Maxine Waters caught lying about Fannie/Freddie

Tucker134 · 10-13-2008, 07:56 PM

[url]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/11/maxine-waters-caught-lying-about-fannie-mae-ties-real-time[/url]

And people who post in this section of JI that the genesis of the credit crisis isn't subprime loans is kidding themselves....there's plenty of blame to go around, but in 2006 Congress met to discuss whether or not FNMA/Freddie should be regulated...Maxine Waters & her Democratic cronies who were in the pockets of FNMA argued vehemently against it, while Republican lawmakers begged the committee to consider the consequences of no regulation. This is in the public record, & cannot be disputed...incidentally it's there for your viewing pleasure at the bottom of the NEWSBUSTERS website that's above...the credit crisis started in March '07 with HSBC's announcement that they'd be taking significant writedowns on their subprime exposure...the rest, they say, is history.

2foolish197 · 10-13-2008, 08:07 PM

i love NewsBusters....

MnJetFan · 10-13-2008, 08:15 PM

I love Democrats! Not!

jetstream23 · 10-13-2008, 08:17 PM

This is a $2 trillion catastrophe and turning out to be the biggest free pass given to Congress by the media that I've ever seen. They screwed the pooch on this incredibly and the media is almost completely ignoring it. What people don't realize is that this $700B bailout is really Congress bailing themselves out because of how much of a clusterf*ck they've caused with the housing regulations in this country.

2foolish197 · 10-13-2008, 08:21 PM

[QUOTE=jetstream23;2803547]This is a $2 trillion catastrophe and turning out to be the biggest free pass given to Congress by the media that I've ever seen. They screwed the pooch on this incredibly and the media is almost completely ignoring it. What people don't realize is that this $700B bailout is really Congress bailing themselves out because of how much of a clusterf*ck they've caused with the housing regulations in this country.[/QUOTE]:applause::applause::applause:

Tucker134 · 10-13-2008, 08:42 PM

[QUOTE=jetstream23;2803547]This is a $2 trillion catastrophe and turning out to be the biggest free pass given to Congress by the media that I've ever seen. They screwed the pooch on this incredibly and the media is almost completely ignoring it. What people don't realize is that this $700B bailout is really Congress bailing themselves out because of how much of a clusterf*ck they've caused with the housing regulations in this country.[/QUOTE]

It really is that simple...Wall Street greed didn't cause this- they provided the LEVERAGE for the CDO's that securitized these bad loans..& yes, they made millions doing it. It was a house of cards that came crumbling down...it should have been regulated.

sackdance · 10-14-2008, 12:22 AM

Maxine Waters? Now that's some low hanging fruit. What a wacko.

PlumberKhan · 10-14-2008, 06:48 AM

[QUOTE=winzxb1985;2804049][color=#282827]I agree with you !I support you .[/color] As formidable as the [url=http://www.titopcn.com]rubber extruder[/url][/QUOTE]

Hmmm. You raise a good point...

[QUOTE]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 [B][SIZE="4"]pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. [/SIZE][/B]

In addition, [B]banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers[/B]. 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.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, [B]which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn[/B],[B][SIZE="6"] prompting a government rescue [/SIZE][/B]similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
[/QUOTE]

[url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1[/url]

Ohhh...an oracle...

chicadeel · 10-14-2008, 08:12 AM

It's not surprising that any of these people are caught lying.

So in the end who are the bigger fools, our Representatives in Washington or the people who vote for them?

:cool:
I just called myself a fool.

nuu faaola · 10-14-2008, 10:08 AM

[QUOTE=Tucker134;2803518][url]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/11/maxine-waters-caught-lying-about-fannie-mae-ties-real-time[/url]

And people who post in this section of JI that the genesis of the credit crisis isn't subprime loans is kidding themselves....there's plenty of blame to go around, but in 2006 Congress met to discuss whether or not FNMA/Freddie should be regulated...Maxine Waters & her Democratic cronies who were in the pockets of FNMA argued vehemently against it, while Republican lawmakers begged the committee to consider the consequences of no regulation. This is in the public record, & cannot be disputed...incidentally it's there for your viewing pleasure at the bottom of the NEWSBUSTERS website that's above...the credit crisis started in March '07 with HSBC's announcement that they'd be taking significant writedowns on their subprime exposure...the rest, they say, is history.[/QUOTE]

I am not for a moment saying that the Democrats don't own a nice sized piece of this mess --as do Republicans-- but we had already passed the point of no return with a lot of this stuff by 2006.

