The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Text

Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.

As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.

At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.

The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.

There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.

Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.

While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.

Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.




Someone finally setting the record straight. Between this and Mr. Rangel, its no wonder the lefties are keeping quiet.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
If we want to talk about friends of politicians being a perfect representation of politicians we can have a field day with the right.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
I was wondering when Congress was going to hold hearings on the failure of Freddie and Fannie.

After the way they were all over Enron you would think they would do the same for these two.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: winnar111
Text

Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.

As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.

At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.

The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.

There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.

Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.

While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.

Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.

Someone finally setting the record straight. Between this and Mr. Rangel, its no wonder the lefties are keeping quiet.

I got silenced earlier this year for saying "It's all Clinton's fault".

Now there is a chorus of Republican supporters in here saying it, will they all be silenced as well?
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,648
0
71
That is the same argument that is made where gun makers should be liable for the acts of those that wield guns.

The Clinton Administration put standards in place to help minorities gain home ownership. Business used that as the "seed" (as the article states) to find a way to derive hefty profits. Finding a loophole in legislation and exploiting it for short term gains with very large negative impact to society as a whole and passing on the blame to others is a slimy thing to do.

To be fair, after such legislation is passed it should be up to the government to ensure that any cracks that can be exploited, or are being exploited are fixed. There was a failure on both sides of the aisle in Congress to reign in what we all knew was a bubble. Neither side made any real strong effort to do so.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Every time government meddles into the "free market" system, the system fails, and their response is blaming the "free market system."

And yet when the problem is obviously government intervention, the answer is never less government intervention, but even more government intervention.

This is true with regards to everything from the "war on terror" to health care, and everything in between.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
And here come the minions and their Republican vs Democrat mentality.

It is an illusion. The real war is the government vs the people.

Our failure to acknowledge this leads to our own peril.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Every time government meddles into the "free market" system, the system fails, and their response is blaming the "free market system."

And yet when the problem is obviously government intervention, the answer is never less government intervention, but even more government intervention.

This is true with regards to everything from the "war on terror" to health care, and everything in between.

And sadly people lap it up with glee and ask to expand the very same govt that fucked it all up.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,648
0
71
Originally posted by: bamacre
Every time government meddles into the "free market" system, the system fails, and their response is blaming the "free market system."

And yet when the problem is obviously government intervention, the answer is never less government intervention, but even more government intervention.

This is true with regards to everything from the "war on terror" to health care, and everything in between.

A "free market" is not one with huge oligopolies that extend into multiple markets. The power that these huge companies hold is not, in an economic sense between buyer and seller, a free market. When you allow companies to grow so large, approving mergers that decrease competition (free market....), then you have to have oversight.

I'll agree that government intervention does not help the free market, generally. But we are so far removed from a free market that simply removing all government intervention that we have now would not give us a free market either.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Of course, it's all Clinton's fault. There may even be a nugget of truth to the editorial, but you can't tell from such partisan claptrap.

As one Amazon reviewer of your source wrote:

Good Investment Guide but severe right wing political views

This is a very good resource for investing but unfortunately the editorials, especially the Issue & Insights section, is written by extreme right wing radicals. They might as well have Ann Coulter or Gordon Liddy writing their columns. This part of the paper has been a huge disappointment. The majority of Americans don't view themselves with the extreme right or left side of the political process. I can't understand why this investor's resource would sell themselves to one extreme. I simply can no longer support either radical views and I don't want to spend this type of money on a paper that is so extreme. The right winged editorials compromise the value of their product. I have no idea why this would be necessary in an investor's guide. Do yourself a favor and find an alternative investor resource guide that is far less political. There are many out there and most of them cost less or are free.

And another agreed:

I'm a long-time subscriber to IBD, and it's almost like you're getting two completely different papers. One is analytical, insightful, and interesting (and inspiring, with the Leaders and Success page), and the other is 100% ideology. I understand that financial publications are generally to the right of center, but this one takes positions (like their stance on immigration) that don't even make business sense. I guess bashing the left (which to them comprises 90% of the population, Republican and Democrat) is more important.

Quite predictable for them to not put the blame where it belongs.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
And here come the minions and their Republican vs Democrat mentality.

It is an illusion. The real war is the government vs the people.

Our failure to acknowledge this leads to our own peril.

And there is the minion and his government versus the people view.

The real war is concentrated power and wealth versus the society it's a parasite on.

The government is merely one generic instrument of power, which can serve the people or the powerful, depending who is elected.

But unlike other instruments of power, the people get a share to say who has that power, with their vote, because of a freak accident disturbance to the usual concentration of power that happened when the colonies decided not to keep being under the thumb of the powerful from England, and shared the power broadly to get the support needed for revolution. Now the powerful are trying to regain that power with the need for big money donations playing a big role in who can get elected - and by telling people the government is their enemy, to keep them from noticing that the government is their own counter to the power of the wealthy and the corporatocracy, if they elect the right people, as they did with FDR and JFK.
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,384
0
76
I'm inclined to blame the failures of the private banks on market conditions, bad bets and bad timing rather than any particular governmental action or lack of action.

For Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's failures on the other hand, there seems to be a consensus that the main culprit was Barney Frank.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Wasn't Obama like the 2nd or 3rd largest recipient of lobby money from fanny and freddie? Hmmm, guess it wasn't the fanny/freddie he once knew.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Funny how you bring up a Dem or Clinton, its either 1. Guilty on both sides, or 2. your sources arent credible. Amazing apologists we have. Do the GOP have issues? Yep. But so do the Dems. Just as bad too.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
The real culprit is the people who knew they couldn't afford something and bought it anyway.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
OMFGWTFBBQ!!! It's the old "Clinton did it" dodge. Did you get a license for this from ProfJohn? :shocked:

Get over it. The Bushwhackos have had eight freaking years to do something, anything, about the lack of oversight of financial markets and those who run them. Instead, all they did was suck money and play footsy from convicted former Enron CEO, "Kenny Boy" Lay and other scandal-ridden financial insiders while setting economic policies and regulations.

The Bushwhackos legacy is an ecomomic disaster area possibly as financially devastating to the nation as Hurricane Katrina was to New Orleans, and managed with the same ineptitude and inadequacy. McCain offers only more of McSame. :thumbsdown:
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,152
12,327
136
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Modelworks
The real culprit is the people who knew they couldn't afford something and bought it anyway.

I think its a 50/50 proposition here. You can't blame it all on consumers and you can't blame it all on the institutions. Fannie and Freddie made the mistake of offering such horrible products to such horrible credit risks. The people made the mistake of buying the products... agreed?
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,384
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
OMFGWTFBBQ!!! It's the old "Clinton did it" dodge. Did you get a license for this from ProfJohn? :shocked:

Get over it. The Bushwhackos have had eight freaking years to do something, anything, about the lack of oversight of the market. Instead, all they did was play footsie with financial insiders like convicted former Enron CEO, "Kenny Boy" Lay and others when sucking money and setting economic policies and regulations.

The Bushwhackos legacy is an ecomomic disaster area possibly as financially devastating to the nation as Hurricane Katrina, managed with the same ineptitude and inadequacy. McCain offers only more of McSame. :thumbsdown:

Excellent response. Bonus points for using the phrase "McSame". Now, take a deep breath and explain to me what regulations were broken by Merrill, Lehman, etc. Then tell me what regulations should have been passed that would have prevented this crisis.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
OMFGWTFBBQ!!! It's the old "Clinton did it" dodge. Did you get a license for this from ProfJohn? :shocked:

Get over it. The Bushwhackos have had eight freaking years to do something, anything, about the lack of oversight of financial markets and those who run them. Instead, all they did was suck money and play footsy from convicted former Enron CEO, "Kenny Boy" Lay and other scandal-ridden financial insiders while setting economic policies and regulations.

The Bushwhackos legacy is an ecomomic disaster area possibly as financially devastating to the nation as Hurricane Katrina was to New Orleans, and managed with the same ineptitude and inadequacy. McCain offers only more of McSame. :thumbsdown:

You mean the same Enron scandal that perpetuated throughout the 1990s and collapsed 8 months after Clinton left office?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Originally posted by: Harvey
OMFGWTFBBQ!!! It's the old "Clinton did it" dodge. Did you get a license for this from ProfJohn? :shocked:

Get over it. The Bushwhackos have had eight freaking years to do something, anything, about the lack of oversight of the market. Instead, all they did was play footsie with financial insiders like convicted former Enron CEO, "Kenny Boy" Lay and others when sucking money and setting economic policies and regulations.

The Bushwhackos legacy is an ecomomic disaster area possibly as financially devastating to the nation as Hurricane Katrina, managed with the same ineptitude and inadequacy. McCain offers only more of McSame. :thumbsdown:

Excellent response. Bonus points for using the phrase "McSame". Now, take a deep breath and explain to me what regulations were broken by Merrill, Lehman, etc. Then tell me what regulations should have been passed that would have prevented this crisis.

certainly some capital guidelines would have been a nice start.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: HendrixFan
When you allow companies to grow so large, approving mergers that decrease competition (free market....), then you have to have oversight.

No, you don't have to have oversight, you just need to keep those companies from getting too big.

Large companies love government regulations. Because they can afford to follow them, and their small would-be competition simply cannot.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Harvey
OMFGWTFBBQ!!! It's the old "Clinton did it" dodge. Did you get a license for this from ProfJohn? :shocked:

Get over it. The Bushwhackos have had eight freaking years to do something, anything, about the lack of oversight of financial markets and those who run them. Instead, all they did was suck money and play footsy from convicted former Enron CEO, "Kenny Boy" Lay and other scandal-ridden financial insiders while setting economic policies and regulations.

The Bushwhackos legacy is an ecomomic disaster area possibly as financially devastating to the nation as Hurricane Katrina was to New Orleans, and managed with the same ineptitude and inadequacy. McCain offers only more of McSame. :thumbsdown:

You mean the same Enron scandal that perpetuated throughout the 1990s and collapsed 8 months after Clinton left office?

Interesting

You realize Enron was run by Texas Republicans and owned Republicans such as Bush?
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,384
0
76
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: Modelworks
The real culprit is the people who knew they couldn't afford something and bought it anyway.

I think its a 50/50 proposition here. You can't blame it all on consumers and you can't blame it all on the institutions. Fannie and Freddie made the mistake of offering such horrible products to such horrible credit risks. The people made the mistake of buying the products... agreed?

Uh, Fannie and Freddie don't offer mortgage loans to anyone, Fannie and Freddie buy mortgage loans from other lenders. And Fannie and Freddie were supposed to be limited to buying conforming mortgages (i.e., non sub-prime).
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Modelworks
The real culprit is the people who knew they couldn't afford something and bought it anyway.

Wrong. They're partly at fault, but you're talking about low end homebuyers, who are often pretty clueless about what they can afford, and encouraged into bad mortgages.

It's pretty much that simple that if you allow and reward the bad mortgages, they're going to get used.

If you did the same thing with big corporations, you would see irresponsible risks taken and the same problem from 'easy credit'. You did see it with the subprime aggression.