Does The Republican Party Have Any Vision Or Plan For The Future?

[Loismustdie 0]

Can it really be called wealth if it's basis is a lie? And that's what those mortgage default swaps were was a big ponzi scheme lie. The guys that run ponzi schemes on a smaller scale sell it because they look like they're rich, doing well, have great incomes and so on and the people that they get in first also look like that. Therefore it draws in more suckers. And that's exactly what the banks and financial institutions did under Bush. To pretend that it was real and actual wealth is buying into a lie. And now we ALL get to pay for it.

No. The mortgage default swaps are actually viable instruments for investment. What was underneath them,or a percentage of what is underneath them, is the problem. If creditworthy people borrowed, we would not be having this conversation. Some banks- not all, some, over-leveraged to make obscene profits vs. profits. That's bad business. That being said, it wasn't every bank, or every brokerage firm, some have string balance sheets, some have no need for anything but time- lop off mark to market accounting and arguably this all goes away tommorow. As we speak, right now, somewhere a "bad" investment is maturing and paying out it's principal. Another is maturing and paying out 50%. Another is defaulting altogether. Remember, I work in this business. I can't tell you what to buy, but I can tell you this, there are companies out there right now making all the right moves, and when this turns around, and it will, eventually, despite the best efforts of the Head Clown, people will get rich again.

[Nimue1995 1]

banking crisis started when they were forced to give bad loans...but they knew fannie and freddie would take them.Thanks to Chris Dodd & Barney Frank and the CBC

I'm really getting tired of people trotting out this lie. And it IS a lie. Take a look at what some of the most respected economists and experts have said about it: San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner has stated that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending".[56] In a Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust," relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[61] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the current financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[62] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[63] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[64] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[65] Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[66]Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[67][34] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[68] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[69] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[70] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[71]

No. The mortgage default swaps are actually viable instruments for investment. What was underneath them,or a percentage of what is underneath them, is the problem. If creditworthy people borrowed, we would not be having this conversation. Some banks- not all, some, over-leveraged to make obscene profits vs. profits. That's bad business. That being said, it wasn't every bank, or every brokerage firm, some have string balance sheets, some have no need for anything but time- lop off mark to market accounting and arguably this all goes away tommorow. As we speak, right now, somewhere a "bad" investment is maturing and paying out it's principal. Another is maturing and paying out 50%. Another is defaulting altogether. Remember, I work in this business. I can't tell you what to buy, but I can tell you this, there are companies out there right now making all the right moves, and when this turns around, and it will, eventually, despite the best efforts of the Head Clown, people will get rich again.

Sadly one bad apple tends to spoil the whole bunch. And because mortgage companies and real estate firms needed to make more and more sales to keep the housing ponzi scheme going they went into creative financing starting with going from 20 percent down to 10 percent to 5 percent and eventually to financing even the down payment. Then came APR loans, interest only loans with a balloon payment in so many years and so on. It would have worked if they could have kept the housing boom going but eventually the bubble burst and it not only caught those people who made risky loans but also some who didn't make risky loans but through no fault of their own found themselves underwater. These morgages were bundled together, sold as mortgage backed securities and then overleveraged to an incredible degree. So when your few bad apples are that integrated into the fabric of the financial landscape it can't help but have a much bigger effect on the economy than would otherwise happen. Like a house built on a cracked foundation it looked good for a while but eventually that crack widened to the point where the whole house started to crack and sag. And propping up the failed institutions by artificial means merely put off the day when the whole house's foundation has to be repaired or the house will collapse.

[Balloon guy 158]

you should buy the orange box and play TF2 with me. seriously.

I don't have TF2, actually I haven't played first person shooters for 3 years... too addictive

[Loismustdie 0]

I'm really getting tired of people trotting out this lie. And it IS a lie. Take a look at what some of the most respected economists and experts have said about it: San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner has stated that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending".[56] In a Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust," relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[61] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the current financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[62] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[63] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[64] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[65] Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[66]Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[67][34] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[68] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[69] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[70] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[71]Sadly one bad apple tends to spoil the whole bunch. And because mortgage companies and real estate firms needed to make more and more sales to keep the housing ponzi scheme going they went into creative financing starting with going from 20 percent down to 10 percent to 5 percent and eventually to financing even the down payment. Then came APR loans, interest only loans with a balloon payment in so many years and so on. It would have worked if they could have kept the housing boom going but eventually the bubble burst and it not only caught those people who made risky loans but also some who didn't make risky loans but through no fault of their own found themselves underwater. These morgages were bundled together, sold as mortgage backed securities and then overleveraged to an incredible degree. So when your few bad apples are that integrated into the fabric of the financial landscape it can't help but have a much bigger effect on the economy than would otherwise happen. Like a house built on a cracked foundation it looked good for a while but eventually that crack widened to the point where the whole house started to crack and sag. And propping up the failed institutions by artificial means merely put off the day when the whole house's foundation has to be repaired or the house will collapse.

I'm not sure exactly who you are talking to here, and why you are making my argument for me? That's weird.

[Nimue1995 1]

I'm not sure exactly who you are talking to here, and why you are making my argument for me? That's weird.

I know that it was only a percentage of mortgage companies and banks involved in the subprime loan ponzi scheme (and when it takes more and more people at the bottom to support the ones further up the chain isn't that a ponzi scheme?). But unfortunately the loans they made infected the whole economic fabric. But what I'm saying is that even people who have been responsible with their loans and money are now a whole lot poorer now than before this all got started. And because that foundation was flawed and cracked everything built upon it was pretty to look at but wasn't sound. Therefore the wealth that appeared to be there was actually a lie because the foundation was rotten. It was a risky business infecting investments that should have been and in the past have been pretty solidly not risky. Which person looks more wealthy: The one who saves for a rainy day, stays out of debt, lives within his means and slowly acquires stuff only as he can afford it or the guy who goes out and charges his credit cards up to the hilt, buys a house that's too expensive for him to pay for, and all the cars, toys and trappings of wealth on credit? Who's more wealthy when both lose their jobs? That's a part too of why I said that the supposed trappings of wealth bought with credit made a good appearance but were in the end a lie. This was totally encouraged during the Bush years and now the time has come to pay for it all and everybody's pissed off. That's the real problem that the Republicans have with trying to promote the same old principles. We've heard it all before but so far the words haven't been reflected in actions. Therefore why should we trust you now? That's a good portion of the Republican problem. And it's going to take somebody like Reagan to change that, not the crop of losers that are currently being touted as frontrunners by the Republican Party.

[Loismustdie 0]

I know that it was only a percentage of mortgage companies and banks involved in the subprime loan ponzi scheme (and when it takes more and more people at the bottom to support the ones further up the chain isn't that a ponzi scheme?). But unfortunately the loans they made infected the whole economic fabric. But what I'm saying is that even people who have been responsible with their loans and money are now a whole lot poorer now than before this all got started. And because that foundation was flawed and cracked everything built upon it was pretty to look at but wasn't sound. Therefore the wealth that appeared to be there was actually a lie because the foundation was rotten. It was a risky business infecting investments that should have been and in the past have been pretty solidly not risky. Which person looks more wealthy: The one who saves for a rainy day, stays out of debt, lives within his means and slowly acquires stuff only as he can afford it or the guy who goes out and charges his credit cards up to the hilt, buys a house that's too expensive for him to pay for, and all the cars, toys and trappings of wealth on credit? Who's more wealthy when both lose their jobs? That's a part too of why I said that the supposed trappings of wealth bought with credit made a good appearance but were in the end a lie. This was totally encouraged during the Bush years and now the time has come to pay for it all and everybody's pissed off. That's the real problem that the Republicans have with trying to promote the same old principles. We've heard it all before but so far the words haven't been reflected in actions. Therefore why should we trust you now? That's a good portion of the Republican problem. And it's going to take somebody like Reagan to change that, not the crop of losers that are currently being touted as frontrunners by the Republican Party.

Bush actually tried to introduce legislation to stop it, a few times. And, for the thousandth time, it's not a Republican problem, it's a conservative problem, and frankly it just makes you look really, really dumb. Not a chance in hell McCain would have done 3/4 of what Obama has done, but because he's not perfect **** the Republicans? Exhibit A of why this country is insanely out of common sense. You remind me of someone who thinks that screaming at a kid is what you do when he pees his bed, you know, someone who can't rationalize cause and effect, just runs by whatever they feel. My goodness that is you!! How many times does it come down to that with you? You seriously, and quite literally, most of the time end up making no sense, not because you cannot speak or deliver a legible sentence but because your positions are not sensible.

[Nimue1995 1]

Bush actually tried to introduce legislation to stop it, a few times. And, for the thousandth time, it's not a Republican problem, it's a conservative problem, and frankly it just makes you look really, really dumb. Not a chance in hell McCain would have done 3/4 of what Obama has done, but because he's not perfect **** the Republicans? Exhibit A of why this country is insanely out of common sense. You remind me of someone who thinks that screaming at a kid is what you do when he pees his bed, you know, someone who can't rationalize cause and effect, just runs by whatever they feel. My goodness that is you!! How many times does it come down to that with you? You seriously, and quite literally, most of the time end up making no sense, not because you cannot speak or deliver a legible sentence but because your positions are not sensible.

Sigh, for the last time I am not saying that I believe this. What I'm saying is this is what most Americans believe at this moment. I know that you're smarter than that. Probably many conservatives are smarter than that. But what the American people have heard for the last 8 years is that Bush was supposedly this conservative guy. And it sounds pretty hollow that all those who supported him for those years are suddenly now chanting the mantra that he wasn't conservative at all. What I'm looking for is how is the next candidate going to change this perception? Though having 3 kids on the high school and college debate teams and a daughter now who's a lobbyist I've learned a great deal about how to argue either side. And one thing you have to know about effective debate is knowing who your audience is and what preconceptions they may already have about your particular side of the debate. I know I don't argue the liberal side as well because there is a great deal of it I don't agree with. But in order to prepare for what that argument is and how to effectively move people your way, you have to know how to speak to those preconceptions. Reagan did a great job of that and so did Obama. Look at those examples and figure out how they did it and the Republicans might be able to get out of the hole. Stop blaming it on luck and circumstance and figure out how it can be your party's candidate next time.

[CaneBrain 95]

a good article that lays down the problem with Rush being so front and center: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090304/pl_politico/19596and a fun website from that article: http://www.dccc.org/content/sorrypay homage to Rush and apologize for questioning him!

[Loismustdie 0]

Sigh, for the last time I am not saying that I believe this. What I'm saying is this is what most Americans believe at this moment. I know that you're smarter than that. Probably many conservatives are smarter than that. But what the American people have heard for the last 8 years is that Bush was supposedly this conservative guy. And it sounds pretty hollow that all those who supported him for those years are suddenly now chanting the mantra that he wasn't conservative at all. What I'm looking for is how is the next candidate going to change this perception? Though having 3 kids on the high school and college debate teams and a daughter now who's a lobbyist I've learned a great deal about how to argue either side. And one thing you have to know about effective debate is knowing who your audience is and what preconceptions they may already have about your particular side of the debate. I know I don't argue the liberal side as well because there is a great deal of it I don't agree with. But in order to prepare for what that argument is and how to effectively move people your way, you have to know how to speak to those preconceptions. Reagan did a great job of that and so did Obama. Look at those examples and figure out how they did it and the Republicans might be able to get out of the hole. Stop blaming it on luck and circumstance and figure out how it can be your party's candidate next time.

What the hell are you talking about? I don't know of anyone, least of all me or any conservative leader who I follow who championed Bush as a fiscal conservative. Not one. Your argument is pointless because it's based on a point that isn't true. Maybe starting your argument from a point of truth would help? Maybe we could stop going in circles that way.

[Nimue1995 1]

What the hell are you talking about? I don't know of anyone, least of all me or any conservative leader who I follow who championed Bush as a fiscal conservative. Not one. Your argument is pointless because it's based on a point that isn't true. Maybe starting your argument from a point of truth would help? Maybe we could stop going in circles that way.

You don't get it. Bush RAN as a CONSERVATIVE and then proceded to do a great number of very UNCONSERVATIVE things. What I've been trying to say is how do you and the GOP plan on selling the American people that it won't happen again? Now so far Obama's actually doing a great deal of what he said he would do. I don't necessarily like all of it or even a majority of it but he's been true to what he campaigned on. Bush wasn't. And for 6 years all the GOP went right along with him. In fact BG still does. They went right along with him and basically rubberstamped about 99% of whatever he wanted to do. So don't tell me that Bush wasn't supported. The American people see this also so all of a sudden this epiphany about Bush the big spender isn't ringing true. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. The GOP can preach to the choir all day long but unless they find a way to gain the trust of the American people again, they're going to be singing solo.

[Loismustdie 0]

You don't get it. Bush RAN as a CONSERVATIVE and then proceded to do a great number of very UNCONSERVATIVE things. What I've been trying to say is how do you and the GOP plan on selling the American people that it won't happen again? Now so far Obama's actually doing a great deal of what he said he would do. I don't necessarily like all of it or even a majority of it but he's been true to what he campaigned on. Bush wasn't. And for 6 years all the GOP went right along with him. In fact BG still does. They went right along with him and basically rubberstamped about 99% of whatever he wanted to do. So don't tell me that Bush wasn't supported. The American people see this also so all of a sudden this epiphany about Bush the big spender isn't ringing true. That's what I'm trying to get across to you. The GOP can preach to the choir all day long but unless they find a way to gain the trust of the American people again, they're going to be singing solo.

It doesn't need to be sold. McCain would not have been perfect, but there is no way in hell he would have been this bad, and it's funny how everyone is forgetting how many things Obama said he would do and people on this board said, "Oh, he won't really do that, he is just pandering to the left, he's not really taht socialist" yes he is!!! By your logic as long as Obama says he will eat your babies and then does it, well you may not like it all that much but at least he was honest. Honestly, on some level I think you are insane sometimes, like off your rocker husband sleeps with one eye open insane. You make no sense. Thus, why I bear the mark of the Anti Nimue; I had considered changing that but I really truly believe that people who think like you must be stopped, somehow, someway.

[85suited 0]

a whole lotta non sense

The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be deniedThe government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to "promote homeownership," not to apply sound lending standards.Of course, lenders not only sold billions of dollars in suspect loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their present debacle, they also retained some subprime loans themselves and sold others to Wall Street--leading to the huge banking losses we have been witnessing for monthsIs this, then, a free market failure? Again, no.In a free market, lending large amounts of money to low-income, low-credit borrowers with no down payment would quickly prove disastrous. But the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans extraordinarily profitable. Subprime borrowers who would normally not be able to pay off their expensive houses could do so, thanks to payments that plummeted along with Fed rates. And the inflationary housing boom meant homeowners rarely defaulted; so long as housing prices went up, even the worst-credit borrowers could always sell or refinance.

[85suited 0]

government's Fannie Mae Foundation singled out one bank in particular as the role model for all other banks in America in terms of its commitment to CRA lending: Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, had committed to $600 billion in low-income or "subprime" loans as of 2003. Today, Countrywide is essentially bankrupted and has been merged with Bank of America

[Southern Buddhist 1]

And, for the thousandth time, it's not a Republican problem, it's a conservative problem,

Oops, you've accidentally admitted conservatives aren't 10000000000% perfect. Never thought that would come out of you. So there's a "conservative" problem of doing just the opposite of everything you ran on. But this isn't a "Republican" problem. First, what exactly is the difference between Republican and conservative? Is Karl Rove not a conservative? Is Rush not a conservative? Are they so utterly out of power that the Republican party will no longer admit them as members? Hardly.But whatever. The issue is, conservatives got power and turned out to be liars and hypocrites (not just Bush, but Foley and Craig on the family-values side, too). But asked what ideas you might have to make the public believe that you'll be serious the next time, what have you proposed? Nothing, except "McCain would have been better" and "trust us next time."And therein lies your problem.

The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be deniedThe government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to "promote homeownership," not to apply sound lending standards.Of course, lenders not only sold billions of dollars in suspect loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their present debacle, they also retained some subprime loans themselves and sold others to Wall Street--leading to the huge banking losses we have been witnessing for months

85suited, didn't you even read the sourced report Nimue posted stating clearly that CRA-regulated loans were more sound than non-CRA-regulated loans? You dismissed it as a "whole lot of nonsense," but expect us to take your word over those of people testifying before Congress who can back up their testimony with actual numbers. This is always what conservatives do: the facts are out there, and they can all be verified, but whenever shown the facts, conservatives just continue repeating something that is directly contradicted by reality. Yet somehow, they are always shocked and hurt when people come to the conclusion that they are either inveterate liars or too dumb to grasp simple reality. It doesn't seem to be much use, but I'll say it again: you can repeat it all you want, but when the facts show you're wrong, don't expect anyone to believe you or value your opinion highly.Or is it really just so much more important to you to blame black homeowners for the whole crisis and divert attention from the speculators? Talk about carrying water for someone -- this is what Republicans have tried to do ever since the crisis broke. Below is part of a conversation between Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi and Byron York from National Review. You're making the same argument, and it's just as weak as York's:

M.T.: You don't think the unregulated CDS market was a major factor in the current crisis? Were you watching when AIG almost went under? Were you watching the Lehman collapse?B.Y.: I think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also major factors. And I believe that many of the problems in the mortgage area can be attributed to the confluence of Democratic and Republican priorities: the Democrats' desire to give mortgages to people, particularly minorities, who could not afford them, and the Republicans' desire to achieve an "ownership society," in part by giving mortgages to people who could not afford them. Again, I believe that if you are suggesting that the financial crisis is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground.M.T.: Oh, come on. Tell me you're not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That's like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it's all speculation by Wall Street traders. It's a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable.B.Y.: I was struck by the recent Senate testimony of James Lockhart, who is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, about the sheer recklessness of Fannie in recent years. Despite "repeated warnings about credit risk," Lockhart testified, Fannie became more reckless in 2006 and 2007 than they had been in the scandal-ridden tenure of Franklin Raines (who departed in 2004). In 2005, Lockhart said, 14 percent of Fannie's new business was in risky loans. In the first half of 2007, it was 33 percent. So something terribly wrong was going on there, and it became a significant part of the present problem.M.T.: What a surprise that you mention Franklin Raines. Do you even know how a CDS works? Can you explain your conception of how these derivatives work? Because I get the feeling you don't understand. Or do you actually think that it was a few tiny homeowner defaults that sank gigantic companies like AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns? Explain to me how these default swaps work, I'm interested to hear.Because what we're talking about here is the difference between one homeowner defaulting and forty, four hundred, four thousand traders betting back and forth on the viability of his loan. Which do you think has a bigger effect on the economy?B.Y.: Are you suggesting that critics of Fannie and Freddie are talking about the default of a single homeowner?M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I'm saying that you're talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren't going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They're going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I'm still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I'm guessing you've never even heard of them.I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn't pay off their mortgages?B.Y.: When you refer to "Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act," are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson?M.T.: In point of fact I'm talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps.Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis — in the middle of a live chat interview.B.Y.: Look, you can keep trying to make this a specifically partisan and specifically Gramm-McCain thing, but it simply isn't. We've gone on for fifteen minutes longer than scheduled, and that's enough. Thanks.M.T.: Thanks. Note, folks, that the esteemed representative of the New Republic has no idea what the hell a credit default swap is. But he sure knows what a minority homeowner looks like.B.Y.: It's National Review.

It isn't even mathematically possible that minority homeowners have caused the subprime crisis. Blacks make up 13% of the American population, and fewer than half of them are homeowners. In 2000, before the subprime deregulation happened, 47% of blacks owned homes. That number ticked up less than three percentage points, to 49.7%, in 2004, and has since fallen back to 47%. So Republicans are trying to convince everyone that this small change was the entire cause of a collapse that has consumed banks and trading houses with multi-billion-dollar balance sheets. They've convinced themselves, but no one else is buying it.P.S. Any guess as to how $62 trillion compares to the total sum value of the homes owned by minorities who were part of the three-point rise and who bought subprime mortgages in the past four years? I'm guessing $62 trillion is just a tad more.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

He was bipartisan on way too much(see no child left behind). Of course when these things went wrong the media blamed him and him alone. When one political party will change their position over and over again just to make the other candidate look partisan then I think it is safe to say that it was going to be impossible for Bush to ever be portrayed as bipartisan by the MSM.

Some examples of Bush being "bipartisan:"

For example, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2003 that Karl Rove or his top aide, Ken Mehlman, “visited nearly every agency to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action.” Partisan campaign or electoral activities on federal government property are illegal.

General Services Administration: After a GSA meeting during which White House deputy director of political affairs Scott Jennings gave a PowerPoint presentation that included slides listing Democratic and Republican seats the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008, a map of contested Senate seats and other information on 2008 election strategy, GSA Administrator Lurita Doan asked how GSA could help “our candidates.” Special Counsel Scott Bloch has since advised the President that Doan should “be disciplined to the fullest extent for her serious violation of the Hatch Act.” [Congress Daily, 6/12/07]

“Unlike federal judges, immigration judges are civil service employees, to be appointed by the attorney general based on professional qualifications, not their politics. [During Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s aide Monica Goodling’s] tenure, vacancies were apparently not always posted and she selected lawyers to be considered for interviews based in part on their loyalty to the Republican Party and the Bush administration.” [New York Times, 5/25/07]

Department of Justice: “After the 2004 election, administration officials quietly began drawing up a list of US attorneys to replace. Considerations included their perceived loyalty to Bush.” [boston Globe, 5/6/07]

Interior Department: “A midlevel Interior Department official” received a “phone call from [Vice President Dick] Cheney in 2001, setting in motion a secret move to undermine the science of federal biologists who had said diverting water from the Klamath would violate the Endangered Species Act and devastate two imperiled species of fish.” [The Oregonian, 6/30/07]

Interior Department: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald has consistently “rejected staff scientists’ recommendations to protect imperiled animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act.” A civil engineer with no training in biology, she has “overruled and disparaged” the findings of her staff, instead relying on the recommendations of political and industry groups. [Washington Post, 10/30/06]

[Southern Buddhist 1]

But wait, there's more!

Defense Department: “[T]he Pentagon’s public affairs division has become a dumping ground for administration cronies…seek[ing] to bypass the traditional media and work directly with talk radio and bloggers, mostly those with a heavily conservative tilt.” [Harper’s Magazine, 7/16/07]

Food and Drug Administration: “The top Food and Drug Administration official in charge of women’s health issues…resigned in protest against the agency’s decision to further delay a final ruling on whether the ‘morning-after pill’ should be made more easily accessible. ‘I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled,’ she wrote in an e-mail to her staff and FDA colleagues.” [Washington Post, 9/1/05]

Health and Human Services: “An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program’s chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.” [New York Times, 7/7/04]

Bolded because that's a really good one.

Office of the Surgeon General: “The first U.S. surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush accused the administration on Tuesday of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.” [Reuters, 7/10/07]

Environmental Protection Agency: In a government report on the state of the environment, strong language that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment” was stricken by the White House, as was government research that suggests recent climate change is “likely mostly due to human activities.” The changes were protested by EPA staffers, who wrote in a confidential memo that the report “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.” [CBS, 6/19/03]

Office of National Drug Control Policy: “At the request of Sara Taylor, the former White House Director of Political Affairs, John Walters, the nation’s drug czar, and his deputies traveled to 20 events with vulnerable Republican members of Congress in the months prior to the 2006 elections. The trips were paid for by federal taxpayers and several were combined with the announcement of federal grants or actions that benefited the districts of the Republican members.” [House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, 6/17/07]

Ironically, this most partisan of presidents appears to have done serious damage to his own party. Surveys in 2006 and 2007 showed a significant decline in Republican party identification. Polls asking voters which party they want to win the presidency in 2008 produce double-digit leads for the Democrats. (Pew Research Center 2007)

Claiming now that Bush was really far too bipartisan is just another Republican attempt at the Big Lie technique: repeat an untruth so often people come to believe it. It worked for Saddam's "link" to 9/11, but after eight years of unending Big Lies, it's just not workin' like it used to.

[strategy 4]

It isn't even mathematically possible that minority homeowners have caused the subprime crisis. Blacks make up 13% of the American population, and fewer than half of them are homeowners. In 2000, before the subprime deregulation happened, 47% of blacks owned homes. That number ticked up less than three percentage points, to 49.7%, in 2004, and has since fallen back to 47%. So Republicans are trying to convince everyone that this small change was the entire cause of a collapse that has consumed banks and trading houses with multi-billion-dollar balance sheets. They've convinced themselves, but no one else is buying it.P.S. Any guess as to how $62 trillion compares to the total sum value of the homes owned by minorities who were part of the three-point rise and who bought subprime mortgages in the past four years? I'm guessing $62 trillion is just a tad more.

thank you for taking the time to write these responses. this was especially well done.

[85suited 0]

Oops, you've accidentally admitted conservatives aren't 10000000000% perfect. Never thought that would come out of you. So there's a "conservative" problem of doing just the opposite of everything you ran on. But this isn't a "Republican" problem. First, what exactly is the difference between Republican and conservative? Is Karl Rove not a conservative? Is Rush not a conservative? Are they so utterly out of power that the Republican party will no longer admit them as members? Hardly.But whatever. The issue is, conservatives got power and turned out to be liars and hypocrites (not just Bush, but Foley and Craig on the family-values side, too). But asked what ideas you might have to make the public believe that you'll be serious the next time, what have you proposed? Nothing, except "McCain would have been better" and "trust us next time."And therein lies your problem. 85suited, didn't you even read the sourced report Nimue posted stating clearly that CRA-regulated loans were more sound than non-CRA-regulated loans? You dismissed it as a "whole lot of nonsense," but expect us to take your word over those of people testifying before Congress who can back up their testimony with actual numbers. This is always what conservatives do: the facts are out there, and they can all be verified, but whenever shown the facts, conservatives just continue repeating something that is directly contradicted by reality. Yet somehow, they are always shocked and hurt when people come to the conclusion that they are either inveterate liars or too dumb to grasp simple reality. It doesn't seem to be much use, but I'll say it again: you can repeat it all you want, but when the facts show you're wrong, don't expect anyone to believe you or value your opinion highly.Or is it really just so much more important to you to blame black homeowners for the whole crisis and divert attention from the speculators? Talk about carrying water for someone -- this is what Republicans have tried to do ever since the crisis broke. Below is part of a conversation between Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi and Byron York from National Review. You're making the same argument, and it's just as weak as York's:It isn't even mathematically possible that minority homeowners have caused the subprime crisis. Blacks make up 13% of the American population, and fewer than half of them are homeowners. In 2000, before the subprime deregulation happened, 47% of blacks owned homes. That number ticked up less than three percentage points, to 49.7%, in 2004, and has since fallen back to 47%. So Republicans are trying to convince everyone that this small change was the entire cause of a collapse that has consumed banks and trading houses with multi-billion-dollar balance sheets. They've convinced themselves, but no one else is buying it.P.S. Any guess as to how $62 trillion compares to the total sum value of the homes owned by minorities who were part of the three-point rise and who bought subprime mortgages in the past four years? I'm guessing $62 trillion is just a tad more.

I know it is hard for a liberal to see a forest thru the treesTHE CRA IS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM, NOT THE TOTAL PROBLEM.... THIS IS WHERE It ALL BEGANOnce the standards were relaxed for low-income borrowers, it would seem impossible to deny these benefits to the prime market. Indeed, bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly disapprove of similar loans made to better-qualified borrowersSure enough, according to data published by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, from 2001 through 2006, the share of all mortgage originations that were made up of conventional mortgages (that is, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that had always been the mainstay of the U.S. mortgage market) fell from 57.1 percent in 2001 to 33.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2006. Correspondingly, sub-prime loans (those made to borrowers with blemished credit) rose from 7.2 percent to 18.8 percent, and Alt-A loans (those made to speculative buyers or without the usual underwriting standards) rose from 2.5 percent to 13.9 percent. Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets. Needless to say, most borrowers would prefer a mortgage with a low down payment requirement, allowing them to buy a larger home for the same initial investment. The problem is summed up succinctly by Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas at Dallas: From the current handwringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards--at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.… For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage done by relaxed loan standards. The point here is not that low-income borrowers received mortgage loans that they could not afford. That is probably true to some extent but cannot account for the large number of sub-prime and Alt-A loans that currently pollute the banking system. It was the spreading of these looser standards to the prime loan market that vastly increased the availability of credit for mortgages, the speculation in housing, and ultimately the bubble in housing prices.

[hblask 1]

So there's a 'conservative' problem of doing just the opposite of everything you ran on. But this isn't a 'Republican' problem. First, what exactly is the difference between Republican and conservative? Is Karl Rove not a conservative? Is Rush not a conservative? Are they so utterly out of power that the Republican party will no longer admit them as members? Hardly.But whatever. The issue is, conservatives got power and turned out to be liars and hypocrites (not just Bush, but Foley and Craig on the family-values side, too).

I don't want to speak for LMD, but I think you got this backward -- I think he's saying the Republicans are dishonest politicians posing as conservatives for political gain, and this has posed a problem for conservatives -- those who actually believe in fiscal responsibility and self-reliance. It's a problem for Republicans because they can't get elected, and a problem for conservatives because they have nobody to vote for. There is no particular definition of who gets to be called conservative and who doesn't. I personally would say Rush is conservative, but Karl Rove is agnostic, just a power-monger who will say whatever is necessary to keep himself wealthy. WBush is definitely NOT conservative. His first campaign was straight conservative; within months he had completely disowned it and become a raging statist.And yes, I think true conservatives are totally out of power in the Republican Party, or at least they have been for the last 8 years. Look at the reception Ron Paul got in the primaries -- he was mocked for stating traditional conservative principles. The obliteration of the Republicans has given new life to conservatives within the Republican Party, but I have no faith in them -- there's not a clear way to tell which ones are real and which ones are RINOs. WBush's 180 degree turn-around once he was elected pretty much means you are just gambling by electing Republicans.The only thing that could save the Republicans is a Democrat who creates massive spending programs that dwarf the Bush era and cripple the economy for years, while continuing the failed policies of the Bush years.... but that will never happ..... oh wait.

[Loismustdie 0]

I don't want to speak for LMD, but I think you got this backward -- I think he's saying the Republicans are dishonest politicians posing as conservatives for political gain, and this has posed a problem for conservatives -- those who actually believe in fiscal responsibility and self-reliance. It's a problem for Republicans because they can't get elected, and a problem for conservatives because they have nobody to vote for. There is no particular definition of who gets to be called conservative and who doesn't. I personally would say Rush is conservative, but Karl Rove is agnostic, just a power-monger who will say whatever is necessary to keep himself wealthy. WBush is definitely NOT conservative. His first campaign was straight conservative; within months he had completely disowned it and become a raging statist.And yes, I think true conservatives are totally out of power in the Republican Party, or at least they have been for the last 8 years. Look at the reception Ron Paul got in the primaries -- he was mocked for stating traditional conservative principles. The obliteration of the Republicans has given new life to conservatives within the Republican Party, but I have no faith in them -- there's not a clear way to tell which ones are real and which ones are RINOs. WBush's 180 degree turn-around once he was elected pretty much means you are just gambling by electing Republicans.The only thing that could save the Republicans is a Democrat who creates massive spending programs that dwarf the Bush era and cripple the economy for years, while continuing the failed policies of the Bush years.... but that will never happ..... oh wait.

Yeah, I can see how she got that mixed up but that is what I was saying. It's a tough time for conservatives right now because the traditional "conservative" party just isn't anymore. I agree completely on the sentiment that the best thing that could happen to conservatives was probably Obama, I said that awhile back: it's a wake up call for people that have good sense to stand up and shout as Steel Dragon would say.

[Balloon guy 158]

LOL that because republicans are scum that that makes the dems less scum by some magic.It's the lessor of two evils, always has been.Bush took 8 years to ruin the economyObama doesn't need 8 months

[hblask 1]

LOL that because republicans are scum that that makes the dems less scum by some magic.It's the lessor of two evils, always has been.Bush took 8 years to ruin the economyObama doesn't need 8 months

The real question is how many more times we have to go through this before people stop throwing their vote away by voting for Republicans and Democrats.

[Nimue1995 1]

It doesn't need to be sold. McCain would not have been perfect, but there is no way in hell he would have been this bad, and it's funny how everyone is forgetting how many things Obama said he would do and people on this board said, "Oh, he won't really do that, he is just pandering to the left, he's not really taht socialist" yes he is!!! By your logic as long as Obama says he will eat your babies and then does it, well you may not like it all that much but at least he was honest. Honestly, on some level I think you are insane sometimes, like off your rocker husband sleeps with one eye open insane. You make no sense. Thus, why I bear the mark of the Anti Nimue; I had considered changing that but I really truly believe that people who think like you must be stopped, somehow, someway.

NO I don't like what Obama's doing. However when 99% of politicians DON'T do 50% of what they say they'll do, how can you blame the American people for not believing Obama will do what he says he'll do. No sweetheart, I'm not off my rocker and you know that but it makes for a funny post doesn't it. In fact whenever someone says something that you can't refute you resort to attacking the messenger. That's a pretty standard political tactic but I figure people here probably know that.

The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be deniedThe government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to "promote homeownership," not to apply sound lending standards.Of course, lenders not only sold billions of dollars in suspect loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their present debacle, they also retained some subprime loans themselves and sold others to Wall Street--leading to the huge banking losses we have been witnessing for monthsIs this, then, a free market failure? Again, no.In a free market, lending large amounts of money to low-income, low-credit borrowers with no down payment would quickly prove disastrous. But the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans extraordinarily profitable. Subprime borrowers who would normally not be able to pay off their expensive houses could do so, thanks to payments that plummeted along with Fed rates. And the inflationary housing boom meant homeowners rarely defaulted; so long as housing prices went up, even the worst-credit borrowers could always sell or refinance.

Hmmm so all these guys CHOOSING to make stupid loans are the fault of a few loans made to minorities? Gosh I really think that racism is so inbred in you that like my dad you don't even have a clue that it's there. Or could it be class warfare? And you accuse the Democrats of that,lol. Actually you accuse Democrats of that because you don't want people to realize that the Republican Party has waged class warfare for a decade now. This is what I'm talking about when I say you never heard a Republican talking point that you didn't like. Even to the point of contradicting the talking points that went on before them and actual verifiable facts. But nah, you're not partisan at all. Karl Rove might be scum but at least he was SMART scum. This isn't even close to being saleable to any but the most partisan in the Republican party.By the way, thanks SB, for making my points more clear. Most of the time, I know what I want to say but it doesn't always come across in written form as well. And thank you for the FACTUAL statistics that show the lie the Republicans on here keep pushing.

[Nimue1995 1]

P.S. LMD I appreciate your elevating me to avatar status so I'll return the favor. I always appreciate publicity.

[Balloon guy 158]

The real question is how many more times we have to go through this before people stop throwing their vote away by voting for Republicans and Democrats.

At least 3 more decades, or until a viable third party candidate isn't insane