Burning down the house: What caused the economic crisis?

[Royal Tiger]

The video the dems don't want you to see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

The video the dems don't want you to see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

Do you notice how quiet it is after people view these facts??? They have no comment because it is to straight forward and a matter of factual record. I laugh when I hear democrats blame the current crisis on "deregulation" which is true capitalism. But, when you try to inject social issues in capitalism such as forcing bad loans to unqualified people---BAD THINGS HAPPEN AND DID!!!!!!!!!!!

The responsible parties for the current financial crisis is purely on the democrats. Not ONLY injecting social experimentation, but then refusing to support laws that would have slowed down the FMs.

Do you think maybe it was because of the big FMs contributions to democrats like Dodd and Hussein Obama????

Lee

[Wikedjuggalo]

Good vid I'll spread it around.

[Weebitob]

Do many folks go out of their way to suppress what they know just to justify their opinion in something? It takes two parties to tango when it comes to passing bills in congress and yes they were not vetoed by what happened to be a Democratic President (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) in both cases. Also, keep in mind that during the Clinton administration the House was a majority Republican.

But now think about this, how would it look for re-election if either candidate did not pass bills or establish organization that are on the flip side supposed to help people reach the American Dream?

[benebob]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Do you notice how quiet it is after people view these facts??? They have no comment because it is to straight forward and a matter of factual record. I laugh when I hear democrats blame the current crisis on "deregulation" which is true capitalism. But, when you try to inject social issues in capitalism such as forcing bad loans to unqualified people---BAD THINGS HAPPEN AND DID!!!!!!!!!!!

The responsible parties for the current financial crisis is purely on the democrats. Not ONLY injecting social experimentation, but then refusing to support laws that would have slowed down the FMs.

Do you think maybe it was because of the big FMs contributions to democrats like Dodd and Hussein Obama????

Lee

While you're praising facts one that the site neglected to point out is that Fannie and Freddie gave a higher percentage of the total contributions McCain has received thus far then they gave to Barrack. He's just a less demanding ***** of 'em. I believe he was 3rd or 4th in line of total contributions so he must be a whole lot better

In 95 wasn't it the Republicans who controlled both the House and Senate? Seems like the Democrats must've had some help creating the mess. I see that since your a fan of capitalism then you'll be supporting someone from the Libertarian party this year. You know someone who believes in free market. Someone who isn't John, I'll take Fannie and Freddie's money right beside my partner Barrry, McCain. Someone who belives in a true capitalistic system where the Fed doesn't insure your bank accounts, doesn't hold a death grip on economic grown and decline by controlling interest, doesn't spend more than it takes in so we pay $250 a taxpayer each year simply on INTREST to foreign investors. At least when we buy oil from foreign countries we get something for that money. What do we get from our debt?

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by benebob

While you're praising facts one that the site neglected to point out is that Fannie and Freddie gave a higher percentage of the total contributions McCain has received thus far then they gave to Barrack. He's just a less demanding ***** of 'em. I believe he was 3rd or 4th in line of total contributions so he must be a whole lot better

As usual you are just throwing words and try to obfuscate the issue without really researching the facts or providing any realistic input or links.

You might try this link just for a few more facts.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/20...cain-reformer/

As to the political contributions by the FMs, lets be fair and go way back to see how much has been contributed.

How about from 1989-2008??

1. Dodd--$133900
2. Kerry--$111000
3. Obama--$105849
4. Clinton, H--$75550
5. Kanjorski--$65500

Don't think I see McCain in top 5--do you?

Lee

[TomsSVX]

presentation is everything. That video was poorly executed..> While I do not disagree with the statements made... It could have been presented in a more professional manner.

Tom

[benebob]

The words I through out came right out of Rush Dumba$$'s lips. I guess he's not a trusted source for you. I'm not talking about 98-08. I'm talking about today, hear and now on this campaign. I guess that doesn't seem to matter to you though that more of the money your canidate spends came directly from FM and FM then Barry's did.

Any way you want to spin it the reality is John McCann is nothing more than a 2 bit liar when it comes to reforming the system. He'll gladly take the money just as any other democrat or republican will. Just because he's a cheaper ***** than Barry doesn't mean he's any less guilty of using the current political system to get himself elected. BTW FM and FM cannot make political contributions, just as the President cannot vote in Congress.

He does it because Americans like you continue to vote for 'em! Until that changes you get what you vote in there.

Since you obviously like dubious "news" sources to back up your 1/2 truths or like Jeff are too lazy to do the research yourself then this should get you started:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/727/

Originally Posted by lhopp77

As usual you are just throwing words and try to obfuscate the issue without really researching the facts or providing any realistic input or links.

You might try this link just for a few more facts.

