Explain this screw up Dem's!!!
acoustic guy
Posts: 3,770
The Democrats push to give mortgages to minorities who can not afford them. They allowed them to use welfare payments as income. HA! And the minute the bubble bursts they will be in big trouble...and what happened?
Go ahead and try to blame this one on the existing office.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20080924/cm_ucac/theygaveyourmortgagetoalessqualifiedminority;_ylt=ArImCphVJaO_OXf9bZD_hx4DW7oF
Go ahead and try to blame this one on the existing office.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20080924/cm_ucac/theygaveyourmortgagetoalessqualifiedminority;_ylt=ArImCphVJaO_OXf9bZD_hx4DW7oF
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
sooo ... this whole financial disaster is based on an affirmative action policy put forth by a democratic legislature!??????
you don't seriously believe that do you?
Couldn't agree more. Affirmitive action lending practices. The Dems wanted no regulation for Freddie and Fannie. However, subprime is not responsible for all of this mess. Look at the top who Freddie and Fannie gave money to Dodd & Obama. I am hearing crickets on this one as far as the Dem's are concerned. However, when oil prices run up all you hear is the W is from Texas and he is taking care of his rich friends. The whole Enron mess was blamed on Republicans. Yet no is blaming the Dems for this mess. Hey I don't like having to pay a monthly mortgage maybe I should say fuck it and someone can bail me out.
doesn't change the facts...
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
I'm not going to defend the Democrats for their role in this problem but it is ignorant of Coulter and you to simply point fingers at the Democrats when republicans have just as much responsibility in this mess. This is not a Dem v. Rep issue it is a government and corporate failure issue and for narrow-minded hyper-partisans to be insinuating other wise shows their lack of understanding of the whole situation. A good first step would be to completely ignore partisan talking heads, from both sides of the isle, on this issue and educate yourself on the reasons it happened. While sub-prime mortgages are one of he reasons for this they are only a small percentage of the problem. If I where you I would do some research on it before you make another comment or post a link to someone who is completely clueless as to the origins of this problem. I'm just trying to help so you don't come off completely ignorant on the matter.
How about Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager. I love how you people present only half the truth. Both parties are neck deep in this shit so quite just blaming the Dems.
it's the result of letting corporations run amok without regulation ... and absolutely, this is a democrat/republican clusterfuck ...
I couldn't agree more that's why I was not going to defend the Democrats. They are just as responsible as the Republicans, as the banks, as the investment firms, as the greedy CEOs & CFOs, as the people who took at loans they had no business taking out and the Federal Reserve. All of these entities share responsibility for the fuck up so it kind of burns me when I see/hear someone pointing fingers at one entity, in this case the Dems.
Don't pin this on the Democrates and you really shouldn't be getting your information from Anne Coulter as she is a fucking knob
How quickly we forget our history....So here's a little history lesson for you and that fucking waterhead Anne Coulter:
It was Bush in 2002 who stood up there with Fanny and Freddie and bragged how they were going to make "The American Dream Possible for Americans" who couldn't afford their first homes as Fannie and Freddie began to loosen their morgage restrictions . He announced in 2002 an initiative to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners by 2010. And, according to Bush's 2004 budget proposal, the two government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be tapped to help deliver that goal. In 2002, for example, Freddie Mac financed $54 billion in mortgages funding homes for more than 400,000 minority and under privilaged families, and Fannie Mae financed more than $87 billion in loans to nearly 680,000 minority and under priviledged families. All of which is listed in the tactical perspectives section of the administration's 2004 budget proposal.
Jump forward to Present
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posted record losses of $11.8 billion from 2004-2007 as defaults on mortgages soared to the highest in 30 years.
Instead of fixing this problem President George W. Bush increased Fannie and Freddies lending power as part of his Stimulus Plan in 2008 lending 7.8 Billion dollars to temporarily allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy jumbo loans in 91 of the most expensive U.S. housing markets. This Combined with an agreement to reduce the companies' capital requirements and further loosening the restrictions placed on the company during the Clinton Administration.
I don't know how these Republican fuckers can continually point their dirty fingers at the Democrates when it was the Bush administration and Republicans like John McCain that have been all for De-Regulation from the very begining.
They are so full of shit that their eyes are brown.
Yes, the
That Hannity talking point about Obama being the #3 recipient of Freddie and Fannie donations is such a crock of shit... According to everything that I've read, those campaign donations totaled a whopping $120,000 out of the tens of millions of campaign donations.
Like pointed out before, both sides have their fingers in the pot....
from http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9663_mccain_fannie_freddie.html
Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.
And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.
For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Fannie and Freddie have always had slightly 'relaxed' standards... they really started to loosen up in the late 90's, BEFORE Bush.
To put all of the blame one side or the other is rediculous.
True I believe it was in 1998, under Clinton but also under a Republican controlled Congress, that they started cutting back on regulations.
Alright, here is the site:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
Donations from individuals? Does it mean from individuals who happened to work for the company? Over 19 years? Should we then sample any big company, track to whom its employees give money and say that's money coming from the company?
I am ready to be proven wrong if I misunderstand anything, but if I am right there is serious cause to worry. Things go unchecked and everyone is content to spit out racist dumb garbage.
http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html
my thoughts exactly....
why dont you post a fox news article that says obama is really osama bin laden??? cause their names are similar.
sounds a bit racist this article to be honest....
-Big Fish
really, i shouldn't be so surprised though, i mean today we've had...
PETA wanting us to give cows milk the flick and have boobie milk in ice cream instead :rolleyes:
then there's ''i've seen dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them'' Palin with her little chat about Russia(people actually think this woman is a good choice for VP?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/25/palin-talks-russia-with-k_n_129318.html
an unbelievable encounter with some psycho....
ann coulter though... like....wow. you can say all you like that it doesn't change the facts, but who in their right mind would even give this evil ugly bitch the time of the day.
Not to mention the Daily KOS article a while back that her daughter actually had her baby.
The op-ed piece from a professor from Columbia in the Wall Street Journal started this argument of the allowing of Freddie and Fannie to get involved in buying of sub-prime mortgages caused all of this! Then the talking heads who could not possibly understand all the inticacies of Credit Default Swaps, Changes in Accounting and tax Policies, the unregulated and economically fueled rating agency failure, the change in Fed policy (and world policy, see Basel II bank regulations, major push from REPUBLICANS and Greenspan) in regards to capital by investment and commercial banks that allowed them to increase their leverage from 10-15x to over 35X LEVERAGE, the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, just keep repeating the same information out to the world.
No doubt that the freeing of money to sub prime lenders who then paid out the freer cash to those who should have not qualified for mortgages has a part. A SMALL PART.
Here's my call:
Capitalism and all the good that comes with it, has a nasty down side. Once someone sees an in for taking profit, which could be a good plan, everyone wants to have a piece of it. Companies come out of the woodwork who are willing to do everything to make a buck and will push the envelope. Banks found themselves unregulated in the CDS market making and allowed them to put percieved hedges in place which they believed took out the risk. The rating agencies signed off on all this and made a hyper market where eveyone was bringing profits down which led everyone to look for more risky positions to increase volume to overcome lowering profits. They took more risks on higher volume and did not take into account counter-party risk of those they were laying off their risks through hedges. Hedges were not regulated by anyone and companies that should have not been in these business (ie AIG) were taking on massive risk without having enough capital to overcome them if there was an issue.
So now what happens, housing prices start going down (that was bound to happen at sometime folks), people were over-levered (and not just poor people, LOTS of people, it was not just the sub-prime market that is falling, it is the prime market and the floating rate Alt-A market) and started walking away from the residences but more importantly their INVESTMENTS) and stopped paying their loans. Those loans cause defaults and failures to pay in the securities (don't get me started on CDO's which over-levered the markets to massive extremes, I will happily write a paper of that failure again the RA).
Losses occur and banks are seeing their values dissipate. They are not completely honest about what was on their balance sheets (big failure of banks and accounting firms). Now people start looking to get payment from the Insurance companies who owe them on the hedges (Big failure of banks and insurers on understanding the risks). They are levered so much that they don't have enough in capital to cover their losses.
AND THE HOUSE OF CARD FALLS --
This is not a question of democrat and republican (All sides are to blame). This is a question of risk and understanding it and regulating how far companies can go until it becomes a CONCERN to all of us.
For capitalism to work, there can not be tons of regulation, but there can not be none (anarchy)
Will be happy to have the bullets shot at me now!
Well said.
does capitalism account for sustainability? ... i mean if i have a model to cut all the trees in a state that creates x jobs and puts x dollars into the economy - it's considered great ... but what about the impacts of losing all those trees? ... what about the impact that there are no more trees left?
i don't think capitalism accounts for that
Nice post amigo. Well said.
you spin me right round baby ....
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Agreed! That is the problem. There are always going to be cycles. Can't help it. Public sentiment pushes things one way or the other. With the advent of CNBC, the internet, things are going to be quicker and more volatile.
The issue (in my opinion) is the level of risk we are allowed to take. For capitalism to work there need to be risk takers. Both on the creation side (ie Steve Jobs) and on the banking and financial side (Warren Spector). However both sides of this equation have to take into account the level of risks they are willing to take, giving up upside to avoid massive downside.
The basic common risk aversion should be the MORAL and SOCIAL hazard of the ramification of private risk taking to the public good. This is why some form of regulation is needed, some form of market making is needed.
These things are needed to avoid cutting down all the trees without a proper harvest plan. Just cutting them all down is a social and biological moral hazard as much as a financial moral hazard of not looking to the future.
This always comes back to the same quote. "Those who do not look to their past are doomed to repeat it".
This is not different in cause than the early 90's debacle in the Savings and Loan Scandle. This is not different than the bank failures in Scandanavia.
What is different is the scale. And that was caused by the Trillions of leverage that banks were allowed to have on thier balance sheet due to change in banking and funding laws.
how people continue to look to social programs like welfare which pales in $ comparison to the corporate welfare that our gov't blindy gives to the real greedy pig owning companies.
how to generalize that Dems (or Repubs for the matter) did this... did the Dems tell me I could buy a house for $800k knowing I really can only afford say $300K?
how 95% of us will find a reason to fight argue and bicker about the silliest things when really 95% of us are on the same side, what are we fighting over, unless you are in the priviledged class (meaning too much money power and influence) I cant see where a post like this come from, unless of course you are flat out ignorant to what is going on.
no wonder we are powerless pathetic creatures here in the US.
Here's what I know off the top of my head: CRA loans have been around since the 70's, the crisis started a few years ago. CRA is not for less qualified - it was instituted after statistics showed that equally qualified minorities were not being offered loans at the same rate as their white counterparts. CRA is only applicable to some banks - not all - and isn't applicable at all to any mortgage lenders. Which means that only about 25% of lending institutions fall under CRA. CRA specifically prohibits predatory practices.
I think it's 75-80% of subprime loans came from banks and/or lenders with no CRA exposure. So, if Republicans want to claim that CRA "forced" banks to make bad loans, how did they account for all those bad loans being made by institutions which don't even fall under CRA?
Also, Bush substantially weakened CRA back in 2004 and subprime loans ballooned AFTER he weakened it.
This mess is due to the Bush administration's active protection of subprime and predatory lenders:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
power to the peaceful