Something to think about for a moment

[SparkyJJO]

Before I begin, I want to let you know that this is all typed up by me. Not from an email I'm not a fan of McCain nor Obama.

A couple years ago, the economy was near it's highest point in history and increasing.

A couple years ago, gas prices were decent enough.

A couple years ago, elections for congress were taking place. The democrats were screaming "CHANGE!!" They got elected.

Yes, we've had change. In the past couple years, we have seen gas prices go way up. Economy go down. Gas prices have dropped again, due to people using less and the economic slump.

Is this the kind of change we want? Seriously? I don't think so!

Now, a good part of the economic slump is the bad mortgages. Where did they come from? People who couldn't really afford them got them, because interest rates on the variable rate loans were cheap then. Was it smart? No. Fault of the people and fault of the banks, but ALSO fault of CLINTON. Yes, one of your favorite presidents.

Let me explain: Banks - like Fanny Mae - did not want to give out many of these risky mortgages. They were called "sub-prime" mortgages. However, Clinton and co. signed some legislature basically forcing them to. Good job!

Things seemed OK for a while though... until costs went up, interest rates went up... and bang. Mess.

So now the economy is struggling. Shedding a lot of this bad weight that shouldn't be there. Is it pretty? No. Is it good? Heck no. Oh, but now the government starts running these bailouts. $700B :Q Oh yeah great, they are buying up bad debt now, effectively buying up banks. ON YOUR DIME. Taking more loans, printing more money, whatever it takes to do it. Government run banks, sounds great.... not. Not to mention some excess pork barrel spending in there too. Why not let the economy recover on its own? Because old uncle sam can't keep his dirty hands out of it. More government control.

People think everything is Bush's fault. Is some of it? Yes. Is it all? No. His word isn't final say, and really for the past 2 years he's been limited by congress, and they have called many of the shots. BTW, they have the worst rating. Ever. In history. Worse than Bush. And there are those of you who want to elect one of these guys, Obama, as president? Are you being honest with yourselves?

Think about it. This post is meant to give some food for thought, shed a little light on stuff, and maybe wake some people up. Here is a video of some info too, might want to mute your speakers because the music in the background is annoying but the info in it is good. This isn't made up stuff, what he shows in it you can google and find the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-3C0v8eVfw

If you've made it this far, great, I'm glad you didn't blow me off as soon as you read that it wasn't all that positive towards democrats. Like I said, I'm no real fan of McCain either, I think we got shafted and are stuck between the lesser of two evils. Thanks republicans and democrats. I wanted Ron Paul or Fred Thompson.

 

[IronWing]

Read the other forum threads covering all the material above.

 

[jpeyton]

Here is how stupidly simple my decision making process is.

Who do I think has better policies: Obama

Who do I think is a better decision maker: Obama

Who am I voting for: Obama

See, that was easy, no?

 

[StageLeft]

Some merit here, but Bush was still president and the democratic congress has been completely spineless against him. Also, the war began before that as did the weakening of the country's freedom's and respect in the world, among other things.

 

[ProfJohn]

It would be wrong to blame it all on Clinton.

But the Democrats are certainly at the center of the mess. They wanted more minority house ownership, a good thing. But turned their eyes and heads when signs started to form that their idea was about to explode.

Let's also remember that Bush bought into this as well with his 'ownership society'

Finally, we shouldn't blame bad regulations or lack of regulations for this mess. We should blame government interference. The government pushed banks to lend to credit ricky people and used fannie and freddie to provide a means for the bank to do so. If the government had stayed out of the way in the first place we would have never this huge bubble build up and pop.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I wanted Ron Paul or Fred Thompson.

Ugh.

 

[First]

This was without question simply a result of poor oversight and deregulation by Bush and Republicans for years, particularly in the 90's when they could have passed better laws. Gramm-Leach-Bliley should have never been passed and that's mostly Republicans' fault, especially since this Gramm dullard still serves as an economic adviser to the GOP (McCain).

In the end, the GOP brand is shattered by this and Americans are voting them out in both chambers and for POTUS. We'll see more liberal Republicans over the next few years, that's for sure.

 

[umbrella39]

So all the shit we are going through in the year 2008 is the Dems fault then? That is news to me. I thought it was a burden equally shared by both parties... but I digress. I'll play along.

I submit this: all the concerns you listed about the economy, gas prices, housing, etc would have never happened if we had not invaded Iraq. IMO, it all started with that one shit move and has been snowballing ever since.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I wanted Ron Paul or Fred Thompson.

Ugh.

Seriously, he should put this at the top of the post instead of the end so no one will have to waste their time reading any more.

 

[Balt]

If you think this ticking time bomb only started two years ago when the Dems took Congress you are very mistaken. They certainly share some of the responsibility but it goes much farther back than 2006.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It would be wrong to blame it all on Clinton.

But that doesn't stop you Republcans from doing so.

 

[Pepsei]

geez... for a minute there i thought i was reading a liberal post from the free republic forum....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

but ALSO fault of CLINTON. Yes, one of your favorite presidents.

Oh look another Republican shill color me surprised :roll:

 

[manowar821]

This economic crash was a long time in the making, the Iraq farce just gave it an extra nudge.

 

[Vic]

Repost * infinity

This partisan hackery has already been thoroughly debunked a dozen times over. Plus, the impending bust of the housing market was already certain before Jan 2007.

edit: To add a bit more, Fannie Mae is NOT a bank, they do not lend money to borrowers (they purchase loans from banks), they weren't forced, they *begged* the govt to be able to purchase/securitize subprime loans, Bush greatly expanded upon Clinton's previous programs to do just that, and even after all that, it wasn't Fannie's just-less-than-prime deals that were the problem, it was the so-called "toxic" and "predatory" subprime loans made by independent lenders, which Fannie would never buy. The ones with no proof of income needed, 1 day out of bankruptcy credit okay, no down payment, a crazy adjustable interest rate where your payments might not even cover the interest as it accrues, probably a huge prepayment penalty, and all based on an inflated home appraisal.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I wanted Ron Paul or Fred Thompson.

Ugh.

Seriously, he should put this at the top of the post instead of the end so no one will have to waste their time reading any more.

 

[Vic]

Here's something to think about for a moment:

Text

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON ? As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks ? not Fannie and Freddie ? dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? who in turn pressured banks and other lenders ? to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

 

[Vic]

Google this:

America's Homeownership Challenge

 

[Vic]

Mortgage implode-o-meter has been tracking mortgage company implosions due to the housing bust since late 2006 Text

 

[Vic]

Speaking of the practices of independent mortgage companies, a group of Idaho appraisers are suing Countrywide, claiming that Countrywide would require them to inflate appraised values or would deny them future business, both directly and through brokers. Text

But nah, I'm sure practices like this had nothing do to with the housing bust, and it's was all Fannie and the Dems' fault. </dripping sarcasm>

 

[IronWing]

Vic, I admire your dedication but you're wasting perfectly good pearls.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It would be wrong to blame it all on Clinton.

But the Democrats are certainly at the center of the mess. They wanted more minority house ownership, a good thing. But turned their eyes and heads when signs started to form that their idea was about to explode.

Let's also remember that Bush bought into this as well with his 'ownership society'

Finally, we shouldn't blame bad regulations or lack of regulations for this mess. We should blame government interference. The government pushed banks to lend to credit ricky people and used fannie and freddie to provide a means for the bank to do so. If the government had stayed out of the way in the first place we would have never this huge bubble build up and pop.

A popular theme in conservative commentary now, but pretty obviously not the whole story. After all, many of the failed mortgages are from people who were perfectly able to afford a normal house with a normal mortgage, they just opted for a ridiculously expensive house and/or a crazy mortgage, and the bank opted to give it to them. Neither side was obligated by the government to do this, they were just a bunch of greedy morons who couldn't think long term.

This is what I hate about the brand of conservativism that blames everything on the government...you need to blame everything on the government. NOBODY else can possibly make a mistake, the market, and the people in it, are totally infallible and left to their own devices would create a perfect economic Utopia. It's as ridiculous a fantasy as the communists who suggest that government should run everything top to bottom...except that your particular brand of ridiculousness seems to have far more followers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It would be wrong to blame it all on Clinton.

But the Democrats are certainly at the center of the mess. They wanted more minority house ownership, a good thing. But turned their eyes and heads when signs started to form that their idea was about to explode.

Let's also remember that Bush bought into this as well with his 'ownership society'

Finally, we shouldn't blame bad regulations or lack of regulations for this mess. We should blame government interference. The government pushed banks to lend to credit ricky people and used fannie and freddie to provide a means for the bank to do so. If the government had stayed out of the way in the first place we would have never this huge bubble build up and pop.

A popular theme in conservative commentary now, but pretty obviously not the whole story. After all, many of the failed mortgages are from people who were perfectly able to afford a normal house with a normal mortgage, they just opted for a ridiculously expensive house and/or a crazy mortgage, and the bank opted to give it to them. Neither side was obligated by the government to do this, they were just a bunch of greedy morons who couldn't think long term.

This is what I hate about the brand of conservativism that blames everything on the government...you need to blame everything on the government. NOBODY else can possibly make a mistake, the market, and the people in it, are totally infallible and left to their own devices would create a perfect economic Utopia. It's as ridiculous a fantasy as the communists who suggest that government should run everything top to bottom...except that your particular brand of ridiculousness seems to have far more followers.

PJ's brand of conservatism doesn't blame everything on the government. It blames everything on liberals. There's a difference, and it's even scarier. As in, a Republican govt could enslave us all and they'd still be freaked out about those commie liberals.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I said the first part about the economic downturn as a result of democrats taking power in congress more of tongue-in-cheek. Obviously it had been percolating longer than that.

Rainsford, you are taking it out a bit extreme. Yes people create their own problems as well. Point is, government intervention tends to screw things up worse.

Oh, that info about government/Clinton pushing these mortgages? That isn't from me. That is from the research of my dad's economist/investment advisor/whatever he's called. If I had his report in front of me I'd type it all out, it was a good read about the current state of the economy, the bad mortgages, and all that.

Vic, I'm more concerned about liberals enslaving us. They are just as power hungry as republicans, if not worse. That's why I don't vote by party, but by platform, by who they are, not necessarily what party they are a part of. The party is just a place to start, odds are greater that I'd agree with a republican than a democrat, but that isn't always the case.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I said the first part about the economic downturn as a result of democrats taking power in congress more of tongue-in-cheek. Obviously it had been percolating longer than that.

Rainsford, you are taking it out a bit extreme. Yes people create their own problems as well. Point is, government intervention tends to screw things up worse.

Oh, that info about government/Clinton pushing these mortgages? That isn't from me. That is from the research of my dad's economist/investment advisor/whatever he's called. If I had his report in front of me I'd type it all out, it was a good read about the current state of the economy, the bad mortgages, and all that.

Vic, I'm more concerned about liberals enslaving us. They are just as power hungry as republicans, if not worse. That's why I don't vote by party, but by platform, by who they are, not necessarily what party they are a part of. The party is just a place to start, odds are greater that I'd agree with a republican than a democrat, but that isn't always the case.

stop it sparky. we don't allow common sense here.:laugh: