Bush and Cheney do also. WE are not seeing much leadership from the Whitehouse.
66. phnx | September 29th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Angelo Mozilo, of Indy Mac and Countrywide infamy was not a CRA advocate, but he certainly wa heavily involved in the financial crisis.
Sarah, it must have been a simple coincidence, or altruism, that motivated him to give special mortgage rates andbreaks to Senators Christopher Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee, and Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee Franklin Raines (Fannie Mae), James Johnson (Fannie Mae), and other dems.
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279970984353933.html?loc=interstitialskip
Or has that been debunked???
67. FactCheck | September 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Tell me again why the House GOP should support this bill? And I write this as someone who supports its passage.
Hahahaha! Wow. Do you seriously not see how ridiculous that statement is?
68. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
William,
I honestly think this November will be 1980 all over again. The voting electorate are a lot smarter than many give them credit for.
However, one possible scenario that wouldn’t be too bad and that is many of our liberals lose their jobs because of the House’s irresponsibility, then Obama wins and implements his tax plan that punishes small business and corporations, meaning those jobs don’t return. Then let’s hear how happy our liberals are with their new found great society. Maybe though that tax credit of $600, on average, that Obama boasts that he’s giving to 95% of middle class Americans will help.
That should buy a couple of Birkenstocks huh?
69. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Casper,
Bush is done in 5 months and his presence deters no one. The private sectors hesitation is the current distrust in congress’s leadership.
70. Casper | September 29th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I see. Get rid of the incompetent democrats, keep the incompetent republicans. Typical.
71. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Casper,
What didn’t you comprehend about me wanting to throw out every single GOP congressman????
This is why I would never have you instruct my children. You have a comprehension problem
72. neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
But I like you anyway…..
And you probably are one hell of a teacher. Anybody that spent time in Montana can’t be all bad.
73. Casper | September 29th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Actually, I would be very happy to start with a whole new congress next year, both houses, both parties.
74. Retired Spook | September 29th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
A whole new Congress is probably not a realistic wish, Casper. For one thing, only a third of the Senate is up for reelection. I’d be ecstatic with a 50% turnover in the House, though. And I’d just as soon Congress be in the power of the party that doesn’t control the WH, particularly if Obama wins.
75. js | September 29th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Democrats were in bed with these companies and refused to listen to George Bush when, in 2003, he “recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
It was some genius from Clinton’s regime who came up with the bright idea that everyone was entitled to own a home regardless of whether they could afford it or not. This was the typical pandering of the Clinton regime to minorities to win over votes! Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority home ownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”
The seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers such as Andrew Cuomo, head of Housing and Urban Development at the time, AND ANOTHER LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
THIS IS A DEMOCRAT CATASTROPHE! And once again, the Republicans are allowing themselves to be beaten over the head for what liberals have done!
Everyone has forgotten that with Bush in office, we had:
1. 48 straight months of job growth. A RECORD!
2. The lowest unemployment rate in decades.
3. Six million new jobs created, despite the Democrats lie of “a jobless recovery.”
4. The stock market gained almost seven thousand points after 9/11. And although it has dropped to eleven thousand and change, it’s still four thousand points higher after 9/11.
All due to George Bush’s tax cuts which the Democrats opposed!!
The problems now are due to high fuel prices and the housing and Wall Street troubles - both caused by Democrat and liberal policies. Besides the above, it’s the liberals who killed the nuclear energy program in this country, and we haven’t been allowed to build a refinery in 30 years or drill for our own resources because the environmentalists are in the back pocket of the Democrats and vice-verse.
http://therightperspective.com/wordpress/?p=80
strange how it all trickles back to the clinton era…and did i hear a peep about peanuts too?
whats the government doing writting requirements for private enterprise anyways…dont they believe in free market enterprise and the sure guarantee capitalism provides…the promise that greed itself would have prevented this catastrophe had it been given the chance to hedge itself against loss instead of giving out high risk loans or be fried by community activists like acorn…and obamassiahs?
76. phnx | September 29th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Obama’s involvement:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
77. Casper | September 29th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Retired Spook,
I know it’s not realistic. And I do agree that the best situation would be congress being under control of a different party than the presidency. I wish that had been the case for the first six years of Bush’s presidency.
78. Kahn | September 29th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Pelosi let all the committee chair people, all the people in shaky districts, and all her close allies vote NO. Republicans joined them.
Look at the list of who voted for what.
She really is a pip. If you think Bush is incompetent, and I know many of you do then Pelosi is an idiot. She could stand to read Dale Carnegies “How to Win Friends and Influence People” also.
79. JinnyB | September 30th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I think this whole Pelosi vote thing was intended a setup for McCain - you know the dummy who suspended his campaign like Katrina to go to Washington to rally the troops around a bailout, and failed?
She made certain it failed, and with George Soros and friends hitting WaMu and Wachovia, and raising hell in the markets, well, here we are. But the market can only be moved so much, and for so long, and then things start looking attractive to the “little guys” and they start buying. So, you have to scare them away by having all the media screaming “if this doesn’t pass, we’re all doomed”. Every talking head on TV is saying “we’re doomed unless Congress comes back and rescues us with a bailout”. It’s 1929 all over. This is even pressuring the banks.
Actually, if you scare the “little guys” enough they end up helping you tank the market by yanking retirement funds out of stocks and into cash.
Everyone should go buy a little stock tomorrow - find something other than a banking stock that seems underpriced and buy a few shares. And take some of that cash out from under the mattress and deposit it back in your bank. If everyone did that, this whole farce would just evaporate by market close tomorrow - and be shown to be just what it really is - an artificially manufactured crisis.
80. bill powers | September 30th, 2008 at 12:56 am
wow..have times changed. I remember when Kahn, Neocon, retiredspook, et. al. used to crow about how this was an ‘ownership society’…’homeownership is at an all time high’..’this isnt a bubble like the fake tech expansion under bill clinton’…’my investments are doing so well today’
Now we have those very same people begging for a Wal-Street bailout with taxpayers money.
Times sure have changed around here.
81. bill powers | September 30th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Oops..I forgot to include JS into that group. He is another one that was crowing about homeownership being at an all time high…
and please fellas..before you deny that you all made those statements..google your own statements…
How times have changed around here.
I wonder if anyone has bought http://www.blogsforlosers.com?
82. bill powers | September 30th, 2008 at 1:02 am
“hnx | September 29th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
The CRAs are only part of the problem. Republican constituents like the construction industry insisted upon loose credit so they could continue to grow. So while Republicans may have been decrying the CRA abus, virtually nothing was said about the practise of zero down loans and reverse equity loans popular in Florida and California. Anyone with any sense knew that this was a bad practise and would come crashing down as soon as the market demand cooled off.”
Thats a really odd statement coming from the same person that crowed about homeownership being an all time high..this economy was not a bubble…it was REAL growth.
Please dont make me embarass you guys and post links to your previous posts from last spring. ;)
83. bill powers | September 30th, 2008 at 1:06 am
“neocon | September 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
William,
I honestly think this November will be 1980 all over again. The voting electorate are a lot smarter than many give them credit for.
However, one possible scenario that wouldn’t be too bad and that is many of our liberals lose their jobs because of the House’s irresponsibility, then Obama wins and implements his tax plan that punishes small business and corporations, meaning those jobs don’t return.”
Why in the world are you referring to that scenario “that wouldn’t be too bad”?
Let the bitterness go. I disagree with many people in my life…but I never wish ill on my fellow american and I certainly never wish ill on this country as a whole.
Its nice to see what your true thoughts are. ;)
84. Kahn | September 30th, 2008 at 1:19 am
bill, well obviously the press you are relying on to tell you how great Obama is can not be trusted to give full and accurate reporting. If it could, we would have known about the Democrat inspired debacle long ago. Who realized that Democrats running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were putting the finance sector and the economy in jeopardy? Barney Franks attempt to use these agencies to achieve socialist social engineering are a bust. Hear him STILL talking about “affordable housing”? Who now knows that the former leaders of those organizations are enjoying their golden parachutes while working for the Obama campaign?
But whatever. The Democrats are the majority. 95 DEMOCRATS voted against the rescue plan. Only 65 REPUBLICANS voted against it. Percentage wise and in real numbers, more Democrats voted against the plan. Democrats voted to destroy our economy.
If Pelosi had any sense of patriotism at all, she would schedule a vote for later in the week, and then resign as speaker. The idiot is only two heartbeats away from the White House.
85. Kahn | September 30th, 2008 at 1:48 am
DEMOCRATS WHO KILLED THE RESCUE PLAN:
ARIZONA
Giffords, NO
Grijalva, NO
Mitchell, NO
Pastor, NO
CALIFORNIA
Baca, NO
Becerra, NO
Lee, NO
Sanchez, Linda T., NO
Sanchez, Loretta, NO
Schiff, NO
Sherman, NO
Solis, NO
Stark, NO
Thompson, NO
Watson, NO
Woolsey, NO
COLORADO
Salazar, NO
Udall, NO
CONNECTICUT
Courtney, NO
FLORIDA
Castor, NO
GEORGIA
Barrow, NO
Johnson, NO
Lewis, NO
Scott, NO
HAWAII
Abercrombie, NO
Hirono, NO
ILLINOIS
Costello, NO
Jackson, NO
Lipinski, NO
Rush, NO
INDIANA
Carson, NO
Hill, NO
Visclosky, NO
IOWA
Braley, NO
KANSAS
Boyda, NO
KENTUCKY
Chandler, NO
Yarmuth, NO
LOUISIANA
Cazayoux, NO
Jefferson, NO
MAINE
Michaud, NO
MARYLAND
Cummings, NO
Edwards, NO
MASSACHUSETTS
Delahunt, NO
Lynch, NO
Tierney, NO
MICHIGAN
Conyers, NO
Kilpatrick, NO
Stupak, NO
MINNESOTA
Peterson, NO
Walz, NO
MISSISSIPPI
Childers, NO
Taylor, NO
Thompson, NO
MISSOURI
Clay, NO
Cleaver, NO
NEVADA
Berkley, NO
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Hodes, NO
Shea-Porter, NO
NEW JERSEY
Pascrell, NO
Payne, NO
Rothman, NO
NEW MEXICO
Udall, NO
NEW YORK
Gillibrand, NO
Hinchey, NO
Serrano, NO
NORTH CAROLINA
Butterfield, NO
McIntyre, NO
Shuler, NO
OHIO
Kaptur, NO
Kucinich, NO
Sutton, NO
OREGON
Blumenauer, NO
DeFazio, NO
Hooley, NO
Wu, NO
PENNSYLVANIA
Altmire, NO
Carney, NO
Holden, NO
SOUTH DAKOTA
Herseth Sandlin, NO
TEXAS
Cuellar, NO
Doggett, NO
Green, Al, NO
Green, Gene, NO
Jackson-Lee, NO
Lampson, NO
Ortiz, NO
Rodriguez, NO
UTAH
Matheson, NO
VERMONT
Welch, NO
VIRGINIA
Scott, NO
WASHINGTON
Inslee, NO
86. Graham | September 30th, 2008 at 3:07 am
This is supposed to be a crisis.
The only thing worse than the vote was the complaining afterwards that Nancy Pelosi’s speech was too partisan. So they voted against the only viable measure to prevent a market meltdown because Nancy was mean to them?
Nancy Pelosi is without a doubt one of the worst if not the worst Speaker we’ve ever had. But the Republicans are acting like two-year-olds, and McCain’s not really helping. How about he puts Country First for a change and actually try to get things done?
87. Graham | September 30th, 2008 at 3:14 am
#84 Kahn
“But whatever. The Democrats are the majority. 95 DEMOCRATS voted against the rescue plan. Only 65 REPUBLICANS voted against it. Percentage wise and in real numbers, more Democrats voted against the plan. Democrats voted to destroy our economy.”
Are you really that fucking dumb?
Only 65 Republicans voted FOR it you idiot. 133 Republicans voted NO.
ie 60% of Dems for and only approx 33% Repubs for.
If your going to lie at least make your lies believable.
88. searp | September 30th, 2008 at 5:46 am
As of today, the Dow Jones is lower now than it was the day Bush took office in 2001.
Heckuva job, President Bush and all Republicans everywhere.
89. Kahn | September 30th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Graham, you are correct sir. It was late and I was wrong.
But, I did get the 95 Democrats part right, didn’t I?
90. Kahn | September 30th, 2008 at 6:22 am
searp - Freddie and fannie were/are controlled by Democrats and caused the financial crisis.
You know this.
The leaders of those two organizations who did this escaped with millions and now work for Obama.
91. js | September 30th, 2008 at 7:00 am
81. bill powers
you are another idiot whose mouth is bigger than his brain…you are paying lip service to your throne again i see…
i will deduce that your failure to effect an actual quote or anything of a factual nature to expose the real truth here…
92. js | September 30th, 2008 at 7:05 am
41. Moosetracks
39. Carlton Pryor,
its a typical situation when liberals spout of something confusing and garbled representing thier “intelligence”….but the truth…and not lip service…is all that is needed to dismiss the banter of morons spitting more of what created this problem…
93. phnx | September 30th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Bill Powers, go ahead, show me where I ever supported zero down loans or reverse equity foolishness? You are just another blowhard who has no idea what caused the current financial crisis, but is full of leftist BS. Face it your party has a greater interest in establishing the dependency of the population.
Tell me again where I am for this bailout. You are full of sh*t.
94. searp | September 30th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Kahn: riiigghht. The Democrats! The Democrats!
Grow up. This financial crisis has multiple sources, chiefest being unconscionable budget deficits run consistently by a two-term Republican President and the metastasis of Ponzi schemes in the financial markets due to a lack of regulation.
Those are facts. This meme where Freddie and Fannie are responsible for all the ills doesn’t make sense to anyone who actually looks at the markets, just a convenient political fiction.
95. searp | September 30th, 2008 at 7:50 am
I’d like to nominate President Bush for the Jim Gilmore award for fiscal irresponsibility.
Both have lost all credibility, and it is really, really hilarious that Gilmore is running for Senate. Why not nominate Ollie North, for God’s sake.
The idea that you can just cut taxes without any regard at all to the spending side is… well, foreign to anyone who has had to balance a checkbook. My supposition is that Bush never has had to bother. What a joke.
Republicans: the party that simply loves to spend borrowed money.
96. neocon | September 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am
searp,
Again, you continue to confirm my belief that people of your minimal gray matter should never wear the military uniform of this country. You are dangerously stupid. Please retire immediately.
97. js | September 30th, 2008 at 9:10 am
it doesnt take a lot of brains to figure out that when we are over taxed as it is…its not a difficult thing to cut taxes…
but then…neo already hit the head on the nail….searp really doesnt have a lot of brains….
98. js | September 30th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“The people’s trust in their government is undermined by Congressional earmarks - special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate.”
so if they have that much money to waste…who could ever think that we are being taxed…and not represented…in congress…because they give the money to thier friends and corporations….money that really has nothing to do with the operation of the government and our military….money that is squandered away by willing participants ignorant that they are the cause of our problems…not the cure…
99. js | September 30th, 2008 at 9:17 am
· Total number of earmarks in 2008 spending bills, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense: 11,145 .
· Dollar value of these earmarks according to TCS: $15.3 billion.
· Approximate total federal spending for 2008: $2,901 billion ($2.9 trillion).
· Amount that Senator Mitch McConnell earmarked in 2008 for the McConnell Technology Training Center to be built in his state: $3.2 million.
· Minimum number of buildings, bridges and roads in West Virginia that are named for Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Robert Byrd: 8.
so effectively….we were overtaxed 15+ Bn dollars this year so far…
100. js | September 30th, 2008 at 9:18 am
and shoot…if they are having problems spending money…why dont they just print it…obviously it works…N Korea and Iran are doing it….
101. phnx | September 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am
The fact that the markets have stabilized without the bailout is clear evidence that the rush to pass this bailout bill was wrong.
Hopefully over the next few days a solution can be crafted that doesn’t involve the massive give away proposed by President Bush, Paulson and the Democrat leadership.
In all of the posts I have yet to see and concrete proposals from either side to resolve the financial crisis. So how about it? What is your proposal? Here are some of my recommendations:
1. Reinstate income standards for all loans. ie. monthly payments for all debt including mortgages can not exceed 40% of income.
2. Welfare payments, food stamps etc can not be considered as income in any application for credit.
3. Require downpayments of at least 10% of market value for real property mortgages. (Market value to be determined by the average of three independent appraisals.)
4. Default Credit Swap Market (CDS) to come under the jurisdiction of the SEC.
5. CDS can only be bought and sold between the contracting parties (lender and borrower). This would prevent speculation in the CDS market.
6. Every bad (non-performing or undercapitalized) loan that is purchased from a bank by a government agency, must be bundles wlith a good loan to minimize the risk to the taxpayers.
7. Special prosecutor to be set up to prosecute government officials and executives who have benefited illegally from the financial crisis.
8. Eliminate tax deductibility for bonuses paid to executives of publically traded companies which exceed 5% of corporate profits.
9. Make executive bonuses for top managemtn of public companies subject to shareholder votes.
What are your recommendations?
102. js | September 30th, 2008 at 9:55 am
seeing how 20% of the low income loans went to illegal aliens with stolen SSN’s, I’d say verification of citizenship…
figure…20% of 700Bn is one heck of a tax cut…
103. js | September 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am
one thing we forget…an example in our history of something that works great…
the US Post office was created to serve the public…separate for most intent from the government..self sustaining in its own rights…an example of what the government can do by establishing non profit organizations to serve the public good…without the overatures of socialisms control….or the greed of capitalism…but an orginization…of the people…by the people
mortgages can be financed thorugh the SS Tax…reaping a return to the public good…of 4.5%…allowing for a substantial restructuring of the mortgage industry…eliminating any competition on the market that is controlled by greed instead of public service…
who cares about wall street…wall street is one of the biggest causes of our troubles today…and a bastion for those greedy little basterds that would rather harvest the fruit of our labour in this country without giving anything back….
104. FactCheck | September 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
So they voted against the only viable measure to prevent a market meltdown because Nancy was mean to them?
Yes, and that just proves what tough, no-nonsense, country-before-politics, get-things-done leaders the GOP are–just like they always claim!
105. js | September 30th, 2008 at 11:59 am
it proves no such thing…as your sarcasm surely tells…but it does prove that the members of the GOP are more than likely to do the right thing compared to the DNC…
absolutley…
106. searp | September 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Phnx: the overnight LIBOR rate doubled. Watch the credit markets, bad stuff is coming.
The others that think I am stupid have yet to explain to me why cutting taxes and BORROWING $400 BILLION A YEAR is smart. Let’s see, earmarks? $18 billion. From first grade math:
400 - 18 = 382 BILLION DEFICIT
That is, get rid of the earmarks and the Bush Republican legacy is OVERSPENDING BY $388 BILLION A YEAR.
Sorry for the capitals, but you seem to miss regular prose.
Worst, most profligate overspending in our entire history. Forget FDR, he was a piker compared to “fiscal conservative” Republican George W. Bush.
Like I said, a joke.
107. phnx | September 30th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
searp,
You won’t get any push back from me about the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration or the Congress. Its the one big complaint that I have against him.
But you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say:
“others that think I am stupid have yet to explain to me why cutting taxes and BORROWING $400 BILLION A YEAR is smart”
but previously you said: “so yes, I am for it (the bailout bill), as long as we buy something with the money and gain if the investment gains” confirming your support for borrowing $700 billion. If you are against $400 Billion in deficit spending why are you suddenly for $700 billion.
And don’t tell me its because of the possibility of recovering some or all of the $700 billion as these assets are sold off. If you think that I suggest you go to Vegas and prove your theory out. You’d probably have a better chance there.
Cutting taxes were and are necessary to stimulate the economy. Naturally there should have been and must be proportionate spending cuts. I am confident that McCain can and will do that.
Tell me what programs Obama will cut. This should be good since he was asked that question twice during the debate and could not come up with any programs which he wuold cut. INstead he pontificated about additional programs that he would add!!!!
Would you or someone else explain to me the specifics of how Obama’s economic plans will help the economy?
108. searp | September 30th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I can think of a variety of ways to cut spending, but if I heard McCain properly he fenced off DOD, Vets and entitlements. I haven’t looked at the exact amount, but I believe this represents about 90% of the budget.
So: I don’t think McCain will cut spending in any meaningful way. Spare me any reminders about earmarks, I already provided the numbers.
Obama, I predict, will find ways to raise taxes, because we are incapable of cutting spending in any significant way. You could, pretty easily in my estimation, take about $200B out of DOD, but it is a political nonstarter. Others would take it out of entitlements, same problem.
Even zeroing the Dept of Education only gets $60B. We could zero State and get another $50B or so. HUD I am not sure.
My point is that we only come into better balance if we raise revenue, nothing else will work. “Severe” cuts, like zeroing your favorite department, don’t do it.
Now on taxes: W didn’t cut taxes because of a specific situation, he cut them because he wanted to hide his truly spectacular cuts in taxes on unearned income. He succeeded. In my opinion he didn’t care at all about the fiscal condition of the government, he did it to reward supporters and garner votes. Ok, he is a politician. Now we will earn our reward.
It won’t be pretty.
109. phnx | September 30th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
“My point is that we only come into better balance if we raise revenue, nothing else will work.”
The economy is already going to slow down so revenues will decrease. An increase in tax rates, especially for corporations will result in a recession and substantially lower tax revenue. This has been proven time and again. There is no denying that the Bush tax cuts pulled us out of a recession and substantially increased revenues. The corporate tax rates need to be reduced from 35% to 25% to stimulate the economy, and draw in foreign investment capital.
As for reductions in spending, every program needs to be reviewed. Those that are working need to be eliminated. The size of government has incresed dramatically, all government departments should be reduced by 5%. We need to review our foreign aid programs and cut back on them: $14 billion for African Aids? Obama’s Global war on Poverty?? We need to insist that Iraq begin picking up the tab for their own defense.
BTW: I have yet to see your recommedations for solving the financial crisis. So I guess you are all in favor of the $700 Billion give-away.
110. Kahn | September 30th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
94. searp - the budget has nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Just doesn’t.
You guys are stuck in dis-information mode.