The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Greenspan did not work for any of the Presidents that were in office while he ran the Fed. Neither does Bernanke. Check your facts Etta.

It take Congress to make the changes, not the President. He can't make up laws all on his own, remember?

See this thread:

Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame

I'm not saying Democrats are blameless or that they don't get campaign money from financial institutions. But, if you are seriously trying to blame this whole thing on Clinton and the Democrats, you are seriously misguided.

Plus, Investor's Business Daily is a conservative publication. I would expect them to blame Democrats for everything. And this article smacks of racism.

Are you saying that Bill Clinton forced banks to give bad loans?

And, who do you think is responsible for keeping interest rates so low? Is that Bill Clinton's fault too?

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I'm not saying Democrats are blameless or that they don't get campaign money from financial institutions. But, if you are seriously trying to blame this whole thing on Clinton and the Democrats, you are seriously misguided.

Plus, Investor's Business Daily is a conservative publication. I would expect them to blame Democrats for everything. And this article smacks of racism.

Are you saying that Bill Clinton forced banks to give bad loans?

And, who do you think is responsible for keeping interest rates so low? Is that Bill Clinton's fault too?

As I already said, there's enough blame to go around.

Of course you think IBD is not reputable. Would Salon be better? Racism? Reaching for the lowest common denominator, aren't we?

The Fed, which no President controls.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

Greenspan did not work for any of the Presidents that were in office while he ran the Fed. Neither does Bernanke. Check your facts Etta.

It take Congress to make the changes, not the President. He can't make up laws all on his own, remember?

See this thread:

Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame

And Bernanke is the Treasury Secretary. He basically works for Bush. This is a Cabinet position that is appointed by the President.

[billbrasky]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Bill Clinton hasn't been president since 1999. If there was a problem with the housing bubble, why didn't Bush, the Treasury Department and Greenspan do anything about it?

because left to its own devices big government likes to get bigger, its natural, receeding is almost impossible.

this is why we have commissions and committees for things that no longer exist, why we paid a phone tax for 100 years even though the tax was supposed to be for 20 something years (drawing a blank on the spin/spun reason why were ok with the tax).

government is slow to react, this is why we should have fought back islamic terrorists 40 years ago, why does government let bridges fall into repair, why cant they do hardly anything well. Cause they as a whole are a bunch of slow moving slow thinking retards on the national level.

Also the obvious spin and over simplification of opponents would be look what bush did to poor people, as if loosing there house is a good thing. But tell that to a single black mother who was just approved for a mortgage for the first time (that she cant afford), then she sees bush on tv saying she cant afford it, despite the bank saying she could. Then see the commericals next election cycle. THE REPUBLICANS STOLE x BILLION DOLLARS OF WEALTH FROM DARK PEOPLE OF AMERICA!!!

I really think the liberals cook these skeems up in some boiler room and they win either way. Your average idiot libtard is victimized either way, emboldens their commie spirt, and gets more libtards to vote straight ticket libtard commie no matter what.

its really sick.

then there is the spin and retards who think so and so is getting sooooo rich off this, well what about all the folks who got houses they didnt deserve. What about all the banks that didnt get good returns on their money (my money) cause of this. Revisionist history sees only poor people being victimized, and evil mean "rich" folks being unjustly rewarded ..... for following the rules that the government instituted.

social enginering has no place is business.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Remember, Congress was Republican controlled for the first 6 of the last eight years. There is PLENTY of blame to go around.

Seems I've heard Bush wanted to reign in FM and FM several years ago during a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress. What happened?

I've already stated that.

The President, even as a Republican, did not control Congress. My post was about blaming Bush. If you want to substiture Congress for Bush, then game on.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

As I already said, there's enough blame to go around.

Of course you think IBD is not reputable. Would Salon be better? Racism? Reaching for the lowest common denominator, aren't we?

The Fed, which no President controls.

No, I'm not. The article makes it sound as though race or ethnicity is the problem.

It's lack of government oversight and regulation and greedy bankers trading in financial instruments that nobody understands. And, what about Bush's "ownership society?" What about short-selling? What about McCain's economic advisor Phil Gramm and deregulation - something McCain supported up until this crisis happened?

[billbrasky]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I'm not saying Democrats are blameless or that they don't get campaign money from financial institutions. But, if you are seriously trying to blame this whole thing on Clinton and the Democrats, you are seriously misguided.

Plus, Investor's Business Daily is a conservative publication. I would expect them to blame Democrats for everything. And this article smacks of racism.

Are you saying that Bill Clinton forced banks to give bad loans?

And, who do you think is responsible for keeping interest rates so low? Is that Bill Clinton's fault too?

etta what exactly smacks of racism, i think your definition of racisim can be proved to be working definition. IF BY RACIST you mean not universally favorable to group X all the time then yes i belive you. Banks are in the business to make money, they dont care what color you are, same with woman in the workforce, do you honestly think if i could make $100,000 more off you than some guy i am gonna hire a guy cause i am a sexist? Just cause somethign is different does not mean its racist white old men in some back room pulling the levers on a wizard of oz machine sticking it to the dark man. Nothign racist was in that article, nothign remotely racist.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

No, I'm not. The article makes it sound as though race or ethnicity is the problem.

It's lack of government oversight and regulation and greedy bankers trading in financial instruments that nobody understands. And, what about Bush's "ownership society?" What about short-selling? What about McCain's economic advisor Phil Gramm and deregulation - something McCain supported up until this crisis happened?

The Community Reinvestment Act specifically details race as the basis for granting loans. Does it not?

Please explain to me your understanding of Short Selling. How about Naked Short Selling? While we're at it how about Liquidity and and the elimination of the Uptick Rule?

Media buzz words only get you so far unless you really understand what they mean.

I'll warn you, this gets into what I do for a living. Give it your best shot.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by billbrasky

etta what exactly smacks of racism, i think your definition of racisim can be proved to be working definition. IF BY RACIST you mean not universally favorable to group X all the time then yes i belive you. Banks are in the business to make money, they dont care what color you are, same with woman in the workforce, do you honestly think if i could make $100,000 more off you than some guy i am gonna hire a guy cause i am a sexist? Just cause somethign is different does not mean its racist white old men in some back room pulling the levers on a wizard of oz machine sticking it to the dark man. Nothign racist was in that article, nothign remotely racist.

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."

And, if the law was enacted in 1977, how is it that the problems are just now causing this crisis?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

The Community Reinvestment Act specifically details race as the basis for granting loans. Does it not?

Please explain to me your understanding of Short Selling. How about Naked Short Selling. While we're at it how about Liquidity and and the elimination of the Uptick Rule?

Media buzz words only get you so far unless you really understand what they mean.

I understand short selling somewhat, but truthfully, I don't know how it contributed to this crisis, except that it probably caused many people to be overextended.