The number of crap loans, and --more importantly-- the number of Americans using the illusory equity in their homes as cash machines by 2004-2005 guaranteed that the floor would fall out as soon as home prices started receding. (Paul Krugman just won a Nobel in economics for pointing this out back in 2005.)

Deregulation meant that the failing loans would take down many non-lenders who'd bought up the risk from them, magnifying the impact when the inevitable happened.

scuppers · 10-14-2008, 10:16 AM

Tucker134 I think your mind has been take over by Foxie. There is more than enought blame to go around on this, if the Republicans were "begging" for more regulation then why did the SEC under a Republican Congress and President let the banks do away with the debt limits in 2004? From now on please do a little more reading.

See below from Internet Free Press: [url]http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=18516[/url]

How could Cox have been so wrong?

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.

A lone dissenter - a software consultant and expert on risk management - weighed in from Indiana with a two-page letter to warn the commission that the move was a grave mistake. He never heard back from Washington.

Soberphobia · 10-14-2008, 10:24 AM

I think sub-prime will be looked back as the spark that lit the fuse, sort of like the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand is seen as the thing that started WW1. Thing is there still would have been a WW1 without that assassination - it just would have started in some other way, and maybe a little later.

The real thing that is powering this cluster**** is the popping of the biggest speculative bubble in the history of the world.

Tucker134 · 10-14-2008, 10:57 AM

[QUOTE=scuppers;2804186]Tucker134 I think your mind has been take over by Foxie. There is more than enought blame to go around on this, if the Republicans were "begging" for more regulation then why did the SEC under a Republican Congress and President let the banks do away with the debt limits in 2004? From now on please do a little more reading.

See below from Internet Free Press: [url]http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=18516[/url]

How could Cox have been so wrong?

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.

A lone dissenter - a software consultant and expert on risk management - weighed in from Indiana with a two-page letter to warn the commission that the move was a grave mistake. He never heard back from Washington.[/QUOTE]

You're referring to something completely different. I agree with the article you referenced, & the fact that there's plenty of blame to go around. But the GENESIS of everything that's transpired over the past 1.5 years is thebullsh*t Community Reinvestment Act & FNMA corruption that was fully supported by Democrats on the take...I don't regurgitate Fox News talking points. Pelosi/Reid/Waters are the scuzz of this earth....

nuu faaola · 10-14-2008, 11:11 AM

[QUOTE=Tucker134;2804237]You're referring to something completely different. I agree with the article you referenced, & the fact that there's plenty of blame to go around. But the GENESIS of everything that's transpired over the past 1.5 years is thebullsh*t Community Reinvestment Act & FNMA corruption that was fully supported by Democrats on the take...I don't regurgitate Fox News talking points. Pelosi/Reid/Waters are the scuzz of this earth....[/QUOTE]

If you think the root of what's happened occurred in the last 1.5 years, you really, really do not understand what's going on.

Tucker134 · 10-14-2008, 11:52 AM

I know it's alot older than that....Barney Frank was butt banging a FNMA executive in the early 90's....& the Comm Reinvestment Act was before that!

scuppers · 10-14-2008, 12:03 PM

Well, your take on this, though not well thought out or even really coherent, seems to be that in spite of the fact that the Republicans have controlled Congress, the White House and have had the power to appoint people to key positions controlling this country's finances, such as Fed. Chairman, Secretary of the Treasury, etc... and that the Fed, SEC, and numerous other agencies that over the past 8 years could have stepped in and done something about the Housing Bubble, such as increase interest rates, and the like, but failed to, are all ABSOLUTELY BLAMELESS because this country was apparently being run by Barney Frank who was standing behind a curtain pretending to be a great wizard of the land of Tucker134. Interesting.

nuu faaola · 10-14-2008, 12:06 PM

[QUOTE=Tucker134;2804297]I know it's alot older than that....Barney Frank was butt banging a FNMA executive in the early 90's....& the Comm Reinvestment Act was before that![/QUOTE]

Look, Fannie and Freddie certainly got political pressure (primarily, not but not by any means exclusively from Democrats) to make home-ownership more accessible, and that certainly led to some subprime lending.

But that doesn't even get you halfway to the current problem: Why are financial institutions like Lehman and AIG, which didn't make mortgage loans, either failing or requiring massive assistace to stay afloat? The answer to that is deregulation, which took down a lot of the traditional barriers between financial institutions and allowed outfits like AIG to take on massive exposure to these stupid risks in pursuit of a quick and easy buck.

Beyond that, the fact that there were so many new, deep-pocketed buyers for these gimmicky credit swaps gave the lenders increased incentive to make MORE subprime loans than they otherwise would, because they knew they had buyers willing to take the stupid risks off their hands.

And driving the whole thing are the dumb@ss low interest rates, courtesy of the fed, that are allowing more and more air to get into the bubble by artificially jacking up housing prices.

Those artificially jacked up housing prices, in turn, allowed tons of consumers --middle class, suburban folk, mostly-- to start sucking the illusory equity out of their homes via home-equity loans, artificially jacking up consumer spending in the process.

So, basically, as soon as housing prices went down, the bubble that had been allowing so many Americans to live beyond their means burst, and financial institutions that, in the past, would have had only minimal exposure, were obliterated, banks got scared and wouldn't lend, and we get a $700 billion+ price tag and a likely long recession for our trouble.

To get here, you needed silly political pressure to make bad loans, dumb deregulation, reckless corporate behavior, stupidly low interest rates and rampant consumer greed. All were vital in creating the current mess.

So you can blame it all on Maxine Waters and Barney Frank if you want, but I think we both know they had an awful lot of help.

Tucker134 · 10-14-2008, 12:40 PM

You make good points....I was referring to how it started- repealing Glass-Stegall probably wasn't the smartest thing ever done, & obviously Wall Street firms kept packaging all this sh*t into securities that made them millions- which only perpetuated the problem....And consumers who just had to have the new flat screen TV that they couldnt afford....

scuppers · 10-14-2008, 01:14 PM

Agreed.

quantum · 10-14-2008, 01:28 PM

[QUOTE=winzxb1985;2804049][color=#282827]I agree with you !I support you .[/color] As formidable as the [url=http://www.titopcn.com]rubber extruder[/url][/QUOTE]

I put her in the same category as Shelly Silver: what kind of dumasses are voting them in? :rolleyes:

10-13-2008, 07:56 PM	#1
Tucker134 Let's go Isles! All League Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 2,986	Maxine Waters caught lying about Fannie/Freddie [url]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/11/maxine-waters-caught-lying-about-fannie-mae-ties-real-time[/url] And people who post in this section of JI that the genesis of the credit crisis isn't subprime loans is kidding themselves....there's plenty of blame to go around, but in 2006 Congress met to discuss whether or not FNMA/Freddie should be regulated...Maxine Waters & her Democratic cronies who were in the pockets of FNMA argued vehemently against it, while Republican lawmakers begged the committee to consider the consequences of no regulation. This is in the public record, & cannot be disputed...incidentally it's there for your viewing pleasure at the bottom of the NEWSBUSTERS website that's above...the credit crisis started in March '07 with HSBC's announcement that they'd be taking significant writedowns on their subprime exposure...the rest, they say, is history.

10-14-2008, 10:16 AM	#11
scuppers Veteran Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 198	Tucker134 needs to stop watching Fox News Tucker134 I think your mind has been take over by Foxie. There is more than enought blame to go around on this, if the Republicans were "begging" for more regulation then why did the SEC under a Republican Congress and President let the banks do away with the debt limits in 2004? From now on please do a little more reading. See below from Internet Free Press: [url]http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=18516[/url] How could Cox have been so wrong? 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. A lone dissenter - a software consultant and expert on risk management - weighed in from Indiana with a two-page letter to warn the commission that the move was a grave mistake. He never heard back from Washington.

10-14-2008, 12:03 PM	#16
scuppers Veteran Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 198	Interesting take Well, your take on this, though not well thought out or even really coherent, seems to be that in spite of the fact that the Republicans have controlled Congress, the White House and have had the power to appoint people to key positions controlling this country's finances, such as Fed. Chairman, Secretary of the Treasury, etc... and that the Fed, SEC, and numerous other agencies that over the past 8 years could have stepped in and done something about the Housing Bubble, such as increase interest rates, and the like, but failed to, are all ABSOLUTELY BLAMELESS because this country was apparently being run by Barney Frank who was standing behind a curtain pretending to be a great wizard of the land of Tucker134. Interesting.

10-14-2008, 01:14 PM	#19
scuppers Veteran Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 198	Good point Agreed.

10-13-2008, 08:07 PM	#2
2foolish197 i suspect hanky-panky All League Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: astoria Posts: 4,532	i love NewsBusters....

10-13-2008, 08:15 PM	#3
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	I love Democrats! Not!

10-13-2008, 08:17 PM	#4
jetstream23 recovering from turf toe Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ (New Jets Stadium Section 246) Posts: 31,612	This is a $2 trillion catastrophe and turning out to be the biggest free pass given to Congress by the media that I've ever seen. They screwed the pooch on this incredibly and the media is almost completely ignoring it. What people don't realize is that this $700B bailout is really Congress bailing themselves out because of how much of a clusterf*ck they've caused with the housing regulations in this country.

10-13-2008, 08:21 PM	#5
2foolish197 i suspect hanky-panky All League Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: astoria Posts: 4,532	[QUOTE=jetstream23;2803547]This is a $2 trillion catastrophe and turning out to be the biggest free pass given to Congress by the media that I've ever seen. They screwed the pooch on this incredibly and the media is almost completely ignoring it. What people don't realize is that this $700B bailout is really Congress bailing themselves out because of how much of a clusterf*ck they've caused with the housing regulations in this country.[/QUOTE]:applause::applause::applause:

10-13-2008, 08:42 PM	#6
Tucker134 Let's go Isles! All League Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 2,986	[QUOTE=jetstream23;2803547]This is a $2 trillion catastrophe and turning out to be the biggest free pass given to Congress by the media that I've ever seen. They screwed the pooch on this incredibly and the media is almost completely ignoring it. What people don't realize is that this $700B bailout is really Congress bailing themselves out because of how much of a clusterf*ck they've caused with the housing regulations in this country.[/QUOTE] It really is that simple...Wall Street greed didn't cause this- they provided the LEVERAGE for the CDO's that securitized these bad loans..& yes, they made millions doing it. It was a house of cards that came crumbling down...it should have been regulated.

10-14-2008, 12:22 AM	#7
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,889	Maxine Waters? Now that's some low hanging fruit. What a wacko.

10-14-2008, 06:48 AM	#8
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,029	[QUOTE=winzxb1985;2804049][color=#282827]I agree with you !I support you .[/color] As formidable as the [url=http://www.titopcn.com]rubber extruder[/url][/QUOTE] Hmmm. You raise a good point... [QUOTE]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 [B][SIZE="4"]pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. [/SIZE][/B] In addition, [B]banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers[/B]. 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. In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, [B]which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn[/B],[B][SIZE="6"] prompting a government rescue [/SIZE][/B]similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's. [/QUOTE] [url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1[/url] Ohhh...an oracle...

10-14-2008, 08:12 AM	#9
chicadeel All Pro Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,234	It's not surprising that any of these people are caught lying. So in the end who are the bigger fools, our Representatives in Washington or the people who vote for them? :cool: I just called myself a fool.

10-14-2008, 10:08 AM	#10
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=Tucker134;2803518][url]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/11/maxine-waters-caught-lying-about-fannie-mae-ties-real-time[/url] And people who post in this section of JI that the genesis of the credit crisis isn't subprime loans is kidding themselves....there's plenty of blame to go around, but in 2006 Congress met to discuss whether or not FNMA/Freddie should be regulated...Maxine Waters & her Democratic cronies who were in the pockets of FNMA argued vehemently against it, while Republican lawmakers begged the committee to consider the consequences of no regulation. This is in the public record, & cannot be disputed...incidentally it's there for your viewing pleasure at the bottom of the NEWSBUSTERS website that's above...the credit crisis started in March '07 with HSBC's announcement that they'd be taking significant writedowns on their subprime exposure...the rest, they say, is history.[/QUOTE] I am not for a moment saying that the Democrats don't own a nice sized piece of this mess --as do Republicans-- but we had already passed the point of no return with a lot of this stuff by 2006. The number of crap loans, and --more importantly-- the number of Americans using the illusory equity in their homes as cash machines by 2004-2005 guaranteed that the floor would fall out as soon as home prices started receding. (Paul Krugman just won a Nobel in economics for pointing this out back in 2005.) Deregulation meant that the failing loans would take down many non-lenders who'd bought up the risk from them, magnifying the impact when the inevitable happened.

10-14-2008, 10:24 AM	#12
Soberphobia All League Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,440	I think sub-prime will be looked back as the spark that lit the fuse, sort of like the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand is seen as the thing that started WW1. Thing is there still would have been a WW1 without that assassination - it just would have started in some other way, and maybe a little later. The real thing that is powering this cluster**** is the popping of the biggest speculative bubble in the history of the world.