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/20...cain-reformer/

As to the political contributions by the FMs, lets be fair and go way back to see how much has been contributed.

How about from 1989-2008??

1. Dodd--$133900
2. Kerry--$111000
3. Obama--$105849
4. Clinton, H--$75550
5. Kanjorski--$65500

Don't think I see McCain in top 5--do you?

Lee

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

presentation is everything. That video was poorly executed..> While I do not disagree with the statements made... It could have been presented in a more professional manner.

Tom

I agree with this. They tried to put to much information in a short video and in doing so lost much of the impact. It moves so fast its hard to comprehend what is being shown or said. It needed to slow down and clearly articulate the points being made.

Lee

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by benebob

The words I through out came right out of Rush Dumba$$'s lips. I guess he's not a trusted source for you. I'm not talking about 98-08. I'm talking about today, hear and now on this campaign. I guess that doesn't seem to matter to you though that more of the money your canidate spends came directly from FM and FM then Barry's did.

Any way you want to spin it the reality is John McCann is nothing more than a 2 bit liar when it comes to reforming the system. He'll gladly take the money just as any other democrat or republican will. Just because he's a cheaper ***** than Barry doesn't mean he's any less guilty of using the current political system to get himself elected. BTW FM and FM cannot make political contributions, just as the President cannot vote in Congress.

He does it because Americans like you continue to vote for 'em! Until that changes you get what you vote in there.

Since you obviously like dubious "news" sources to back up your 1/2 truths or like Jeff are too lazy to do the research yourself then this should get you started:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/727/

First, it might surprise you to know that I don't even listen to Rush. I guess I might have listened to him 2 times in my entire life and decided that his slant on things was far more radical than my beliefs.

You cite a sourse that confirms what I have said, but only makes fuzzy connections to the point you are trying to make. They fail to make a true DIRECT McCain connection and fail to define McCain related committees.

THE CLEAR FACT REMAINS---Obama claims to be the one for change, but is in bed with our biggest current economic problem. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CHANGE??? Sounds like political corruption as usual to me and it is especially significant given the short time he has been in the Senate. There are many years to scrutinize McCain's conduct and they have not been able to come up with anything significant other than the $2M from big oil. To put this in perspective you would need to evaluate those contributions to him over what time period as opposed to all other politicians. Then you would have to compare it with his big oil votes compared to all other politicians. Also, whether direct contributions or from company employees, etc, etc. The figure is meaningless without comparative figures as given in the contributions to Obama.

YOU are the one that needs to start looking and quit being lazy and spouting nonsense.

Oh, by the way--your statement on DIRECT contributions from the FMs to McCain is totally false and not even supported by the link you provide.

Lee

[benebob]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

First, it might surprise you to know that I don't even listen to Rush. I guess I might have listened to him 2 times in my entire life and decided that his slant on things was far more radical than my beliefs.

You cite a sourse that confirms what I have said, but only makes fuzzy connections to the point you are trying to make. They fail to make a true DIRECT McCain connection and fail to define McCain related committees.

THE CLEAR FACT REMAINS---Obama claims to be the one for change, but is in bed with our biggest current economic problem. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CHANGE??? Sounds like political corruption as usual to me and it is especially significant given the short time he has been in the Senate. There are many years to scrutinize McCain's conduct and they have not been able to come up with anything significant other than the $2M from big oil. To put this in perspective you would need to evaluate those contributions to him over what time period as opposed to all other politicians. Then you would have to compare it with his big oil votes compared to all other politicians. Also, whether direct contributions or from company employees, etc, etc. The figure is meaningless without comparative figures as given in the contributions to Obama.

YOU are the one that needs to start looking and quit being lazy and spouting nonsense.

Oh, by the way--your statement on DIRECT contributions from the FMs to McCain is totally false and not even supported by the link you provide.

Lee

For me its Rush or Sports Talk Radio at work as most of our municipal vehicles lack the FM option. Sports talk for 4 hours a day is not what I would recommend to Satan himself.


Here's a quote from that same article that shows ya where the money goes. Sure more employees and their families of FM and FM gave to Barrack then they did to McCain BUT if you include the money that was given by the board of directors and lobbyists for the company it evens itself out quite a bit.

"Corporations cannot give to candidates, so the center's list adds up contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees and their families. Obama has received a lot of money during his presidential campaign, though, and Fannie and Freddie don't make his list of top 20 companies. (The top three companies with employees donating to Obama are Goldman Sachs, University of California, and Citigroup, according to the center.)

The New York Times looked at contributions from Fannie and Freddie's boards of directors and lobbyists, who are technically not employees. That analysis found Fannie and Freddie-related contributors gave $169,000 to John McCain and his related committees, compared with $16,000 to Obama and his related committees."


Last ad I saw was old Johnny two face pants saying "REAL CHANGE". As I said before, being a cheap ***** still makes you a *****. You just tend to have to work harder, sleep with more men and end up with the same diseases as your 5th Ave counterpart does!

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by benebob

.

"Corporations cannot give to candidates, so the center's list adds up contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees and their families. Obama has received a lot of money during his presidential campaign, though, and Fannie and Freddie don't make his list of top 20 companies. (The top three companies with employees donating to Obama are Goldman Sachs, University of California, and Citigroup, according to the center.)

What does this have to do with anything? The conversation was HOW MUCH he got from the FMs, not how that compared with other contributions he received. It would be interesting to follow the other contributions though as they are also payoff or political bribes. You probably don't know but U of C is deeply involved in very lucrative government contracts and facilities management. They ran Los Alamos National Lab (read nuclear) for decades and had many security leaks and other problems.

[/Quote] The New York Times looked at contributions from Fannie and Freddie's boards of directors and lobbyists, who are technically not employees. That analysis found Fannie and Freddie-related contributors gave $169,000 to John McCain and his related committees, compared with $16,000 to Obama and his related committees." [/Quote]

Notice that they do not confirm any truth of this article but only say that NYT reported............ Doesn't the change in terminology bother you a bit. Its a different standard when talking about McCain. Just who or what are the "related committees"? If you applied the same standard to Obama the money would be in the millions as it would include a couple of his economic advisors.

Again go back and review that awful (but fact filled) YouTube video of where the problem started and McCains direct actions to control the FMs. When you can show me where Obama or even any prominent democrat tried to rein them in--I will listen to you. Before that you are speaking out of the wrong orifice.

Here is another interesting link.

http://themountainsage.wordpress.com...e-in-may-2006/

Lee

[benebob]

Did John McCain get a penny from FM and FM. Yes, point is moot, they both gladly took what was offered to them hence they both have a stake in it. I can't help that McCain is a cheaper ***** more than you can. Fact is he took it with a smile on that bloated face of his.

At least he made the Demcrats and Republicans eat their free food at the convention with their hands showing them for the barbarians they are. That's what I call reform we can belive in. Way to reign 'em in there Johnny Two Face McCain!

If you want to vote for a idiot feel free. Since you've been too slow up to this point to realize that I could care less what you say about Barry as I wouldn't vote for him anymore than I'd vote for Two Face McCain why don't you get a clue. They both are two of the worst presidential hopefuls either party has put on their ticket. A vote for them is showing you are happy with putting the $^& that didn't flush in the White House.

Originally Posted by lhopp77

What does this have to do with anything? The conversation was HOW MUCH he got from the FMs, not how that compared with other contributions he received. It would be interesting to follow the other contributions though as they are also payoff or political bribes. You probably don't know but U of C is deeply involved in very lucrative government contracts and facilities management. They ran Los Alamos National Lab (read nuclear) for decades and had many security leaks and other problems.

The New York Times looked at contributions from Fannie and Freddie's boards of directors and lobbyists, who are technically not employees. That analysis found Fannie and Freddie-related contributors gave $169,000 to John McCain and his related committees, compared with $16,000 to Obama and his related committees."[/I] [/Quote]

Notice that they do not confirm any truth of this article but only say that NYT reported............ Doesn't the change in terminology bother you a bit. Its a different standard when talking about McCain. Just who or what are the "related committees"? If you applied the same standard to Obama the money would be in the millions as it would include a couple of his economic advisors.

Again go back and review that awful (but fact filled) YouTube video of where the problem started and McCains direct actions to control the FMs. When you can show me where Obama or even any prominent democrat tried to rein them in--I will listen to you. Before that you are speaking out of the wrong orifice.

Here is another interesting link.

http://themountainsage.wordpress.com...e-in-may-2006/

Lee[/QUOTE]

[shotgunslade]

The current sub-prime mortgage crisis was the result of many complementary circumstances most of which can be characterized as greed and lack of scruples on the part of individuals at various levels of the mortgage lending process.

According to a friend of mine who is upper management in HSBC’s consumer lending department (they currently are relatively sound and have avoided most of this unpleasantness), the Community Redevelopment Act played only a peripheral role in this crisis. Most of the under-performing loans that caused the crisis were written or renewed in the last 5 years. Few of the new loans were the result of CRA compliance. Some of the renewed loans were originally written for CRA compliance, but the renewals with higher principals were not. Perhaps that greatest influence of CRA on this crisis is that with the huge volume of new mortgages written in the past few years, more CRA loans had to be written to make the percentages. In fact, there is statistical evidence that the percentage of new non-performing CRA loans is lower than the percentage of new non-performing non-CRA loans.

The primary generator of this crisis was the response of the mortgage industry to the hunger in the world financial markets for US mortgage backed securities. Because of this hunger, mortgages could be sold with very lucrative mark-ups. Companies that bundled these mortgages into mortgage based securities made even more mark-up on their activities. Finally, companies that created derivatives based on these securities made even more money.

Unfortunately, in the normal run of things, there were insufficient mortgages to meet this demand, so mark-ups on those available mortgages rose, creating a brand new industry to create new mortgages well beyond what the market was producing naturally. There were hordes of mortgage brokers who got into the act, pro-actively selling refinancing to individuals who may not have previously considered this alternative. There was a Countrywide commercial on cable TV every few seconds. Initially the new mortgages and refi’s conformed to the conventional standards of verified qualification, bank statements showing assets, payroll slips showing employment and salary, credit checks, and bonafide appraisals showing the true value of the property. When these verified qualifications restricted the creation of mortgages, the brokers went to a self qualification system, where candidates stated their financial situation without documentation. At the end, some companies were writing non-qualified mortgages, with no financial, even self-asserted, documentation at all. In some cases, brokers filled out the applications themselves, falsifying the salary, asset, and credit status of the applicants. Of course, appraisals could be adjusted to fit the need of the mortgage broker, no matter the condition of the property.

These mortgage brokers were making a fortune. A broker in Las Vegas in a recent interview talked about casino parties every night, Dom Perignon by the case, girls, girls, girls, and cars, cars, cars. The entire industry was on a roll. The bundlers and the securities dealers did not want to know anything about the quality of the mortgages, they only wanted more mortgages to sell. But, interest rates rose, and monthly payments on adjustable rate mortgages rose beyond the means of many new mortgage holders. Some of the mortgages became non-performing because of missed payments. The dividends on the securities decreased because of reduced cash flow. Then it all fell apart. The financial industry lost trust in the entire realm of mortgage backed securities and derivatives, and firms heavily vested in these instruments were left holding worthless paper. Individual mortgage backed securities could be referenced to specific mortgages so that you might be able to separate the good stuff from the stinkers, but the derivatives were a completely different game, based upon classes of securities, and could not be verified. Now, the whole lot, good stuff and crap, is almost worthless.

The point of the bailout is for the government to buy enormous amounts of the securities and financial instruments at reduced prices, giving financial firms cash and the resulting liquidity that they need. At some point, the worthless securities can be ditched, but those that have a sound basis will return to much of their pre-panic value. In the end, the government could conceivably make money off the deal. The feds are the only entity that has the financial strength to make this play. If Warren Buffet had a hundred times as much money as he does, he might even make this play. Note that he just bought a $5 billion share of Goldman Sachs.

So, who is to blame? Many consumers who allowed their petty greed to over-rule their common sense and refinanced well beyond their means are to blame. The brokers who went out and encouraged this stupid economic behavior, and in some cases committed fraud to get these mortgages through, are to blame. The mortgage companies who turned a blind eye to qualification and quality issues in the mortgages are to blame. The securities brokers who created these financial instruments without verifying their quality are to blame. Deregulation which allowed all of these shenanigans to take place without a mass influx to the slammer is to blame. They are all in it. But probably the most despicable people were those who, face to face, convinced so many people to refinance, knowing they couldn’t really afford it. The CRA had a small part in this, but it was greed and dishonesty that made it happen.

Remember the old days, when all banks could do was offer checking and savings accounts, and write auto, home and small business loans. Bankers couldn’t stand all the money that the new financial services firms were making and demanded deregulation so they could get their place at the trough. Now they have that place, and find what’s in the trough to be poison. Shame on us for giving them that opportunity.

Unfortunately, we have this propaganda blaming the whole thing on the CRA. Actually, this is a thinly veiled version of a very common right-wing strategy. It’s called “Blame the N!gge3rs.” In fact, the great preponderance of the people to blame for this crisis are lily-white and are still in a high tax bracket. The main losers are the home-owners who lost their houses and the share-holders of the banks that went under. And you and me, whose 401-K’s are in the dumper big time.

By the way, the main culprit in the housing bubble is not the CRA, it is the income tax deduction for mortgage interest and property taxes.

[Tim]

I couldn't agree more Dan. We live in a society that subconciously makes us what to be better than everyone else.

A lot of people are under the mindset that if the next door neighbor gets a nice car, they have to get a nice car to outdo him.

Many of my friends were brought up with the idea that credit cards are the norm. If you can't afford to buy it this week, put it on the credit card and pay it off little by little. I can't even list a handful of friends that dont have some sort of credit card debt buying excessive items.