The Financial Crisis - it's the Bushwackos fault

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Xellos2099

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2005
2,277
13
81
Stop saying the war in Iraq is meaningless. First of all, Iraq has chemical weapon and they actively support terrorism. Do you really want your city attack with chemical weapon before before to war? Not to mention when they vote for the war in Iraq, I am pretty sure they got like 98% or 100% vote in the Senate.

Want to talk about treason? Clinton has commited treason not once but twice. First, he sold military secret to the chinese government concerning nuclear weapon. Second, he provided the technology secrety to North Korea, which is a pretty dangerous country.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
The cause of the current crisis:

Republicans 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame

Not addressing the current crisis with legislation that can pass:
Democrats 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame.

One is in the past, the other is right frigging now, so I blame the democrats for right frigging now since they are in power in congress.

Uh, do you not realize that we have a republican president who can't even get his own party in line?
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: alchemize
The cause of the current crisis:

Republicans 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame

Not addressing the current crisis with legislation that can pass:
Democrats 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame.

One is in the past, the other is right frigging now, so I blame the democrats for right frigging now since they are in power in congress.

Uh, do you not realize that we have a republican president who can't even get his own party in line?

Why would he be expected to given his lame duck status?
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: alchemize
The cause of the current crisis:

Republicans 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame

Not addressing the current crisis with legislation that can pass:
Democrats 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame.

One is in the past, the other is right frigging now, so I blame the democrats for right frigging now since they are in power in congress.

Uh, do you not realize that we have a republican president who can't even get his own party in line?

Why would he be expected to given his lame duck status?

He is still the president. The republicans' treatment of him in this crisis is an indication of what they probably felt all along - that the guy is the idiot the dems already knew he was.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: alchemize
The cause of the current crisis:

Republicans 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame

Not addressing the current crisis with legislation that can pass:
Democrats 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame.

One is in the past, the other is right frigging now, so I blame the democrats for right frigging now since they are in power in congress.

Uh, do you not realize that we have a republican president who can't even get his own party in line?

Why would he be expected to given his lame duck status?

He is still the president. The republicans' treatment of him in this crisis is an indication of what they probably felt all along - that the guy is the idiot the dems already knew he was.

And given that they feel that way, there's no reason to expect him to be delivering votes. Of course, Nancy Pelosi knows this, so maybe she shouldn't antagonize people.

No President in modern history has ever dealt with something like this at the back end of their term. You kick the bucket along.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: alchemize
The cause of the current crisis:

Republicans 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame

Not addressing the current crisis with legislation that can pass:
Democrats 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame.

One is in the past, the other is right frigging now, so I blame the democrats for right frigging now since they are in power in congress.

Uh, do you not realize that we have a republican president who can't even get his own party in line?

Why would he be expected to given his lame duck status?

He is still the president. The republicans' treatment of him in this crisis is an indication of what they probably felt all along - that the guy is the idiot the dems already knew he was.

And given that they feel that way, there's no reason to expect him to be delivering votes. Of course, Nancy Pelosi knows this, so maybe she shouldn't antagonize people.

No President in modern history has ever dealt with something like this at the back end of their term. You kick the bucket along.

Nancy Pelosi was the scapegoat of the house republican leadership for what was their failure to get their party in line. I'll never forget Cantor walking up to the podium looking like a little b*tch, pointing to her speech as the reason for its failure. "Our feelings were hurt! Therefore, we will further plunge the economy into chaos!"

The breakdown of the votes that showed the "vulnerable" seats of both parties (but especially republicans) voting nay was telling.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: alchemize
The cause of the current crisis:

Republicans 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame

Not addressing the current crisis with legislation that can pass:
Democrats 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame.

One is in the past, the other is right frigging now, so I blame the democrats for right frigging now since they are in power in congress.

Uh, do you not realize that we have a republican president who can't even get his own party in line?

Why would he be expected to given his lame duck status?

He is still the president. The republicans' treatment of him in this crisis is an indication of what they probably felt all along - that the guy is the idiot the dems already knew he was.

And given that they feel that way, there's no reason to expect him to be delivering votes. Of course, Nancy Pelosi knows this, so maybe she shouldn't antagonize people.

No President in modern history has ever dealt with something like this at the back end of their term. You kick the bucket along.

Nancy Pelosi is a wise and beautiful woman.

fixed
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: alchemize
The cause of the current crisis:

Republicans 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame

Not addressing the current crisis with legislation that can pass:
Democrats 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame.

One is in the past, the other is right frigging now, so I blame the democrats for right frigging now since they are in power in congress.

Uh, do you not realize that we have a republican president who can't even get his own party in line?

Why would he be expected to given his lame duck status?

He is still the president. The republicans' treatment of him in this crisis is an indication of what they probably felt all along - that the guy is the idiot the dems already knew he was.

And given that they feel that way, there's no reason to expect him to be delivering votes. Of course, Nancy Pelosi knows this, so maybe she shouldn't antagonize people.

No President in modern history has ever dealt with something like this at the back end of their term. You kick the bucket along.

Nancy Pelosi is a wise and beautiful woman.

fixed

The fact that she gets under you guys' skin so damn much makes me even happier that she's in power. :)
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
He is still the president. The republicans' treatment of him in this crisis is an indication of what they probably felt all along - that the guy is the idiot the dems already knew he was.

And given that they feel that way, there's no reason to expect him to be delivering votes. Of course, Nancy Pelosi knows this, so maybe she shouldn't antagonize people.

No President in modern history has ever dealt with something like this at the back end of their term. You kick the bucket along.

Nancy Pelosi was the scapegoat of the house republican leadership for what was their failure to get their party in line. I'll never forget Cantor walking up to the podium looking like a little b*tch, pointing to her speech as the reason for its failure. "Our feelings were hurt! Therefore, we will further plunge the economy into chaos!"

The breakdown of the votes that showed the "vulnerable" seats of both parties (but especially republicans) voting nay was telling.

Scapegoat or not, this will become her problem in 3 months while George Bush is playing golf somewhere. So if she's not willing to play nice and she's not willing or not able to pass this legislation with some of those 60+ D votes, the only other option is to deal with the fallout.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Mani
He is still the president. The republicans' treatment of him in this crisis is an indication of what they probably felt all along - that the guy is the idiot the dems already knew he was.

And given that they feel that way, there's no reason to expect him to be delivering votes. Of course, Nancy Pelosi knows this, so maybe she shouldn't antagonize people.

No President in modern history has ever dealt with something like this at the back end of their term. You kick the bucket along.

Nancy Pelosi was the scapegoat of the house republican leadership for what was their failure to get their party in line. I'll never forget Cantor walking up to the podium looking like a little b*tch, pointing to her speech as the reason for its failure. "Our feelings were hurt! Therefore, we will further plunge the economy into chaos!"

The breakdown of the votes that showed the "vulnerable" seats of both parties (but especially republicans) voting nay was telling.

Scapegoat or not, this will become her problem in 3 months while George Bush is playing golf somewhere. So if she's not willing to play nice and she's not willing or not able to pass this legislation with some of those 60+ D votes, the only other option is to deal with the fallout.

She's responsible for her party - those 60 dems may be partly to blame but she still got 2/3rd of her party on board. The longer this stretches out, the worse the House Republicans will look for dragging this out, especially when the consequences of not going through with it become more well known.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,698
6,257
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Actually I do blame Democrats in this particular case because this nonsense all started under Jimmy Carter as the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) in 1977 but truly picked up steam under Clinton who basically forced banks to accept portfolios of high risk CRA loans in order to be compliant with the new regulations. Yes, greed may have been involved on the part of the banks but the origins of the problem begin and end with Democratic presidents.

The sweet irony is, in 1989 GHW Bush forced increased oversight of the CRA process (removed by Clinton) as did our current president in 2005 which was strongly opposed by Democrats in congress. To blame GW Bush for this particular problem is simply untrue factually - not that I have a lot of regard for his administration's fiscal policy in other areas. Banks and consumer borrowers have a hand in this as well but ultimately the connection between the current crisis and the ill conceived feel-good legislation of the 70's strengthened under Clinton are the single greatest contributors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://news.google.com/news?hl...roup&resnum=1&ct=title

Obviously you're just a partisan hack trying to lay blame on the Democrats feet. Vic of course will be along shortly to remind you how evil you are for trying to blame the most Holy of Holy Democrats. You should listen well to his "non partisan views" because Vic of course is NOT a frothing mad liberal and has routinely been highly critical of his most beloved of parties.

Oh yes, you are nothing more then a partisan hack trying to lay blame on the beautiful and righteous Democrats. For shame. For shame.

LOL, reach further, you'll get more Lulz. How about back to Feudal Europe, where the Poor didn't pay Rent at all. Did they cause the current Crisis?

I spose Jimmy set his little Program to lie dormant for a few Decades?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: alchemize
The cause of the current crisis:

Republicans 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame

Not addressing the current crisis with legislation that can pass:
Democrats 51% to blame, Democrats 49% to blame.

One is in the past, the other is right frigging now, so I blame the democrats for right frigging now since they are in power in congress.

Uh, do you not realize that we have a republican president who can't even get his own party in line?

Keep up with the *NEWS* much?

In case you weren't paying attention, he (George W. Bush) got bitch-slapped over his illegal immigration amnesty policy proposal (along with McCain).

This is another one of his stupid ideas we conservative aren't buying.

IMO, this is another exanple of him picking another bad person (e.g., Gonzalez) to lead something. We don't need to act like blind sheep and and fall in line.

You should be happy all Repubs don't "fall-in-line". Oddly enough, it's the Dems/liberals here who complain about others acting like sheeple who spout the party *talking points*; but they are now complaining about the lack of that.

We've got people here basically saying "shut up and do what the expert say". Of course, these are same experts who don't agree with each other, AND got us into this mess themselves in the first place.

Yeah, right, just do what they say and give them $700B :roll:

Fern
 

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,420
2
81
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Thread Merge

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator


While few claim the current administration has done a bang up job of managing economic and monetary policy in the last 8 years it's important that we don't start rewriting history as to origins of our current housing market and the impact it's having on the financial sector. Looking back to 1999 there was a specific push to lower lending requirements to less credit worthy individuals in order to promote home ownership among minorities. It seems this program, while well intended on paper, has a lot to do with the state of things today.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...ec=&spon=&pagewanted=1



Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.


Thank you for posting this article.

Who's Franklin Raines? OHHHHH YEAHHHH, isn't he one of Obambi's economic advisors? Didn't he also make more than $90M in 6 years at Fannie Mae? And angry raging liberals like jpeyton think they have all the answers to the current state of the economy...


:roll:
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Many events in Washington, on Wall Street and elsewhere around the country have led to what has been called the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s. But decisions made at a brief meeting on April 28, 2004, explain why the problems could spin out of control. The agency?s failure to follow through on those decisions also explains why Washington regulators did not see what was coming.

On that bright spring afternoon, the five members of the Securities and Exchange Commission met in a basement hearing room to consider an urgent plea by the big investment banks.

They wanted an exemption for their brokerage units from an old regulation that limited the amount of debt they could take on. The exemption would unshackle billions of dollars held in reserve as a cushion against losses on their investments. Those funds could then flow up to the parent company, enabling it to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities; credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments.

The five investment banks led the charge, including Goldman Sachs, which was headed by Henry M. Paulson Jr. Two years later, he left to become Treasury secretary.
Link

 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Originally posted by: thegimp03
Thank you for posting this article.

Who's Franklin Raines? OHHHHH YEAHHHH, isn't he one of Obambi's economic advisors? Didn't he also make more than $90M in 6 years at Fannie Mae? And angry raging liberals like jpeyton think they have all the answers to the current state of the economy...


:roll:

Franklin Raines is only an "Obama economic advisor" according to another lying McCain ad and a stupid email forward.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp
 

Eos

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2000
3,463
17
81
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: thegimp03
Thank you for posting this article.

Who's Franklin Raines? OHHHHH YEAHHHH, isn't he one of Obambi's economic advisors? Didn't he also make more than $90M in 6 years at Fannie Mae? And angry raging liberals like jpeyton think they have all the answers to the current state of the economy...


:roll:

Franklin Raines is only an "Obama economic advisor" according to another lying McCain ad and a stupid email forward.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp

But, but, but, snopes.com is a LIBERAL site!