10-14-2008, 10:57 AM	#13
Tucker134 Let's go Isles! All League Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 2,986	[QUOTE=scuppers;2804186]Tucker134 I think your mind has been take over by Foxie. There is more than enought blame to go around on this, if the Republicans were "begging" for more regulation then why did the SEC under a Republican Congress and President let the banks do away with the debt limits in 2004? From now on please do a little more reading. See below from Internet Free Press: [url]http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=18516[/url] How could Cox have been so wrong? 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. A lone dissenter - a software consultant and expert on risk management - weighed in from Indiana with a two-page letter to warn the commission that the move was a grave mistake. He never heard back from Washington.[/QUOTE] You're referring to something completely different. I agree with the article you referenced, & the fact that there's plenty of blame to go around. But the GENESIS of everything that's transpired over the past 1.5 years is thebullsh*t Community Reinvestment Act & FNMA corruption that was fully supported by Democrats on the take...I don't regurgitate Fox News talking points. Pelosi/Reid/Waters are the scuzz of this earth....

10-14-2008, 11:11 AM	#14
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=Tucker134;2804237]You're referring to something completely different. I agree with the article you referenced, & the fact that there's plenty of blame to go around. But the GENESIS of everything that's transpired over the past 1.5 years is thebullsh*t Community Reinvestment Act & FNMA corruption that was fully supported by Democrats on the take...I don't regurgitate Fox News talking points. Pelosi/Reid/Waters are the scuzz of this earth....[/QUOTE] If you think the root of what's happened occurred in the last 1.5 years, you really, really do not understand what's going on.

10-14-2008, 11:52 AM	#15
Tucker134 Let's go Isles! All League Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 2,986	I know it's alot older than that....Barney Frank was butt banging a FNMA executive in the early 90's....& the Comm Reinvestment Act was before that!

10-14-2008, 12:06 PM	#17
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=Tucker134;2804297]I know it's alot older than that....Barney Frank was butt banging a FNMA executive in the early 90's....& the Comm Reinvestment Act was before that![/QUOTE] Look, Fannie and Freddie certainly got political pressure (primarily, not but not by any means exclusively from Democrats) to make home-ownership more accessible, and that certainly led to some subprime lending. But that doesn't even get you halfway to the current problem: Why are financial institutions like Lehman and AIG, which didn't make mortgage loans, either failing or requiring massive assistace to stay afloat? The answer to that is deregulation, which took down a lot of the traditional barriers between financial institutions and allowed outfits like AIG to take on massive exposure to these stupid risks in pursuit of a quick and easy buck. Beyond that, the fact that there were so many new, deep-pocketed buyers for these gimmicky credit swaps gave the lenders increased incentive to make MORE subprime loans than they otherwise would, because they knew they had buyers willing to take the stupid risks off their hands. And driving the whole thing are the dumb@ss low interest rates, courtesy of the fed, that are allowing more and more air to get into the bubble by artificially jacking up housing prices. Those artificially jacked up housing prices, in turn, allowed tons of consumers --middle class, suburban folk, mostly-- to start sucking the illusory equity out of their homes via home-equity loans, artificially jacking up consumer spending in the process. So, basically, as soon as housing prices went down, the bubble that had been allowing so many Americans to live beyond their means burst, and financial institutions that, in the past, would have had only minimal exposure, were obliterated, banks got scared and wouldn't lend, and we get a $700 billion+ price tag and a likely long recession for our trouble. To get here, you needed silly political pressure to make bad loans, dumb deregulation, reckless corporate behavior, stupidly low interest rates and rampant consumer greed. All were vital in creating the current mess. So you can blame it all on Maxine Waters and Barney Frank if you want, but I think we both know they had an awful lot of help.

10-14-2008, 12:40 PM	#18
Tucker134 Let's go Isles! All League Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 2,986	You make good points....I was referring to how it started- repealing Glass-Stegall probably wasn't the smartest thing ever done, & obviously Wall Street firms kept packaging all this sh*t into securities that made them millions- which only perpetuated the problem....And consumers who just had to have the new flat screen TV that they couldnt afford....

10-14-2008, 01:28 PM	#20
quantum GFY Snatchez! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI Posts: 17,905	[QUOTE=winzxb1985;2804049][color=#282827]I agree with you !I support you .[/color] As formidable as the [url=http://www.titopcn.com]rubber extruder[/url][/QUOTE] I put her in the same category as Shelly Silver: what kind of dumasses are voting them in? :rolleyes: