As the financial crisis hit last September, NewsBusters regularly informed readers of the truth behind the matter, and that media assertions the Bush administration was to blame were politically motivated falsehoods intentionally designed to get Barack Obama elected president.
On Saturday, the financial publication Barron's offered readers an editorial by Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell which presented facts that were routinely withheld from the public during the campaign assuring the Democrat candidate victory in November.
More importantly, Powell offered some compelling insights into the dangers of partisanship which sadly is negatively impacting today's stimulus package discussion.
But before we get there, this was Powell's case as to who was really to blame for this crisis (h/t Hot Air):
CONTRARY TO A VIEW POPULARIZED DURING THE 2008 presidential election season, the current economic crisis was not the result of deregulation.
The Bush administration made many mistakes, but deregulation was not one of them.
Not only was there no major deregulation passed during the past eight years, but the Bush administration and a Republican Congress approved the most sweeping financial-market regulation in decades.
The bipartisan Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in 2002 to prevent corporate fraud and restore investor confidence after the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. It failed to prevent the accounting fraud and influence-peddling scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And even after those scandals were widely understood, regulators sent Fannie and Freddie back into the market to continue buying subprime loans, lending and borrowing with implied taxpayer backing.
Across the government, the Bush administration supported new regulations that added almost 1,000 pages a year to the Federal Register, nearly a record. If this is insufficient regulation, it's hard to imagine a scope that would be effective.
Powell of course was spot on. Sarbanes-Oxley was indeed a comprehensive and encompassing piece of legislation specifically designed to prevent a repeat of the tech bubble and Enron. Yet, as the financial crisis raged last fall, media members who wanted to blame the problem on Bush and deregulation conveniently forgot this sweeping bill.
But there's more:
Our present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. Then in the 1990s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development took a fateful step by getting the GSEs to accept subprime mortgages. With Fannie and Freddie easing credit requirements on loans they would purchase from lenders, banks could greatly increase lending to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. In the name of extending affordable housing, this broadened the acceptability of risky loans throughout the financial system.
The risk lurking in the GSE portfolios was acknowledged in the Bush administration's first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. It stated that Fannie and Freddie were "a potential problem" because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in the financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity." Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan issued repeated warnings that the GSEs "placed the total financial system of the future at substantial risk." Such warnings went unheeded even after accounting scandals rocked Fannie and Freddie.
Yep. The Bush administration began warning of problems with Fannie and Freddie just three months into its first term, and continued doing so for years. But you wouldn't know that from how the press reported things last fall, would you?
However, what's done is done. The press wanted Obama to be president, and by dishonestly blaming Bush for the financial crisis, so-called journalists were able to paint John McCain as also being at fault thereby making it impossible for him to win.
Yet, Powell left us with a warning concerning this matter that is quite important given economic stimulus plans currently being discussed:
But the lesson should be clear that socializing failed businesses -- whether in housing, health care or in Detroit -- is not a long-term solution. Expanding government's intrusion into the private sector doesn't come without great risk. The renewing and self-correcting nature of the private sector is largely lost in the public sector, where accountability is impaired by obfuscation of responsibility, and where special interests benefit even when the public good is ill-served.
George Washington also warned against excessive partisanship, which distracts public councils and enfeebles public administration. Rather than blaming the party in power or the party formerly in power, the nation should stop living in denial of the mistakes of both parties.
Spreading failure across the entire economy risks turning a recession into a depression. Regulatory reform now must foster responsible behavior and financial accountability. Far better for our citizenry and businesses to have a strength and resourcefulness that comes from creativity, honesty and self-reliance than to have a growing dependence on a profligate government.
Powell touched on a lot of issues here that should be at the front of the current stimulus debate but sadly aren't.
In particular, the partisanship in the nation today prevents an honest assessment of the past thereby dooming us to repeat the same mistakes.
Take for example the Great Depression. For almost 80 years the left and their media minions have done everything within their power to blame all that era's ills on Herbert Hoover while crediting Franklin D. Roosevelt with the eventual economic recovery despite the former presiding over only two years of the Depression.
Yet, after eight years of unprecedented federal spending under Roosevelt, the unemployment rate was still a staggering 14.6 percent in 1940, and the Gross Domestic Product was still under its pre-Depression level.
Isn't this important, especially since our federal debt is already quite high?
Unfortunately, because of the partisanship, such can't be discussed. The left have so much time and money invested in Roosevelt supposedly being the greatest president of the 20th century that an honest assessment of what did and did not work back then is verboten.
But isn't that absurd? Assuming we really are on the verge of another Depression -- an assumption I don't necessarily agree with yet, mind you -- shouldn't we be examining everything we did before and during the last one in order to chart a more effective course this time?
The fact is the last Depression began in 1931 and despite all Roosevelt's good intentions didn't end until America entered World War II in 1941. Once the war ended, we went back into a very serious recession suggesting that nothing Roosevelt implemented had a lasting positive economic impact.
Isn't this relevant, especially given the Congressional Budget Office's report last week predicting current stimulus plans will actually hurt the economy in the long run?
Sadly, the answer is "No," for the left are so protective of Roosevelt's legacy that any analysis of his economic policies is totally unacceptable even as our nation grapples with solutions to our current financial problems.
Is this the way adults should behave? Is this really the best we can get from our elected officials?
Given the known failings and wastefulness of last year's TARP, wouldn't we be well-advised to halt all current stimulus discussions until a thorough and impartial analysis of previous plans -- INCLUDING those implemented by us during the '30s and by Japan during the '90s -- was accomplished thereby increasing the likelihood of success while reducing the chance of us making exactly the same mistakes?
If the answer is "No," the only conclusion is that Party, at this critical juncture in our nation's history, is indeed more important than policy, and partisanship is asphyxiating our capital.
George Washington must be rolling over in his grave.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is a perfect example
February 8, 2009 - 13:59 ET by motherbeltThis is a perfect example of the "Big Lie" theory...if you repeat it often enough, it comes to be believed and accepted as fact.
Kind of like that "high fructose corn syrup" commercial....you know what they say about that, don't you????
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Stop thinking
February 8, 2009 - 15:04 ET by KC MulvilleOver the last few years, we've heard the four most dangerous words in politics: stop thinking and act.
I'm sorry for harping on philosophy so much lately, but philosophy is screaming right now: If you don't know, don't pretend you do. It's a lesson that philosophers have been preaching for centuries, and yet we have so many examples of why it's vital. In all these cases above, we have self-confident people, assured of their knowledge, pressuring for action and intolerant of debate. How many times do we have to suffer the consequences of ego?
The passion of one's belief does not affect the reality of what is believed.
It's a shame
February 8, 2009 - 14:15 ET by FrankBIt's a shame that the emotional reactions of the ignorant will doom us to repeat history. Worse yet, that those placed in power to take action will do what is politically beneficial, not what is really necessary to fix this mess.
Makes for a great election slogan in 2012: "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"
Edit: Great article as always, Noel
Economy of Bush
February 8, 2009 - 19:14 ET by kiwikitWas at its highest in early 2007: best economy in our history. . . then the Democrats with their spending and support of Fanny / Freddy took over. THAT was the beginning of the financial collapse! But don't hold your breath waiting for the media elephants to inform those morons who get their news directly from them or indirectly from TV which only copies the elephants lies.
The GNP rose 4.8% in 3Q of
February 8, 2009 - 14:23 ET by CooltomThe GNP rose 4.8% in 3Q of 2007. The 'recession' started in the next quarter. Are we to believe that Bush was economically saavy in one month and a dunce the next? Clinton's economic numbers were tumbling in his last year. Did somehow both become dumber as the longer they served in office? Did they both lose the recipe?
Saying that the President can control the economy is like saying that the fleas can steer the dog. And frankly, it is a horrifying premise to suppose that the President is capable of charting the economy. Given the economic expertize of the residents since Reagan, it would have been more comforting to give an eight-year-old a bazooka and a load of ammo.
One thing I'll never forgive McCain for is that he didn't pin Fanny Mae and the subprime mess directly on the Dems. All he had to do was buy some adtime showing the clips with the Dems praising Raines to high heaven and poo-pooing the coming FM implosion and he would have won in a walk. Or even have mentioned it in the debates. I knew when he passed that opportunity that all was lost.
