If this is true this really sucks

[yeahYeah]

The NY Slimes is a democrats primary attack dog. how anyone could believe what this propaganda outfit puts out is beyond me.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by akhimark

Here is an interesting idea - BUY YOUR OWN DAMNED HEALTH CARE! I know this is a difficult concept for most because we are continually told by those that want to expand their power that we are too stupid to drive the right car, purchase health care, save for our retirement or come in out of the rain.

Why rely on the gubment or your employer to do it for you? If you think you get it free or at a reduced rate from your employer, you need to go back to school and learn about what it costs to employ someone. Its all part of compensation - salary, insurance, taxes, etc.

+1

There have been folks on this forum who have even embraced the idea that the government knows better than we do about how to save money for retirement. That was also the primary argument behind being against the privitization of social security.

These types don't want us to have any say in the matter, even when it comes to only a very small percentage. Hell, they won't even give us the OPTION to choose where to invest our social security. Bush's proposal would have made it optional. Nobody was going to force anyone to do anything.

Now Bush has been no small-government conservative by any definition, but he was right on this one.

The party of choice is pro-choice when it comes to killing unborn babies, but NOT for choice when it comes to education, health care, social security, retirement, your income, etc.

This fallacy that the government can always do everything better is contagious.

It's just like this whole mortgage mess. The government played a hand in creating this problem by forcing banks to lend to those who they would otherwise not lend to and to send their money into neighborhoods/places where they would otherwise not have sent it, through the community reinvestment act. The all-knowing politicians pointed toward statistics showing that whites were more likely to be approved for loans than blacks. So they thought they would level the playing field a bit by forcing banks to do what they (gov't) wanted. This lead to increased risks for the banks....and guess what???? The government though they knew better than the banks and look what happened. All kinds of folks/businesses couldn't make the payments. And now we are supposed to BELIEVE that the "gubment" can now swing in and save us from the very mess they helped create???? Please...

It's a wonder why so many mindless fools keep trusting the government with everything.

Frank

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

+1

There have been folks on this forum who have even embraced the idea that the government knows better than we do about how to save money for retirement. That was also the primary argument behind being against the privitization of social security.

These types don't want us to have any say in the matter, even when it comes to only a very small percentage. Hell, they won't even give us the OPTION to choose where to invest our social security. Bush's proposal would have made it optional. Nobody was going to force anyone to do anything.

Now Bush has been no small-government conservative by any definition, but he was right on this one.

The party of choice is pro-choice when it comes to killing unborn babies, but NOT for choice when it comes to education, health care, social security, retirement, your income, etc.

This fallacy that the government can always do everything better is contagious.

It's just like this whole mortgage mess. The government played a hand in creating this problem by forcing banks to lend to those who they would otherwise not lend to and to send their money into neighborhoods/places where they would otherwise not have sent it, though the community reinvestment act. The all-knowing politicians pointed toward statistics showing that whites were more likely to be approved for loans than blacks. So they thought they would level the playing field a bit by forcing banks to do what they (gov't) wanted. This lead to increased risks for the banks....and guess what???? The government though they knew better than the banks and look what happened. All kinds of folks/businesses couldn't make the payments. And now we are supposed to BELIEVE that the "gubment" can now swing in and save us from the very mess they helped create???? Please...

It's a wonder why so many mindless fools keep trusting the government with everything.

Frank

I had just signed on to post about this very topic. I could not agree more with the bolded. I just watched Barney Frank, the head of the Senate Banking Committee mind you, on CNBC dodging and weaving about this whole mess to the point that the commentators were literally laughing at him. His claim was that it's all the Mortgage Broker's fault, that the loans in areas done under the CRA by banks directly were not the problem. It was almost as lame as watching Greenspan shove blame everywhere but where it belongs.

There's a good story about this here:

Walter E. Williams :: Townhall.com :: Stubborn Ignorance

[KEVWYO]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40


It's just like this whole mortgage mess. The government played a hand in creating this problem by forcing banks to lend to those who they would otherwise not lend to


Could you be specific in regards to this assertion?

[rpsmith]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40


It's just like this whole mortgage mess. The government played a hand in creating this problem by forcing banks to lend to those who they would otherwise not lend to


Could you be specific in regards to this assertion?

Flopping Aces » Blog Archive Democrats Rewriting History Once More

Democrats Rewriting History Once More

Posted by: Curt @ 7:34 am in Economy, Politics
Visited 890 times, 128 so far today



Funny how these Democrats blame Bush for the Fannie Mae crisis: (h/t Hot Air)

“The turmoil on Wall Street is further evidence that Republican economic policies have failed. During eight years of control in Washington, Republicans put in to practice their belief that markets should be allowed unfettered freedom and drastically weakened oversight,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in a statement.

“In the midst of a dire economic situation, President Bush this morning characterized recent market developments as an ‘adjustment’ that can be painful for investors and employees of the firms, while Senator McCain said the ‘fundamentals of our economy are strong,’” Pelosi said. “President Bush, Senator McCain, and their Republican Party are out of touch and apparently ill-equipped to get our economy back on track.”

“I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to,” Obama said, adding, “It’s a philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years - one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.”

But there is one teeny itty bitty bit of information they are all forgetting. From September 11, 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

So Bush understood the crisis was coming and tried to stop it at the pass. Who got in the way? The Democrats:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

But now they want to blame it all on Bush. Just like they will most surely do when Social Security goes belly up. He tried, but they forced it to fail and now they reap the whirlwind.


IBD gives us another history lesson:

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.

Democrats, trying to rewrite history once again.

[KEVWYO]

Interesting read but it didn't answer my question. How did government force banks to lend?

[rpsmith]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Interesting read but it didn't answer my question. How did government force banks to lend?

did you actually read it? Banks make most of their money from loans.

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

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by rpsmith

did you actually read it? Banks make most of their money from loans.

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

How is it that this program could be "put on steroids" say in the 90's but the housing market debacle really started in about 2006 and still festers to this day?

I understand the basis for why you're laying blame on Clinton (although I feel there is more to this than what is cited in some blog or other forum post) but there is also this current President whose watch this happened on as well.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

How is it that this program could be "put on steroids" say in the 90's but the housing market debacle really started in about 2006 and still festers to this day?

I understand the basis for why you're laying blame on Clinton (although I feel there is more to this than what is cited in some blog or other forum post) but there is also this current President whose watch this happened on as well.

Google "Community Reinvestment Act". It began in 1977.

[rpsmith]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

How is it that this program could be "put on steroids" say in the 90's but the housing market debacle really started in about 2006 and still festers to this day?

I understand the basis for why you're laying blame on Clinton (although I feel there is more to this than what is cited in some blog or other forum post) but there is also this current President whose watch this happened on as well.

and congress was and is still controlled by whom since 2006?