Memo to the media: Where's W?
So how did we get to this point? Job losses in the hundreds of thousands every month, almost weekly bank failures, and 401(k)s at half their value from a year and a half ago. The media treat the question as a mystery that can be solved through scrutiny of the Obama administration's actions starting on January 20, 2009 -- an approach that is absurd on its face. The media's erasure of the Bush administration and its policies in their coverage of the economy has been so pervasive that they have given round-the-clock attention to the AIG bonus scandal for days on end with virtually no mention of the fact that it was the Bush administration that last fall approved billions of dollars in aid to AIG without requiring the company to nullify its bonus contracts.
Indeed, last week's coverage of the AIG scandal exemplified the media's amnesia toward the Bush administration. Notwithstanding the Bush administration's critical role in the process by which AIG received its bailout money and AIG employees received their bonuses, the media advanced the false Republican claim that Democrats created the bonuses in the stimulus bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed in February. Fox News took its erasure of the Bush Treasury Department to an even greater extreme, downplaying a major scoop by its sister news organization Fox Business Network, which obtained emails from early November showing Bush Treasury Department officials grappling with the issue of AIG bonuses. In a report on Fox Business' finding, Fox News host Jon Scott and correspondent Brian Wilson did not at any point explain that their colleagues' discovery of the emails is significant because they show that the Bush Treasury Department considered -- and rejected -- requiring AIG to nullify its bonus contracts as a condition of receiving $40 billion in bailout money in November.
Coverage of the AIG bonus scandal is merely the latest example of the media's disappearance of the Bush administration in their reporting on economic issues, which has completely disregarded the effect of the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy, its deficit spending, and its aggressively hands-off approach toward the market and financial institutions. On a range of issues, the press has left out relevant information about the role of Bush-era policies or suggested that Obama has greater responsibility for policies or events than he does. Journalists and media figures began referring to the "Obama bear market" during an 18 percent slide in the Dow Jones industrial average after his inauguration, despite having rarely referred to a "Bush bear market" during the first bear market of his presidency and never during the second. Moreover, references to the "Obama bear market" are rarely accompanied by an analysis of factors that arose during the Bush administration that continue to affect the market today. A Bloomberg article about the loss of household net worth in 2008 -- when Bush was president -- did not even mention the previous administration, and a CNN correspondent falsely suggested this drop happened in part during the Obama administration. Stories and television commentary on soaring foreclosure rates almost invariably leave out the fact that an emphasis on increasing homeownership was a key part of Bush's domestic economic agenda and that he personally pushed through policies to make it easier for people to obtain mortgages with no money down.
Through tax cuts and massive borrowing, the Bush administration presided over the creation of an enormous deficit that now presents a major drag on the enactment of policies to turn around the economy. As economist Dean Baker pointed out, most of the 2009 deficit is attributable to Bush-era policies, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office. But even in stories that specifically address the budget deficit, the Bush administration is often absent.
Beyond erasing the Bush administration from the picture, the media have also taken to criticizing Obama for attempting to remind them of who governed the country in the two previous presidential terms. In a March 14 article, Washington Post staff writer Scott Wilson characterized President Obama's assertions that he had inherited the current economic situation from his predecessor as "recriminations." Rather than attempting to assess the accuracy of Obama's claims or determine what policies and factors led to the current crisis, Wilson described Obama's "frequent and acid reminders" as a part of his strategy of "partisan defense."
The media's refusal to involve the Bush administration in any of a wide array of stories about the economy deprives their consumers of the very analysis of policies that would help them understand and evaluate proposals to address the crisis. Regardless of one's assessment of the Obama administration's handling of the economy so far -- and the administration has its share of critics from across the ideological spectrum -- to erase the Bush administration from the picture is to deny the public and history a real understanding of how the country got to its perilous economic position. The consequences of that denial could be catastrophic -- an absence of public support for genuine solutions and, worse, the fomenting of public demand for the reinstitution or expansion of the deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy that many economists say led to the recession in which the country now finds itself.
The Obama administration inherited a massive deficit, high and rising unemployment, a massive bailout-in-process of the major financial institutions, and a high rate of mortgage foreclosures. The current economic and financial crises are not random acts of nature, unpredictable and unpreventable, but are consequences, at least in part, of policy decisions made during the previous administration. George W. Bush was president for eight years and did not leave office until January 20, 2009. Policies carried out during his tenure had lasting consequences. Press coverage should always reflect this reality.
Memo to mmfa; He's not in office anymore.
Yes, but this whole mess is primarily his fault. To not mention that in the reporting and analysis of the crisis is disengenous at best.
does mmfa think people were born on jan 20th 2009? sometimes the disrespect they have for the public is astounding. we aren't that stupid, or forgetful that we need to be reminded on every report about the mess we are in is not Obama's fault.
Who is 'disrespecting' the public? The media who LIE and OMIT relevance towards an issue, or MMFA who writes about and shows the background, and foreground of the biggest American economic downturn since the 30s?
No, MMFA doesn't, but the press does. It falls right in line with that right wing mentality of:
The media's refusal to involve the Bush administration in any of a wide array of stories about the economy deprives their consumers of the very analysis of policies that would help them understand and evaluate proposals to address the crisis.
That's the idea, jamesB.
No, it's Barney Franks for insisting that the banks allow bad loans. Obama has added a whole new dimension to the problems of the U.S. by going on an unprecedented spending spree. Don't you get it? Pelosi creates pork bills and Obama signs off on them. What happen to "going through every item line by line" and "no earmarks". Bottom line, Obama's only interested in planting the seeds for socialism, he could care less about the debt he's heaping on the country.
Come on people, get your heads out of your Obama's!
PU to your post. Where were you when Dubya and the Republican Congress was wasting your money and shoveling pallets at contractor cronies in Iraq? Not to mention all the dollars they wasted elsewhere. Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Actually, many of us were hating that as much as you simply hate (did you notice how republicans lost the last 2 elections?). How are you feeling about Obama and the Democrat Congress wasting YOUR money on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan? Or all the dollars being wasted elsewhere. You can finish your own last line.
Ridiculous...W and the Republicans began these messes. Democrats should have gotten a spine and been more outspoken (although a few were)
but this is primarily a mess begun by the right wing.
insisting that the banks allow bad loans
Liar. (This is about the 20th time this lie has been posted).
Let me repeat - nobody INSISTED that banks allow bad loans. Nobody FORCED banks to make bad loans.
So I guess since he's not in office anymore, we're no longer in Iraq or Afghanistan, no longer have a financial and housing crisis, and everything is just A-OK?
That would matter if all of our problems had a reset button on Inauguration day.
When W was in office, and screwed up every other day, the media was all too happy to report his administration's theory on how it was Bill Clinton's fault. In fact, they're still running against Bill Clinton. Last November, the GOP was blaming Clinton for this recession, and he was out of office for 8 years!
James he is not in office anymore correct. His legacy however and his decisions are still hurting us.
Give us all a break JAMESB....
Clinton was out of office too... in many cases for 7 years and still got blamed by the useless media... but that didn't stop the rightwing corporate owned media from trying to blame 9/11 and all the Bush regime screw ups on Clinton!
So you just take your childish stupidity and rightwing talking points and go back to mom and dads basement and don't come back until you have something of substance to offer!
Memo to James: this whole mess is still his fault. You're point is like saying that just the building is still on fire when the fire dept shows up, that they now are somehow responsible for the blaze.
jamesB---Memo to mmfa; He's not in office anymore.
They ONLY use that line when you speak about the responsibility Carter/Clinton had in creating this mess. However, if Reagan or Bush Sr have any responsibility, then they are allowed to blame away. It is only Carter and Clinton (and now Obama) who are invisible to any responsibility in our financial crisis.
Example: CRA 1977---not responsible CRA 1995---not responsible CRA 2005---fully responsible
Memo to JamesB - Bill Clinton's been out of office since 2001, and Jimmy Carter has been out since 1981, yet countless morons on your side are still trying to blame this financial mess on them.
Gee, I wonder why? Considering they are the ones who instituted regulations that forced lenders to lend to unqualified people. What did you think would happen when a bank HAS to loan to someone who isn't qualified? Did you think the house would be paid for by the unqualified person?
You obviously have not been paying attention, Floyd. Those laws dating to the Carter Administration only covered BANKS - they did NOT cover the unscrupulous mortgage lenders who were the basis if the housing market collapse.
You really need to pay better attention....
Well, duhhh. Who the heck do you think loaned the money? The tooth fairy? Of course it covered the banks. And if you pay attention to worrierking, he says the lenders caused the problem, then the insurer caused the problem then he said both caused the problem. All the while ignoring who actually forced the banks to give the bad loan to begin with. Clinton was good enough to advance those rules, then Bush followed promptly up with his own ideas of greed. So, YES I paid attention. And I know what happened, when it happened and how it happened. I'm just not afraid to point the finger at the right people. You seem to be afraid to.
Good projection.
forced lenders to lend to unqualified people
Liar. Never happened. Take your b.s. somewhere else.
foghornleghorn, you obviously haven't researched the CRA at all, have you? Well, I'm not the one to teach you facts, so look it up yourself. If (IF) you find anything that shows I am wrong, please feel free to pipe in, otherwise--> shut up!
You show me one law or regulation where lenders were FORCED to make loans. If you can, then I'll shut up but until then you're still a LIAR. Your serve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/
Lendors were mandated to loan to inner city folk who previously would not have been able to afford housing, at the risk of losing future federal consideration of federal funding. Carter wrote it, Clinton advanced it, Bush advanced it even more. You can read a generic despriction at wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
Read your own links. Lenders were mandated to loan to qualified people, period. Duh.
What? Did you stop reading after two or three sentences? Did they start using words too big to understand? At least you understood the "mandated" part. Did you look up what that word means?
I read the links, and not all say exactly what I want them to say, but they say what I claim they say.
No they don't, liar. From the wiki:
"The law emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.["
If you read the "enforcement" section (of the wiki link) the first paragraph ends with this: "An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA."
Which indicates that penalties will be incurred if they don't do what is mandated---loan to unqualified borrowers. Are you going to continue calling me a liar or apologize?
That is NOT what is mandated...nowhere in the legislation is it mandated that they loan to "unqualified" borrowers. Liar.
Oh? then provide proof of your statements. Use an official document to prove what you claim. Since you only believe the part of the wiki link that you want to (I hope you don't treat the Bible that way) and call the rest of the link a lie.
If there is nowhere in the legislation that it mandates loaning to unqualified borrowers, then why is there even a CRA? If they are qualified then they qualify for a loan. If they aren't getting a loan because of race then it's a racial thing and NOWHERE in the legislation does it say there is a racial complaint in this so it is obviously a mandate to loan to unqualified borrowers.
Sorry I won't fall into your name-calling trap. But, I will say this...does Jesus give you authorization to be the judge of my character? If so, can you tell me why others aren't given that authority, only you?
Ah, we've got Philib back under a new name. You want me to prove this document doesn't mandate loans to unqualified people? YOU'RE the one making that charge, and you haven't proved it. It's not my job to disprove your fake claims.
Tell me: what does the bible say about usury?
Yes, I proved my contentions with the link I provided. The same one you used to prove your claims. Suddenly, you choose not to believe that link. What gives?
The link doesn't prove your point; it proves mine.
Someone cue the music again. We've got another one!
Thanks for your support. You're welcome.
loan to unqualified borrowers.
Show us where the term "unqualified borrowers" appears in the law. Until then, you remain a LIAR.
I'm surprised the right wing can remember what they had for lunch.
I'm NOT surprised the left wing continues to blame Bush. In 2012, when Obama is a complete failure and we are in WAY bigger debt than he "inherited", it will be Bush's fault. Every administration inherits problems from previous administrations, such as the lack of dealing with terrorism by Clinton. Shut up and deal with it, BO wanted to be president, stop whining and blaming Bush.
OK, if we can't blame bush for the state of the world two months after he left office, we must blame him for allowing us to be attacked eight months after he took office and one month and five days after he was warned that we were going to be attacked.
Explain how he is not to blame for either of these failures.
And Clinton was dealing with terrorism. He had a working anti-terrorist plan in place which he turned over to Bush. Bush was not interested in anti-terrorism. He instructed his Justice Department to cut funds for counter-terrorism on September 120, 2001.
Sorry, September 10, 2001.
Oh WOW!!! What a coincidence! The day before the attack. Can anyone say "conspiracy theorist"? (humm the twilight zone theme music...now)
Don't be an ass and try to paint me as some kind of conspiracy theorist. It only makes you appear uninformed.
Here's a link to AG Ashcrofts Budget proposal to congress that he submitted on September 10, 20012. On page 31 it shows that he proposeded a reduction of $65,000,000 in counter terrorism funding.
Sorry, should read September 10, 2001. I'm typing one handed. Just had surgery to re-break and put a plate and screws in my typing wrist.
Yikes! Well bless your hand to heal properly. All the best.
Thanks Mary. All the best to you too.
Hey, you're the one trying to connect Bush reducing anti-terrorism funding to terrorists attacking the US the very next day, in your example.
No, he had his first terrorist-related cabinet meeting on 9/10. Maybe the reason for this was for Cheney to warn his cronies not to fly commercial the next day.
That's not what I was saying. I'm not trying to link Bush to a conspiracy, just trying to show how disinterested he was in counter-terrorism on September 10.
Yeah, right. I'm sure that was what you were doing. Someone cue the music again
It's exactly what he was saying, if you'd bother to read his posts. More projection.
so you're a conspiracy theorist, too? Figures from the type of posts you make. cue the music!
I can't put it better than worrierking previously:
"Don't be an ass and try to paint me as some kind of conspiracy theorist. It only makes you appear uninformed.
Here's a link to AG Ashcrofts Budget proposal to congress that he submitted on September 10, 20012. On page 31 it shows that he proposeded a reduction of $65,000,000 in counter terrorism funding."
And, that link shows you to be the conspiricy theorist you are. Just like worrierking. Hey, there's nothing wrong with being one of those people, just don't be afraid to admit it.
If English is a second language for you, I might understand...no, actually, not. The link shows that Ashcroft did not consider terrorism a priority.
Clinton was dealing with terrorism? How? He had UBL's head on a platter numerous times yet never took it. Whatever "plan" Clinton had in place worked real well did'nt it. How many attacks took place under his watch? Yes, Bush was warned, he was not told when, where, and how. If he were, the attacks would have been prevented. Being "warned" about "a possible attack on the U.S." is a pretty broad warning and kinda hard to prevent. Bush had a pretty good anti-terrorism plan in place that he handed over to Obama, and now Obama is systematicaly taking it apart. What will you Dems say when we are attacked again, oh wait, I know, "It's Bush's fault!"
How many false talking points can you fit in here? All been debunked. Try snopes.
"Dubaya" caused this mess. He should get FULL "credit" for it. I love the way the Repugs/neo-cons are already trying to re-write history. And: I just love their new found hatred of deficits. What total frauds. Oh by all means, let's let the "Free" market fix this mess. When will some people learn?
The right wing has a great memory. They even remember things that didn't happen.
With plenty of blame to both administrations....This is what happens when you start bailing out private sector corporations.
"With plenty of blame to both administrations."
You clearly didn't even read the article.
Dave is rabidly anti-bailout. He apparently has a safe job, a paid for-house, and since everything is fine in his little corner of the world, everyone else can basically go f themselves. He also apparently considers balancing his checkbook "high finance".
He and the worldly mr guy did everything all by their little selves, with no help from nobody.
Notice how the Repubs have hijacked this string to their own ends. Rather than discuss the facts, you are all arguing on their terms. Will you never learn to not take the bait? They know they are wrong, but come on this post just to argue stupidity.
Cannonball---but come on this post just to argue stupidity.
I think you forgot to insert the word "with" between argue and stupidity.
Here's YOUR chance; What effect did the CRA (1977) have on home puchasing ability? What effect did the CRA (1995) have on home purchasing ability? What effect did the CRA (2005) have on home purchasing ability? Who should be allowed to create a "bad loan"?
snoopy, are you saying that our current financial crisis isn't worth discussing? I've heard of people (like you) who bury their heads in the sand, but I didn't think they really existed.
No, Snoop is not saying that. Read the article. It's about W being left out of the financial equation. You are attempting to change the subject.
Uh, mary59, what I talked about is EXACTLY what this article is about. Are you acting or are you really this dense? Do you have anything to say about the CRA acts? Any of them? Would you like to blame W's version or would you like to blame Carter's version? Maybe Clinton's version? They all accomplished roughly the same thing---require the lendor to loan to the unqualified borrower. What, pray tell, did W do that overshadowed all that was done before him?
Floyd, you're giving all the floyds out there a bad name.
You're only on here to deflect attention away from W's responsibility for the financial meltdown, and you're not getting any traction.
What are you talking aout? I give W his full 1/3 credit for this failure. Can you point out where I say he is innocent of all charges you charge him with? Maybe you can point out where I skipped over Bush on his responsibility for the housing mess.
My mom's name is Mary...fortunately, she's older than you so I know I'm not saying this to her. Try to stay on-topic and stop defaming her good name with your worthless snippets of hate.
You barely mention W, except to deflect attention away from him. And you have no idea how old I am, and a lecture about behavior from you is quite amusing.
mary59 --- PU to your post --- No they don't, liar. --- Only chumps believe in it anymore. --- Wow....are you Ann Coulter's disciple? --- You get a chuckle out of being a dick.
You're right, I can't lecture to you about behavior. You seem to have behavior down pat. Just wish it was good behavior.
Good of you to recognize that Ann Coulter disciple belongs in the same as category as liar, chump and dick.
I guess you totally missed the point being made. Should that be expected for future conversations also?
No, I got your point, I just don't agree. IMO, Mary used those words appropriately.
Did you miss my point?
If "Floyd" is making 10 cents for each post, he must have made a whole$3 on here. At any rate, it's a wasted life.
I went through this on another thread and thought about warning you.
Floyd the Barber makes Ol' Barney Fife look like Sherlock Holmes.
Yep. This Floyd makes Floyd the Barber look like Albert Einstein ;-)
if mary59 makes 10 cents for each post she makes on topic, she will not be able to afford to pay attention. Which is obvious, anyway.
Gee, that makes a lot of sense. Kind of like the press ignoring W's responsiblity for the financial mess.
I think they ignore his responsibility, because his only responsibility is to tell Obama that the bonus's are in a private company's contracts. Which he did, and now Obama claims ignorance of the bonus's? That is bull so Bush isn't responsible for what Obama lies about. Obama authorized the payments, not Bush. Obama! The same Obama that admitted to doubling our debt within a few years. Even though many whine about Bush doubling our debt. But, those same many think doubling the debt is a GOOD thing when Obama does it. Now, that makes sense!
doubling the debt is a GOOD thing when Obama does it
Bush's debt came from tax cuts for the wealthy and by being a warmonger. Obama's debt increase is an attempt to get us out of this recession. Big difference bub. Make a note of it.
NOTE to be taken: doubling debt is good when democrat does it and bad when republican does it. Even though democrat doubling will end up being 4 times higher debt than the republican doubled. Reason being; the democrat doubling is for the better of mankind and the republican doubling only attempts to make the world a safer place.
Answer something...Obama said the debt will halve by the end of his first term, but will end up higher after that. Why doesn't he just plan on staying in for 1 term, that way the debt will stay halved?
Can't argue with that logic. (IRONY)
Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing this story. I noticed the erasing of former Pres. Bush from the Media too, and wondered why. I wondered if the Media was "still" afraid to question Mr. Bush on "tough" issues. Thanks again for the "great" read.
Careful Media Matters. This morning Joe Scarbough laid the blame directly on G. W. Bush, saying that he did not veto any of the spending bills put before him, and because of that he is responsible for the deficit that Obama inherited.
Memo to the media: Where's W?
Crawford, Tx. That was easy.
Actually, I'm pretty sure he moved to Dallas.
Get your talking points right , GWB moved to suburb outside of Dallas. So much for that rugged cowboy image. You guys love your images but are weak on reality. Try to keep up.
So much for that rugged cowboy image
Funny how nobody asked to see what his Crawford "ranch" really looked like. He gave his photo ops on the gravel road next to the weather-beaten lean-to behind the barbed wire fence.
I know Fog. did you ever see any farm hands working, cattle or livestock grazing, crops growing? What about farm equipment? What was in that barn? Yea, good question how come nobody asked for a tour? It was all a prop. used to create a phony image of a rugged outdoorsman. A homegrown Texan that grew-up in the hated "libural" northeast and attended Ivy league schools . "We were hoodwinked, bambozeled, led astray..." Suckers still falling for this mess though!
The right wing gets exactly what they deserve. If they think a legacy born and raised in upscale Maryland and Connecticut that became a cheerleader is a true cowboy then that is exactly what they got.
W never lived or worked on a ranch. It was a weekend getaway while he was governor and a prop when he ran for president. That photo op of him clearing brush was probably the first time he ever did it which is why he had such an astounded look on his face. I have cleared brush and I never yelled out "whooo!" like a kid that just got off the roller coaster.
MMFA: Aside from Hannity, no one in the media claimed democrats "created" the bonuses in the stimulus bill, just that they allowed or didn't stop these bonuses from being paid out to the likes of AIG and other TARP recipients.
Well, Hannity...and the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times, and CNN, and NBC, and ABC, and Fox News, and any other news outlet that reported the GOP slander without a Dem response. Just look at the MMFA headlines for the last couple of weeks.
Do you understand what I said? There's a big difference between claiming as MMFA did that Congress "created" the right of the AIGs of the world to get their bonuses and the truth, which is that Congress "allowed" bonuses pre-Feburary 11 to continue to be paid out as written in its contracts. In other words, Congress didn't put a stop to what was already created. The MSM, for the most part never claimed Congress created the framework for the bonuses to be paid out. It's not hard to figure out or understand where MMFA is mistaken in what most of the MSM said about this.
where was he during his time in office. either in crawford or camp david or exercising and biking and in bed by ten every night. eight years at the white house country club.
Dwindlin' Duhhbya...
As one of the few POTUS with an MBA (not to mention a degree in History), you'd have to believe that Duhhbya would've been fully aware of the scheming and the gaming that was going on. After all, he proudly proclaimed that these criminals were "my base."
So, I woiuldn't hold my breath waiting for the CCM (Corporate Controlled Media) to place a big part of the blame where it belongs.
You may be interested to know: that when "Dubaya" got his MBA, he was the FIRST Harvard MBA in HISTORY to NOT receive a job offer. "Dubaya" went on over 50 job interviews and didn't get ONE job offer. With this on his resume, why wouldn't George W. Bush NOT make a good POTUS?
I thought Obama was in office now. What happened to all those idea's he supposedly campaigned about ad nauseum? You can't blame Bush anymore. Sure, Bush screwed everything up but Obama said he could make things better. So do it and stop whining.
Wow, in office less than 3 months and he's supposed to fix all the mess GB left. He aint whining and he is doing it!
He's not supposed to make things worse, no.
He's not. I'am sorry but the 8yrs of GB will take a little longer than 3 months to clean up!
At this same time during bush's first year he already logged 25% of the vacation he would take that year. I'll take Obama and the most ethical administration of the century over that any day.
I'll take Obama and the most ethical administration of the century over that any day.
You do that.
How many TAX CHEATS does it take to turn an economy around?????
Let's hope for all our sakes that he does.
The market will correct itself. None of this was even needed. Watch how soon we hit the bottom.
Oh gawd. Free market is bull. Only chumps believe in it anymore. As long as the greedy live amongst us, we will need regulation.
Do you know what this article is about? Have you posted once actually 'on-topic'? Considering you just slapped my wrists for "attempting to change the subject" you sure have a hard time actually talking about the subject, huh?
Do you even know what the subject is? (without looking) Oh jeez, you looked. I'll bet you didn't know until you looked. Well, since you looked, it's about W not being blamed enough for the financial crisis. However, all of you who join in this bashing of Bush, seem to forget that Carter started it, Clinton stepped it up a notch and Bush only finished it. Then you have the gall to blame only W.
W is the subject, and he's done the most damage, period. No one is excusing the other players. Except blaming Carter is ridiculous. If we'd followed his energy policies, we wouldn't be stuck in an oil based economy.
You are excusing the other players. Carter started it, Clinton continued it and Bush advanced it.
What energy would we be using if Carter had his way? Wind-- environmentalists don't allow windmills, since they kill too many birds. Nuclear-- everyone else doesn't want the waste "in their back yard". Solar-- that's a good one, we need more of it. Unfortunately it causes global warming, so liberals are against solar power.
What a stupid theme about alternative energy. You have no clue. Liberals are against solar power because it causes global warming? Wow....are you Ann Coulter's disciple?
Carter's legislation mandated this: "The law emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."
I debunked that lie earlier. Do you need me to point you to it again?
You lied earlier. You quoted a portion of the wiki entry, then tried to say it "meant" unqualified buyers, which it clearly didn't (as proved from the portion I quoted)
well, foghornleghorn thought it was sufficient. He hasn't been calling me a liar since I posted proof of what I was saying. You, however, continue to be very un-Christian-like. Is that what your God teaches you? If so, I'm glad your God isn't Jesus.
I am guessing that Foghorn hasn't been back here to debunk your nonsense. Throwing a little religiousity into the mix now, eh? Shows you lost all your lame talking points.
sorry, you don't listen to facts and reason, so I figured I'd try a different tactic. I guess you ain't religous, so it won't work?
I am guessing that Foghorn hasn't been back here to debunk your nonsense
Thanks for the assist, Mary. As I asked earlier in this thread, Floyd, show me where the term "unqualified borrowers/buyers" is in the law. Until you can do that, you remain a LIAR.
"inner city" That says it all.
Hmm. You've unmasked yourself again.
no, just trying to appease you. I figured you would jump all over that answer. I was correct again. Are you starting to feel like a fiddle? Cause you're sure getting played
You can't blame Bush anymore
As long as his apologists/sycophants/collaborators keep popping up on the teevee spewing revisionist history. we have to keep assigning blame where it belongs.
So do it and stop whining.
In case you missed it, Obama IS doing something about it. Don't you remember about Rush and Co. wanting him to fail? But to conveniently forget the perpetrator(s) might allow the crime to happen again in the future. And I'm at a loss about the whining part.
He is not. At this pace he is on, our dollar will be worth NOTHING when he is done.
He is. At the pace he is on, the stock market will be at 11,000 by December.
Funny, when the market was tanking last month I was told that the stock market was not a reliable indicator of a strong economy.
That's why you gotta stop listening to Faux news. You never know what's true or not with that bunch.
I was told that by liberal posters on these threads, not FOX News. But I regard each source about equally.
We'll be trading yen!
Based on what evidence? The dollar has suffered for several years now, are you going to lay that off on Obama, too? You're trully an itiot if you think the dollar will ever be worth nothing.
ABSOLUTELY! If the 10 year budget stays in place, we're screwed!
we're screwed!
In case you missed it, the economy is pretty much "screwed" right now.
All I have seen is Obama spend more money we don't have, increase the deficit, hire some guys that had troubles paying their own taxes, cause the stock market to go lower, make Rush Limbaugh more popular, make fun of the disabled, laugh at the American people on 60 Minutes and give a lot of hard-earned tax dollars to companies that got us into this mess to begin with.
All I have seen...
You really need to expand your horizons beyond AM radio and Fox News. Then you may "see" somewhat more clearly the reality of this world of ours.
Reality is posting the same garbage.
How is it garbage? What did I say that is untrue?
Foghorn said Obama is doing something about it and your reply was simply garbage.
And if you listened to the 6o minutes interview he explained why he was laughing. You’ve put your far right spin on it.
They were talking to the poster named Reality.
Or are you one and the same?
You did a great jon recaping his time in office thus far. Cant wait to see what he does next!!
Pointofview, from your view out of your office in Gehenna, do you think snarky sniping is going to help anything???
Why did you stop your Concern Troll job?
So how did we get to this point?
This is easily attributable to the current job market and the Obama administration. People buy stocks when they see something positive in the market or with a particular company. NOTHING is coming out of this administration but more spending from this administration. The excuses are weak.
Even now, lenders are being pressured to give loans to folks that cannot afford it. Obama now wants all banks to show how much money is being loaned quarterly. How much would you like to bet that next we will know male/female, white/black, zip code, where is this located and so on so forth?
No one is "entitled" to a loan!!!! Lending was up last year, not down!!! One bank was recently given a "need to approve more rating" which is bad by the FDIC. The Community Reinvestment Act reported a bank to the FDIC in the Boston Area. At this moment this bank has no foreclosures, no loan losses...ZERO. Does this not sound counter-productive is in THIS economy??? We need a million more banks like this one right now.
So, who gives a hoot if George Washington left a mess for Obama. Obama sold the general public that he was the man for the job. I don't see how he is, but let's see. Now it is time to pony up.
People buy stockks at the price their worth. At the present because of GB mess stocks are not worth much and people are not buying them,that was because of the mess created by GB not Obama. I would bet you haven't even read the above article, "lending was up last year, not down!!!" Duh, last year was 2008 remember George Bush and his policies were in effect, Obama didn't take office until Jan.20,2009. Sounds to me like the CRC did it's job by reporting it. You say we need more banks like that, sorry but it doesn't happen overnight, and because of Georgies trashing of our economic system(he didn't even put the costs for the wars on the budget)there is alot to clean up and fix. Try reading the article before you comment, but regardless as the economy starts to rebound we will know who all the "haters" were by the shoe smell on their breath.
Instead of rabidly attacking anything against Obama, read my response again.
We got here because of the improper lending practices that were driven by Dodd and Frank AND this Community Reinvestment Act that has been right in the middle of this huge housing spike.
With that in mind, why in the world would we force banks, EVEN NOW, to loan money that they know the debt to income ratio is not good enough for? They can tell you at a high percentage looking at your credit history if you are a risk!
Finally, so you feel we need MORE toxic loans????????
We got here because the banks and investments firms saw an opportunity to make $$$. Stop trying to push this off on poor people.
Nobody is blaming poor people. We are blaming the politicians, not the poor.
Excuse me? Rush and Hannity blamed poor people when they claimed the banks were "forced" to make loans to them. If poor people weren't given loans, this wouldn't have happened is the claim.
Claim???? Let's walk you down the school hall to Reality. First, where did all of these defaulted loans come from?
If all this financial crisis hinged on was defaulted mortgages and NOT the fact that derivatives have made these things huge liabilities, you might have a point.
Looks like fried just gave you your midterm grade. Oops! But don't let that stop you from blaming poor people (though I suggest you synch up with zam first, your reich wing claim totally undermines his reich wing claim!)
So in other words the leg bone connects to the hip bone...You saved me typing a second question. That traincar is right behind the engine.
Next, because the government owns something does it just go away somehow or does the toxic loans increase in value?
We're not connected, it's just that you're learning a painful lesson on the fact that there are so many lefties who are well educated on the subject in question. Now can you please stop beating that dead horse?
I NEVER CAN GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER...Do the derivatives have nothing to do with the mortgages?
You guys are arguing "the chicken before the egg" and all I am saying there was no derivatives without all of the bad mortgages. What else could we have done with the toxic mortgages before they were sold as derivatives????
Why do you think that I am here? I deal with a lot of folks here that know EVERYTHING. I don't claim to at all, so i am learning more.
Reality,
How much worse is this crisis because of the derivatives, which were represented as high-quality securities, and their sale? Had it only been the poor, this problem would be over.
I hope your consternation is directed at Bush for his ownership society and his efforts to kill any meaningful reform.
I don't think anyone should buy large ticket items if you are not bright enough to make a savvy purchase. Impulse buying with homes and cars is just DUMB. You deserve what you get.
This is just like the idiots that pushed the "gas gouging law". If you are dumb enough to pay $10.00 a gallon when the guy across the street has it for $1.50 a gallon, whose fault is that? I support the right of anyone to charge whatever they want at their own establishment. Don't want it? Don't buy it! In turn, the gas gouging laws caused major shortages. Gas station owners were afraid to get fined by the state attorney general for raising their prices, so they just let the gas run out.
Where did you get those *facts* about gas stations *afraid* to make profits? Seriously, source this somewhere, please.
In trying to wrap my brain around un-reality's post, I find myself really needing a cocktail.
It feels good to be asked THIS type of question. This started in Georgia during the time of Katrina. North Carolina has since adopted the same law. The state attorney general and this person alone on there own at any time can look at a consumer complaint and be the judge and jury. If a gas station owner raises their price to what he or she feels is an exorbinant level they can fine the gas station owner. Gas station owners offer gas to customers to get them to come inside to buy the more profitable items like drinks or chips. Why take this chance? Store profits can be wiped out in one swoop by government.
SO, when there are fuel shortages this compounds the situation. The gas station owner has the choice of paying more from gas suppliers to replenish supply. At this point they take the chance when raising their price to get fined by the state attorney general. Now gas shortages will be further compounded by government TAKING CARE OF YOU when you are not responsible to make a savvy choice for yourself.
Yet another fine example of government beaurocracy at work.
Well, reality- you are incorrect. When a gas store owner has to PAY MORE from his supplier, he or she is ALLOWED to charge the difference at the pump. When I read your post about this two comments above, I researched it and found ZERO evidence of people being fined. Period. you don't know what you are talking about.
One of the reasons for NO fines or convictions of these laws is the ambigouos language of 'gouging'. No one has a clear definition. Period.
So you do blame Bush for pushing an ownership society and ignoring calls for reform?
What do you think of derivatives and all the securities that were marketed as AAA rated by the Wall St fat cats?
Do you blame Obama for pushing a socialist society and ignoring calls for freedom?
Someone forgot to take his medication.
It had nothing to do with politicians or the poor. It was Wall Street and a depraved ideology that says Wall Street needs no regulation.
Man do you ever do anything but repeat conservative radio talking points? You've proven that you listen to talk radio and watch Fox but do you ever have a thought on your own. "Improper lending practices pushed by Dodd and Frank." That's tired retread stuff, and really quite amusing since you argue that we shouldn't be harping on your boy Georgie! CRC is right in the middle, when are you going to bring in ACORN? Unless you can show me wher I or anyone else is forcing banks to take toxic loans, your like the nut on the corner with a sandwhich sign , saying the world is gonna end. Keep knocking down those strawmen, alot easier than thinking.
You can harp on. This is just a waste of energy. Tire spinning. You have extra time to debate the past.
If Obama does a poor job, which i expect to happen, i'm not going after him like this, geez.
You're delusional. It was the packaging and repackaging of bad loans into A+ rated financial instruments sold and resold at a profit from one firm to another, all backed against failure by AIG's Credit Default Swap program of insurance (but they were not permitted, by law, to call it insurance to evade any regulation).
It was a giant Ponzi scheme, based on bad mortgages, but the mortgages themselves were a small percentage of the losses. Most of which came from the profit paid on selling and reselling worthless financial packages.
worrierking---It was the packaging and repackaging of bad loans into A+ rated financial instruments sold and resold at a profit from one firm to another,
Right. And who promoted these "bad loans"? Hint: it started in '95. How long did you think these "bad loans" would stay around before they came back to haunt us? Why don't you explain why the "bad loans" are not being blamed for this mess?
What it sounds like you are doing is blaming AIG's backing of bad loans and ignoring who allowed bad loans. So, yes, it was a giant ponzi scheme that worked just as Clinton (ponzi) envisioned. I especially like how he was able to get all his followers to blame everyone except him. Those followers are sure dumb. They see a bad loan but don't think the bad loan is bad. They see someone insuring the bad loan and say "you are terrible for supporting a bad loan!".
The repeal of Glass-Steigel http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1042593/repeal_glasssteagallstiegel_act.html&ei=71zKSf-rPInOtQPI8LjoBw&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&usg=AFQjCNHwBY2KDBa76zThk9Uy7bGFEK_h_g
was done by the Republicans. Yeah Clinton signed it. The whole wrecking crew on Wall Street accelerated under W.
mary59---Yeah Clinton signed it.
Thank you.
lenders are being pressured to give loans to folks that cannot afford it.
Liar. Liar. Liar. I work with the mortgage industry and you, sir, know nothing about the mortgage industry.
You sir are ABSOLUTELY incorrect. You process loans. Big deal.
http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/0316/story3.html?b=1237176000^1793570&page=1
The story can't be found. What did it say?
It said nothing of substance, just like his non-link.
Step on up to the plate, young grasshopper.
Sure thing, little factually challenged fellah.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/is-there-an-antidote-to-t_b_176538.html
HEHHEHEHEHEHE! You responded with a Bwarney Fwank post! HEHEHEHEHEH!
Wow. You win.
I know! He's SO gay! LOL!!!
http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/03/16/story3.html
The Community Reinvestment Act folks caused this bank negative ratings with the FDIC because this bank did not lend enough. This bank has ZERO bad loans, foreclosures on their books AT ALL. In the midst of a financial crisis where we are drowning in "toxic assets" THE LAST THING WE NEED TO DO IS TAKE OUR EYE OFF OF THE BALL!
We use debt to income ratios for a reason to determine credit worthiness. These particular folks must have done a stellar job to have not one bad loan at all on their books.
Don't be fooled folks! Using our head and cutting back spending is what my household does when times are shaky or rough. Why not the government? Right no is not when I dust of the credit card fora brisk shopping spree!
Finally, do you REALLY think that these assets absorbed by the government will actually be worth a dollar as they were before again? I'd keep my money away from those assets. I have some prime swamp land Obama. Heck, Bush you're a BIG spender too, come on!
Your link is worthless. I used to process loans, but clearly you process BS.
I was in mortgage loans for many years and to blame the CRA for this is to show yourself as a sycophant and a fool.
i have to agree with mikeh,nonReality should be your moniker.
I've posted it before and suggest you turn of the AM radio and Fox to read this book, "Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis" by Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla.
Not only will you discover it wasn't Dodd, Frank, CRA and Acorn, it wasn't even poor people who caused the problem. THere literally aren't enough poor people who go loans. However, there were an awful lot of speculators who watched "Flip this House" and paid $5,000 to go to Donald Trump seminars (and others like him) who got liar loans on 3-4-5 properties which collapsed. Look at what happened in Las Vegas.
oops, cat walked on the keyboard.
Should great "who got loans"
And yes, I was in real estate, saw it happen, had people come to me for financial analysis, who didn't take my advice, and lost many, many $500,000 properties to foreclosure, not merely cheap homes.
Orange County, CA, the proud heart of conservative Republicans, was where many of these mortgage lenders were located, as Muolo and Padilla report in detail over 25 years. I have no doubt that el Rushbo and the folks at Fox have not read the book or would report what it says.
This is what separates us. I can be lucid and aware enough to admit that I believe that we are BOTH correct. I cannot argue your point at all. Houseflippers did not help the market at all.
I really don't see how you can think the example below is a GOOD thing for our market/banks right now.
http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/03/16/story3.html
The Community Reinvestment Act folks caused this bank negative ratings with the FDIC because this bank did not lend enough. This bank has ZERO bad loans, foreclosures on their books AT ALL. In the midst of a financial crisis where we are drowning in "toxic assets" THE LAST THING WE NEED TO DO IS TAKE OUR EYE OFF OF THE BALL!
We use debt to income ratios for a reason to determine credit worthiness. These particular folks must have done a stellar job to have not one bad loan at all on their books.
Don't be fooled folks! Using our head and cutting back spending is what my household does when times are shaky or rough. Why not the government? Right no is not when I dust of the credit card fora brisk shopping spree!
Finally, do you REALLY think that these assets absorbed by the government will actually be worth a dollar as they were before again? I'd keep my money away from those assets. I have some prime swamp land Obama. Heck, Bush you're a BIG spender too, come on!
Did you read the book? CRA was not the culprit! Anyone who keeps pointing to CRA is giving you a massive red herring.
Here's the syllogism: Yes, there were subprime borrowers, traditionally in redlined communities. The subprime loans paid high interest. Several mortgage firms in Orange county discovered they could sell the loans, then package these loans as securities to hot shot Wall Street guys who created financial models and derivatives that indicated they could manage the risk. In turn, AIG stepped up to insure the apparently non-existent risk, thinking they were making free money. (I may have left a step or two out).
What happened next was the mortgage firms ran out of subprime borrowers - literally, there weren't enough redlined areas and poor people who needed 30 year loans. To keep the party going, they loosened the rules.
The independent mortgage brokers were called scum by Angelo Mozillo in the first two decades of Countrywide because they couldn't be trusted. He hired his own people so he could in theory manage the risk. But eventually he relented as other Orange county firms were making a pile of money, going public and the founders sold out with huge profits. Angelo got greedy and went to both inside as well as independent brokers.
The joke was that they'd loan to anyone who could fog a mirror. The loan requirements were loosened to the point you could do NO DOC - no documentation liar loans. The loan broker would literally make it up. I've been working out loans for janitors who supposedly made $120K a year - 5x their real income. The loan brokers also went back to their previous borrowers with 30 year fixed at 6% and pitched them an Option ARM, or the "Pick-a-Pay" loan. The book documents this. The brokers were getting 3% commission for a couple hours of work. That's more than a realtor who sold the home and took a couple months. And the brokers would come back every time the rates dropped a half point, making another 3% commission. They laddered up the value of the property to pull out some cash, but mostly just to justify their commission.
But wait, there's more. There are people called underwriting firms whose job it was to conduct due diligence on the loans. They'd do a statistical sampling and rate the portfolio of the security (the bond). But even these people didn't do their jobs. Read the book. If a loan didn't pass, the team leader with override the underwriter. They were hired with a commitment to approve the security, and guess what, they did.
To put it clearly - there were loans being packaged as low risk which were extremely high risk because nobody - even today - has any clue of the underlying value and borrower risk.
What happened was that everyone had no moral hazard, from the borrower to mortgage broker, to lender, to bond trader, to derivatives traders, to AIG.
My fear, as someone who sees this on the front lines, is that it will literally take years to establish any rational value. It will be like Resolution Trust Corp. If you don't know about that you should read about that too. I was merely a homeowner and small business owner in the days of the '89 S&L crisis.
Great post. Reality probably still doesn't buy it. The short explanation was the financial markets privatized profits and socialized the risk. The shorter explanation was that it was nothing more than GREED.
Sorry to be so long-winded. But this republican/talk radio BS has to be hit in the mouth to stop them. Hitting them in the head doesn't work, because they are brain dead.
Greed sounds too simple.
read the article...
Very interesting post and I'll look this one up at the library for sure!
Really my bottom line feeling is the government needed to let these folks drown. I know! That would have been disastrous for us all. However, let these folks sink to the bottom and let's reset things.
I would compare this government involvement to giving our economy a shot of morphine. The market NEEDS to feel the pain and reset.
foghornleghorn---I work with the mortgage industry
Well, then, you know he speak the truth and you, sire, are the one lieing. Tell us what affect the CRA had on home purchasing. If you aren't too afraid to actually admit who is at fault for this mess.
Tell us what affect the CRA had on home purchasing
None, at least where I live. It might be different in CRAville of Freeperberg, but not here in Ohio.
"How much would you like to bet that next we will know male/female, white/black, zip code, where is this located and so on so forth? We already know this, it is captured on every loan application.
Even now, lenders are being pressured to give loans to folks that cannot afford it. False, lenders guidelines have tighten dramatically and cut off off the supply of money. If you do not fit with in very strict guidleines you can not get a loan. Please do not speak to which you know nothing. I am a lender and believe me we are turning down people left and right that would have gotten 100% financing a year ago.
Please provide the statistics where lending was up. What do you mean the CRA reported a bank to the FDIC. How can a law report some one. There is no bank with zero foreclosures. Bank of America has the lowest foreclosure rate in the business and they have some.
Read the article...
I think this whole thing is overblown. The legislature shouldn't be tearing up contracts between private parties. If they want the contracts gone they should go to court. The government shouldn't be dictating the pay of anyone other than government employees. Taxes shouldn’t used punitively for something that was perfectly legal and it’s probably unconstitutional anyway. The nonsense about naming people publicly could get those individuals hurt.
So you disagree with federal minimum wage laws and labor standards?
I disagree with maximum wage laws. I don't know how labor standards relate to my post.
Where's
Bush?
What's amazing is the shortness of the American memory. When Bush first took office and the market tanked, recession began, and the surplus disappeared... many of his supporters were quick to suggest that it was Clinton who had set those wheels in motion. Even after seven years of Bush, in fact, many were STILL making those claims. The property bust, some of them will say, was Clinton's fault.
Likewise, when the U.S. under Clinton flourished, many of those same voices said that it was Reagan who really deserved the credit. And that we were merely reaping the delayed rewards of his '80s policies.
Yet, here we are with Obama practically walking off the inaugural stage with a mop and bucket in hand, able to catalog a clear and undeniable list of catastrophic outcomes that can be directly tied to the Bush presidency and even to the on-camera or in-print sound bites that are tantamount to a public confession of Bush's culpability... and somehow this is all Obama's doing?
Amazing. I suppose if he actually manages to fix this monumental mess, we'll have only one man to thank, in your opinion... W.
Such a bright man Obama is they claim. Jammed a bill thousands of pages long that many congressmen even now admit they did not read. Why was this such a rushed process? No one is mentioning and I mean NO ONE that our deficit has doubled! Obama is NOT lowering the deficit.
Again, we will come out of this before a stimulus dollar hits. Obama is STILL going to get credit for this when he does not deserve it. Roads and bridges and spending does not build up a bank account. Saving does.
MM---So how did we get to this point? Job losses in the hundreds of thousands every month, almost weekly bank failures, and 401(k)s at half their value from a year and a half ago.
Funny how "the media" is ignoring the FACT that Clinton got us here. But, since he is an old president (and a democrat) no mention of his culpability in the situation is ever mention by "the media". How is Media Matters able to didicate "round the clock" coverage of the AIG "scandal", yet totally ignore how it all happened? Where was Media Matters complaints about AIG bonus's while they gave millions to Clinton just before Clinton created laws that made unqualified home purchases easier. "The media" certainly doesn't miss any of Bush's responsibilities in the unqualified home purchasing fiasco, but somehow ignores the initial actions that started and made it all possible.
It's like turning on the faucet to fill a bucket. At the beginning all is apparatly just fine. After a little while the bucket gets full and starts overflowing. Whose actions caused the overflow? The person starting the faucet or the one turning the faucet off? Well, Media Matters and "the media" blame the one turning the faucet off. I will continue to blame the one who started it all.
Floyd, your bucket 'o posts earned you a couple of bucks, congratulations. But it's all nonsense.
Bush and his "free" market ideology created the mess. Reagan promoted it, after soaking the poor & middle class with that social security tax hike; Clinton bought into it too, unfortunately, but it went on steroids with Bush/Cheney. And Greenspan finally admitted he was wrong after all the wreckage.
The mainstream press just ignores Bush, like you do, and obsess over every speck of lint in Obama's lapel. They're so myopic it's pathetic.
Oh yeah, and bashing poor people again, eh? Unqualified people were lied to by the mortgage industry, and many folks could have qualified for better loans, but were lied to. We've had plenty of examples. Grow up and admit that you've been on the wrong side of history.
By your rationale, poor people should not be trusted at all to be loaned anything?! Since they cannot read the contract they are signing, they don't understand what they're signing???
Should the mortgage company, the customer or your fellow tax payers pay for that?
Obviously, she thinks "your fellow tax payers". She thinks poor people cannot read and therefore should not be held liable for their actions. After all, it was the evil corporations who enticed the poor people into spending money they didn't have. I guess she thinks poor = dumb because they couldn't figure out that having no money meant they couldn't spend any. Thanks for clearing that up, mary59. Now, go do your part and give poor people your house and you continue paying for it.
In the loan process who is the professional? Joe Homeowner shouldn't have to be an expert. That's why he pays a FEE to the mortgage/loan professional. And many were distinctly un-professional in their dealings, all in the name of GREED.
Just as y'all stretch the "general welfare of the people" I see.
The onus and responsibility is Joe H's pal. If a client wants to pay a point and a half back in the day...You would have said no! Let's make it a half point.
Call me to buy. I'm at work to make money, not to be the American Red Cross. I'll fire your tail so fast if you did that at my business.
Yes actually reputable banks only allow us to charge reasonable fees. And no one comes in and says I will pay X. Most buyers are confused by the process and trust the people whom they were referred to.
Since there was no oversight or regulation, all three are on the hook for the losses.
But the lenders who are the most responsible for the mess will be bailed out.
worrierking---You're delusional. It was the packaging and repackaging of bad loans into A+ rated financial instruments sold and resold at a profit from one firm to another, all backed against failure by AIG's Credit Default Swap program of insurance...
You called Reality "delusional" for saying it was the lenders ("lending practices") who caused the problem, and you made up your own reasoning (see above) for what caused the problem. Now, you say it's the lenders who caused the problem.
Which is it: lenders or lender insurers? It's kind of hard to follow your reasoning when you change it this often.
It's a poor game you're playing. Not worth the money you're being paid to post on here. Pity. There's many smart people who got fooled by the money lenders.
shut up. This ain't no game. Let worrierking explain his own misinterpretations of our country's woes. Or can you answer why he said it was the packaging and repackaging of loans causing the problems then he said it was the lenders who caused the problem? I didn't think you could answer....unless you are worrierking. In which case; answer the question.
Ok, it was Clinton and FDR who are to blame, no one else.
Satisfied?
But no answer as to why you changed your blame from loan packagers to lenders?
The lenders repackaged and resold the loans with the backing of the insurance industry. The insurers claimed the loans were a good investment and with their blessing lenders repackaged and resold the loans several times with the lenders and insurers profiting from each transaction.
I realize you may still be tranqualized up from your surgery, but how does the lender loan the money and then bundle the loans it just made? I think you get confused over the local bank loaning the money to an unqualified borrower and the same local bank re-buying that loan back as an investment. I think you're lumping 4-5 different steps as being 'one' lender with the insurer being the guardian over each step. But, that's all fine. You can believe that's how things worked if you want. I won't stop you. I do get a good chuckle out of it, though.
Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention. I notice you went from blaming one group to blaming another group, now blaming both groups. (convieniantly forgetting to put any blame on what started allowing risky loans to be bet on in the beginning)
Floyd,
read my post at 4:59:13 PM EDT 3/24.09. Better yet, read the book I reference at March 24, 2009 3:08:24 AM EDT.
I'm not the author, but it's literally the best book you'll read on the subject by two financial writers who saw it up close for 25 years.
I'm no economist and I've got a limited knowledge of how the overall system works. But I'm closer than you are to the truth of the causes of the economic collapse.
You seem to be blaming the poor, Carter & Clinton, fine. That's your opinion. A lot of us disagree. You seem to want to paint me as some wild eyed commie bastard with conspiracy delusions. if you'd researched the people your fighting with, you'd see that very few of us are. Most of us are normal people who happen to differ with those on the right. Your side wants to vilify the Democratic administrations and absolve the Republicans. That's fine too, but not backed up by history.
I believe Clinton shares some blame. It was Clinton who in 1999, did not veto the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
That and the deregulation that followed under the Republican administration brought us to this point. It had very little to do with the poor or with Carter.
worrierking---I'm no economist and I've got a limited knowledge
yes, we are experiencing that fact.
Only you come to that conclusion.
Brokers don't ever take possesion of a loan. They close it in someone elses name who then bundles them and sells them to wall street in 100 mil packages. They are then bundled again and sold as Mortgage Backed Securities. The AIG comes behind and sells insurance against these loans failing. Problem is AIG does not have the money to pay those claims. Banks were using the insurance in their risk model and when AIG can't pay all the other banks are short and go out of business. That is why the bail out was necessary. Theyu would not have been the only institution to fail. Our whole banking system would have collapsed. So for any one tosay that the bail out did not work or is not working is wrong. The fact that we still have a banking system means it is not failing.
Everyone is paying for it. Apparently you have never done a mortgage. It is some of the most complicated paperwork with a lot of confusion. Can you tell me what the "Truth in Lending" disclosure is? Can you tell me how an APR is calculated on a loan?
I have. I met my wife when SHE was a mortgage executive. I've seen that many clients are so excited by their purchase that you can emphasize certain points and they are not really listening. Even then, I have been burned myself before and i know what I'm looking at. (A balloon loan.) Luckily I caught it very early from paying attention to detail.
Are those still legal now?
I don't understand why the media continues to shield Bush from criticism .
Funny. I hear a lot of crying from cons about how all this is FDR's fault, and he's been out of office for decades. Cons just flat-out don't like history. And no wonder: it proves them wrong over and over and over and over...
That's my major. The Great Society years. Let's go!
Great Society was LBJ, not FDR.
See what I mean?
Amen, you're right. I'm slammed here working. Either way, how can folks blame FDR?
Again, if Abraham Lincoln caused this...The onus is on Obama now. Blowing hot air at Bush doesn't really matter.
I'm mad at my Panthers, but yelling at them now does no good. Not the same team.
BUT HE WAS IN OFFICE WHEN IT HAPPEN AND THIS SAME MEDIA SAID NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU FOR TELLING IT LIKE IT IS. HEY MEDIA MATTER WHY DON'T YOU DO WHAT STEWART DID PUT UP WHAT PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA SAID ABOUT AIG AND WHAT THE BUSH WAS DOING FOR 8 YEARS.
I'm sorry, what did you write? I lost you after the first "B."
to floyd just who had the money? the banks and now they aren't giving any of it back so do you think some poor person is going to make them give a loan for a house they could not afford? Hell no. Not on this planet. it sounds good to blame the guy at the top and his people but it still goes back to 2000 and 2003 when congress was in the hands of those people who love the super rich...
Who has the majority now and tell me just how thorough were they studying the bill they signed? What is going to get accomplished?
Do you understand what I said? There's a big difference between claiming as MMFA did that Congress "created" the right of the AIGs of the world to get their bonuses and the truth, which is that Congress "allowed" bonuses pre-Feburary 11 to continue to be paid out as written in its contracts. In other words, Congress didn't put a stop to what was already created. The MSM, for the most part never claimed Congress created the framework for the bonuses to be paid out. It's not hard to figure out or understand where MMFA is mistaken in what most of the MSM said about this.
sorry for the confusion - this was supposed to be in reply to someone in particular, not a general comment.
Last night on Frontline they reported on the "Trillion Dollar Deficit" and gave Mr Bush all the credit he deserves. I am grateful there is one show that tells the truth about such things. The show is available on Line if you search "Frontline."
Carol in Denver
I'm glad that Frontline has gotten their spine back. Thanks Carol. There's a herd of misinformers out there trying to deflect away from the gawd-awful W administration.
I just don't get why pointing fingers at anyone other than is responsible NOW is even important???? Obama is now responsible. The onus is ONLY on him. Obama cannot do a poor job and expect to blame it all on the last guy. "The buck stops here", so Obama said.
I don't consider Bush a conservative at all. At all! This guy gets talked about like Hitler and he is long gone. Obama CAN IN FACT make things worse. The phrase "there is only one way to go from here" is not applicable.
We are still the number one place to live on the planet. Let's all just hope more comments do not come out out from the French (of all people) about how irresponsible the CURRENT administration is being.
If you don't examine the past, you will make the same mistakes in the future. That's obvious, as is the fact that this is a sum total of the horrible Greenspan idea of free markets. Since Reagan, these ideas have been advanced to the detriment of the middle class and working poor. The only time Greenspan acted against his libertarian principles was when the markets tanked the economy and he bailed them out.
W was the worst proponent, and the past 8 years have been a disaster.
I agree with that assessment. I'm middle class, probably lower, and I am not throwing a fit!
This pains me to see anyone speak about their fellow Americans as I see above. Americans democrat and Republican our giving their lives up for freedom(Even for Obama now) while we sit back and throw rocks at each other here.
Where are all of the "needless war" folks now? The crescendo has now subsided to a pianissimo. Russia got CRUSHED ten years running in Afghanistan. 14,453 Soviets died there before they turned tail and ran like a bunch of _______.
Many Americans wanted our country to look the same way in Iraq. Now we'll see if these same defeatists will cry the same way to Obama. This is not funny but it is at the same time, the Soviets were supporting the Marxists there in Afghanistan against the mujhadeen.
Uhhh, this could be a GREAT political move by Obama. We could bring a few of those Marxists here for support!
I don't think ya can do it. The Soviets left because there was no way they could "win" It's a familiar tale. An indigenous population, resorting to guerilla warfare, can defeat a superior army. Case in point: Revolutionary War.