Yaup, Cooltom,
February 8, 2009 - 15:53 ET by upcountrywaterOne thing I'll never forgive McCain for is that he didn't pin Fanny Mae and the subprime mess directly on the Dems.
yea I mentioned similar thoughts here in NBer land too. DANG!!
Along with CRA's, Which BTW are still in play!
Any acronym with "REINVESTMENT" in it,,, spells death to the freedom of captialism.
FREEDOM
(D)
And We End Up With Obama!?!
February 8, 2009 - 14:24 ET by HoosierEmIt is frightening that our country has gotten to the point where a majority of the people vote more with emotion rather than common sense. Of course, with the 2008 presidential election, they were also subjected to a smooth marketing campaign rife with illegal donors and a very dishonest candidate.
Unfortunately, it will be those of us who have lived responsibly and within our means all of our lives who will pay for their error in voting.
Don't forget
February 9, 2009 - 15:27 ET by Ozark_SunshineDon't forget all the voter fraud thanks to the Dems and ACORN. Haven't heard anything about the young man in Phllie that admitted to the news that he had voted multiple times. Of course in Phillie, the land where it is illegal to preach in front of the Liberty Bell and Boy Scouts get thrown out of buildings that they build, this is no surprise. This is the land of RINO Arlen Specter and others with perverted morals.
Democrats in their own words. . .
February 8, 2009 - 14:29 ET by TheTruthVideo Senate hearings: Democrats in their own words covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scam that caused economic crisis
Words matter
February 8, 2009 - 14:31 ET by SterlingA most excellent post Mr. Sheppard- but I do take exception with a common trend that I have been noticing lately. In the second to last paragraph you wrote,
“Given the known failings and wastefulness of last year's TARP, wouldn't we be well-advised to halt all current stimulus discussions…” .
Is this not what the sophists in the MSM do? Use words in a lawyerly fashion to demean a point. I am quite sure that your sentence would have had less effect on the reader if you took out last year's and replaced it with last October. By using the word year, you make it seem as if the TARP is some ancient regulation that has failed miserably; which one can argue. Please sir, stop with the spin- Nothing gets by this Gentleman...
Sterling
February 8, 2009 - 14:43 ET by Noel SheppardSterling,
Are you honestly suggesting that I used the word "year's" instead of "October's" to misdirect the reader? Honestly?
Was October LAST YEAR? Isn't this 2009 and October was 2008? Or, do you believe that LAST YEAR exclusively means January 1, 2008, thru February 7, 2008?
Furthermore, whether TARP was implemented in October OR last year, do you think it's been a success? If so, please explain. THIS gentleman is quite interested in seeing you defend this program REGARDLESS of when it was implemented. ns
NSDS strikes again
February 8, 2009 - 14:58 ET by candanceEven if you had used October instead of last year, Sterling here would postulate that you drank the wrong beverage while typing up the article.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Mr. Sheppard
February 8, 2009 - 15:03 ET by SterlingOh you do so love to have a gentlemanly debate… but please your explanation of the words in questions shows how lawyerly one can be. Yes, technically October was last year; but it was only a mere three months and some days ago. I know I am not quite as eloquent as you, but to call that last year is a bit of a leap- do you not think?
As for insinuating that you were misleading the reader, surely sir if you went back and read my post I did no such thing; in fact I praised your post in the first sentence. Methinks someone is a little overly defensive.
As for the TARP program, I for one do not believe in its principals; but to call it a failure is a disservice. The whole point of the program was to save these poorly run financial institutions- as of today each of these companies that received tax payers cash have not gone under- so technically, (since you like to play that game with words) the TARP program is a smashing success.
um.......
February 8, 2009 - 15:21 ET by candanceSo does that mean we can't refer to last year's election, last year's holiday shopping season, or last year's drilling revolt in the House? When does something become "last year" anyway - six months ago? Eight months ago?
First you say October was a mere three months ago, then you assert that the bailout worked since they haven't gone under in the past 90 days. Interesting.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Sterling
February 8, 2009 - 15:26 ET by Noel SheppardSterling,
Yes, I do so love to have a gentlemanly debate. Actually, readers here will tell you that's one of my strong points. :-)
Is calling what happened last year "last year" a bit of a leap? Hardly. As far as I and most people are concerned, everything that occurred prior to midnight on January 1st is last year. Furthermore, as there were multiple references in this piece to October and last fall, there was clearly no intent to withhold TARP's timeline from the reader. In fact, the very first sentence in the piece mentions the crisis beginning in September, correct? As such, how do you conclude nefarious intent from one word in a paragraph at the article's conclusion?
As for you not insinuating that I was intentionally trying to mislead the reader, that's what your entire comment was about, no? Let me refresh your memory:
Was that paragraph NOT an insinuation that I was trying to mislead readers? Was "Please sir, stop with the spin" not an implication I was using the phrase "last year" in a deceitful fashion so as to mischaracterize when TARP began?
As for this program, given my connections to people within the companies that received funds, I believe this was a tremendous waste of money with very little benefit for the dollars spent. That companies that have received such funds haven't gone under yet is somewhat irrelevant.
Was the point of TARP to save these companies and/or to unfreeze the credit markets? Assuming the answer is "and," the credit markets have yet to thaw, and some of these companies might yet fail. Citicorp is now splitting up into many parts, and will never be the same company again. As such, what did our investment in it accomplish? Wells Fargo didn't need or want the money, neither did Goldman. BofA is still in big trouble, and could be the next to split up. AND, we just found out last week that at least $70 billion was wasted.
You think this was a success? Sorry, I don't, and wish Congress and the President would view its failure as a reason to slow down any further stimulus until we can be more confident the funds are being well-spent.
Doesn't that seem prudent, or am I being too lawyerly with my response? ns
Sterling
February 8, 2009 - 15:54 ET by Noel SheppardSterling,
As a followup to TARP's success or failure, why don't we look at how the stocks of the companies which accepted funds have performed since this program was enacted:
Yeah, this program worked GREAT! :-)
Thank you, sir, may I NOT have another?!? ns
Oh dear, is this not
February 8, 2009 - 16:19 ET by SterlingOh dear, is this not getting rather tiresome. I make one tiny remark and the Vultures come out of their nest. I will indulge you though. Do you sir remember a little company called Lehman Brothers. Do you remember how disastrous it was when they collapsed? Do you remember the stock market’s reaction on that day when Mr. Paulson let them go under? Now, take that day and multiply it by ten and that is what would have happened if Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo & ect. would have failed. Yes, in that respect the TARP program was a success. Is it better to have for instance Citi broken up into corporations or to have no Citi at all- that is the Question, dear boy?
Next, to say that these companies were forced to take subsidies is quite a stretch… What did Mr. Paulson do; put these CEOs and CFOs in a full nelson with his left hand and deposit tax payer money in their pockets with his right hand… What a pedestrian argument.
I am also so happy to hear that you have “good friends who work for these companies” Mr. Sheppard. It gives a rather personal face to your argument- do you not think? Please, I have forgotten more rhetorical devices than you will ever know.
Finally Mr. Sheppard you ask me about prudence. It seems that I am the only prudent man here. For the TARP was enacted only a mere three months and some days ago, (Not twelve months, but I digress) all seem to want instant gratification and results overnight; talk about your alarmist. Us realist though who are not blinded by partisan differences expect a more realistic assessment of the program-Let us say a year from the date the TARP program was enacted.
Sterling
February 8, 2009 - 16:29 ET by Noel SheppardSterling,
Please, I have forgotten more rhetorical devices than you will ever know.
Your arrogance makes it impossible for me to be gentlemanly anymore. Adieu. ns
So very sorry Mr. Sheppard
February 8, 2009 - 16:49 ET by SterlingSo very sorry Mr. Sheppard if I offended your sensibilities; I do take offense to being called arrogant- name calling is so sophomoric. Anyhow farewell for now, it seems reason has won yet again.
WELCOME TO NEWBUSTERS, TROLL!
February 8, 2009 - 17:06 ET by R D HelmLOL-How is that for name calling?
I see you have been here for 32 weeks but have only posted on ten threads. Around here, that spells T*R*O*L*L. That, and your decidedly snotty attitude.
So, which among our ever-expanding list of banned, malodorous and furry little critters are you, exactly?
Dave High, perhaps? Leon, maybe? Hater, possibly? Is it you, Snotty?
No matter, as I anticipate that you will suffer the same fate as did they.
See ya round the threads. :-)
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
TROLL
February 8, 2009 - 17:07 ET by Sergeant ROCK32 weeks, eh? I guess he was busy posting at Daily Koz?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Last year
February 8, 2009 - 18:10 ET by ThisnThat32 weeks, eh? Does that mean he joined NB last year? Or can't we say that, anymore?
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Oh dear, what venom. A
February 8, 2009 - 21:26 ET by SterlingOh dear, what venom. A simple debate in policy has degenerated into childish insults. It seems those who posted these scurrilous comments have more in common with the Kossaks than I. Too bad grown adults cannot carry on a conversation anymore. Just because I have one view of the TARP program does not make me a troll, a pervert, a thirteen year old dungeons and dragons wizard or an overall knave.
As for my writing style- I went formal while I was discussing my points with Mr. Sheppard, out of respect. Now that I know it annoys some, I do believe I will continue with it.
Best Regards my new friends
Sterling, Hey! What's
February 8, 2009 - 21:29 ET by hydrodynDMSterling,
Hey! What's with the D&D bashing?
Regards????
February 9, 2009 - 01:08 ET by R D HelmHmm. Now, where have I seen that before?
Welcome back, Dave High! Again.
Glad to see you had the time to stop in and pay us here at NB a visit.
Well, you have fun trolling around the site, and if you should need anything, please don't hesitate to ask.
After all, we're here to help. :-^)
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Sterling---Mental--
February 8, 2009 - 17:19 ET by misterbillMental masturbation causes unjustified feelings of superiority. Stop now or you will be forever damaged.
What a dashing debater you are! I am a low IQ person, so I deal in namecalling and I call you--Oh, you are so clever--why don't you pick a name for a sleazy, slick little weasel.
I prefer Sterling!
misterbill,
February 8, 2009 - 17:26 ET by R D Helm"Mental masturbation causes unjustified feelings of superiority."
LOL-Not to mention hairy palms and blindness. :-)
Damn, I wish they would fix the the WYSIWYG editor.
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
R D--
February 8, 2009 - 17:38 ET by misterbillIn my own case, I have found Nair to be effective. I drink a bottle a week and have not gone blind yet.
Also, even if I had lost vision, it would never be as bad as they who will not see==like sterling.
Seriousness
February 8, 2009 - 17:16 ET by KC MulvilleThe funny thing is, Sterling, is that snobs may speak that way (on TV sitcoms), but they don't write that way. "Oh dear, bother, So very sorry," etc. Nobody writes that way. So, that leads us to suspect that you're just playing a game, and not taking things seriously. Maybe you're a teenager who thinks this is really fun stuff. And that's fine, if that's what entertains you.
But in the process, you went on a public site and gratuitously insulted someone. If you want to play an arrogant snob, fine, but not at someone else's expense. That shows no class.
So, if you want to play St. George and pretend that you've slain a dragon, great. You beat us. We lost.
Sterling, after reading a
February 8, 2009 - 21:19 ET by marvlSterling, after reading a few of your posts I had an epiphany. It occurred to me that your screen name, Sterling, refers to the metal used for the large plate in your head. You know, the large plate used to patch the hole through which the surgeon removed most of your gray matter, which was apparently replaced with a paste made from boiled turnips.
Welcome to NB, BoiledTurnipHead. Or Sterling, as you wish.
sophmoric posts
February 9, 2009 - 00:47 ET by contraryPot meet kettle
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
sophmoric posts
February 9, 2009 - 00:49 ET by contraryPot meet kettle.
If you want to get personal with a masthead, use email. Don't waste our time here.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
sophmoric posts
February 9, 2009 - 00:50 ET by contraryPot meet kettle
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Pardon Me
February 8, 2009 - 17:33 ET by nofateBut you are decidedly not a gentleman as a gentleman would not offer a preposterous thesis, taking one word out of context, and building a whole theme of sarcasm around it, all in order to attempt to make NS look foolish. As I am not a gentleman, I have no trouble saying that not only are you a troll, you are also an ass.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
I know you...
February 8, 2009 - 17:43 ET by sherylsimsI have met kids like you before. Trying so hard to be noticed, wanting so much to be loved that you actually have the opposite effect on everyone around you.
Try listening more. And get out and get some fresh air and sunshine. And talk like a normal person for pete's sake!
Lighten up, Sterling
February 8, 2009 - 15:52 ET by KC MulvilleNoel was hardly making that a point. He was simply using the word on his way to making a different point. You're creating an accusation where none is needed. Hardly what a gentleman is supposed to do.
I mean, if you want to dance, my friend, keep up with the tune.
Good grief,
February 8, 2009 - 14:54 ET by motherbeltGood grief, sterling!
That's really reading into things!
I found the phrase neither lawyerly nor demeaning.
But if that's your opinion, I guess you're entitled to it.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
"Last Year" instead of "October"? Is THAT all you've got?
February 9, 2009 - 00:41 ET by L.N. Smithee"Last year" instead of "October"? Do you seriously think that Noel wrote that with the intent to deceive? Does it really make a difference? Do you believe people well-informed enough to know the difference between TARP and the waterproof covering used on baseball fields and construction sites aren't aware of what it stands for and how recently it was added to the American lexicon?
Is that the best you can do, troll?
"Well, I've got nothing against the press...they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true..." -- Joe Jackson, "Sunday Papers"
I just got out of my grave (;>
February 8, 2009 - 14:39 ET by Gary HallBam!
References:
Bush really did expend an effort. Anyone hear the MSM remind the suffering public of this:
Even the far left knows:
The noted progressive economist, Dean Baker, 2001 -
Yes, and we still are.
Dissent Magazine, Timothy Conova - Aug. '08: HISTORY SHOULD deal harshly with Bill Clinton...
and Dean Baker, again in Aug of 2008 - still blaming Clinton, in The High Priests of the Bubble Economy:
note: and then it crashed.
The right understands the history. The left understands the history. The MSM is bound by a commitment to censorship. Most anything that can cause pain to the Democratic party is censored, be it from the left or from the right.
note: and then it crashed.
February 8, 2009 - 14:58 ET by BlondeI am shocked, I tell you. Shocked!
Seriously, I bet if you read that post to ten liberals they'd all deny every single one of your pesky facts, Gary. Jump up and down and swear it is a pack of lies. Bush broke it, dammit! He did.
well Blonde...Mr. Pesky Factoid here
February 8, 2009 - 15:13 ET by Gary HallI'd be more than willing to volunteer to any one of those ten liberals, you mentioned, that President Bush did not fix it, if only they admit that he did not cause it. (;~/ gary
Shocked!
February 8, 2009 - 17:52 ET by nofate"Our present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities."
I'm absolutely shocked that NS would allow such revisionism, i.e. that CRA had anything at all to do with this whole mess, in a supposedly objective article in which he also misused the term "last year"! ;-) These NB'ers have really gotta clean up their act. Everyone knows it was all the fault of Bush and Greenspan, and any alternative view is mere spin!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Afforbable Houthing
February 8, 2009 - 15:06 ET by slickwillie2001I remember in years past, when the subject of throttling back the excesses at FNMA and FMAC came up, the liberals and their front groups immediately put up TV ads showing (for example) a family with little kids clutching their teddy bears being told by their parent 'sorry, we have to leave our house now', and the voiceover would intone something like 'Republicans want to reduce availability of mortgages to low-income families...'. 'Call your Congressman and tell him to keep mortgages cheap and available to all.'
Can't someone go back and retrieve those ads? They would serve as a useful reminder of how skilfully the liberals have demagogued this issue. And by the way, the porkulus bill still has billions for ACORN in it.
Obama to the
February 8, 2009 - 15:22 ET by motherbeltObama to the democrats:
"If we do not move swiftly to sign [the act] into law, an economy that
is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe," he said. "This is
not my assessment. This is not Nancy Pelosi's assessment. This is the
assessment of the best economists in the country.
[except the CBO apparently....and why not name one, Mr. President? Get some economist to come out and say (with a straight face) that all these projects are the way to stimulate the economy!
and
Obama rejected calls for more tax cuts and significant slashing of
the bill's more than $800 billion price tag, and said complaints the
package was a spending bill rather than a stimulus bill were off base.
"What do you think a stimulus bill is?" he said. "That's the point." (emphasis added)
<sound of duct tape ripping off roll>
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
you're right motherbelt
February 8, 2009 - 15:27 ET by candanceThese secretive, reclusive, unnamed experts who know more than the CBO are advising me on this - and that's what I call a new kind of transparency.
And no, you are not allowed to ask me how imposing a giant debt onto a government already groaning from its weight will be successful.
But acts of kindness and generosity must be free and voluntary; no man has a right to compel another to follow his conscience. This is a concern which lies between a man and his God.
-Richard Fuhrman, pro slave advocate, 1823
Then he pulled the ace from
February 8, 2009 - 15:53 ET by motherbeltThen he pulled the ace from his sleeve:
(sarc\ gee...I never saw this coming):
Obama warned Republicans not to "come to the table with the same tired
arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis." Americans,
he said, "did not vote for the false theories of the past, and they
didn't vote for phony arguments and petty politics."
(emphasis added)
Consistent, he is.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
what caused...
February 8, 2009 - 15:56 ET by jackie3What caused this crises was a simple act of congress on a piece of legislation passed on the very last day of session, in the very last minutes in 2000. Derivatives is a little understood and unregulated legal betting game on wall street.
They were called "bucket shops" during the first the first stock market crash of 1907 and they were banned untill 2000 in the commodety exchange act.
All these "bail outs" are to pay off bookies.
60 minutes did a number of stories on these and no one got it. Here's a video:
http://wearechangeco...
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
No
February 8, 2009 - 18:04 ET by Kingfish17Derivatives did not cuase our current economic problems. When you blame a perfectly legitimate form of investment, you sound like you are from the government, in search of a boogie man to pin blame on something that you have caused.
Over-leverage caused this problem. Just like the over-leverage caused the panic of 1873 when too many rail-roads where built, and over-leverage and margin in the stock market caused the crash of 1929. Our government caused the over-leverage by allowing people to buy houses with no money down and implicitly guaranteeing those loans, (when passed on to investors, whether in original pool form or derivative form).
Whenever the federal government gets involved in any program, whether it be health care or higher education or housing, it causes the price of that program or commodity to go higher.
If the loans had never been guaranteed in the first place through Fanny and Freddie, housing prices would never have balooned. The private sector never would have packaged derivative investments backed by 'no money down" assets. NO ONE WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THE INVESTMENTS!
Things got worse when government "panicked" everyone in September when they announced that only they could fix things and it would take all the money in the world to do it.
All they had to do was change mark-to-market accounting and none of these firms would have become insolvent. If every single institutional investor is panniced by the federal government into buying nothing but Treasury sercurities wtf else is going to happen? Business works on borrowed money. If they can't roll over existing short-term debt because our government has panicked everyone, then all hell breaks loose.
Now mark-to-market accounting rules aren't the panacea that some might make them out to be. But they would allow cash flow profitable business to write these losses off over the length of the outstanding mortgages instead of writing them off all in one quarter because the market panics and there are no longer any buyers of these so called "toxic investments".
And mark my word. A lot of investors are going to make a killing by buing these toxic investments, just like they made a killing by buying assets of the S&Ls through the RTC in the late 80s.
This is very interesting to
February 9, 2009 - 00:26 ET by contraryThis is very interesting to me. Can you point me to articles explaining the idea of buying loan debts as an investment and the market variables that affect evaluation of these assets.
Thanks
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Historical Revisionism At It's Best
February 8, 2009 - 16:57 ET by Blue Collar ToddIt is truly amazing to watch President Obama, enabled by the media, to get away with this. It is the Democratic Party who prevented more regulation. The cult of personality looks to have no limits in terms of reality checks.
More Regulation would not fix anything
February 8, 2009 - 19:13 ET by PopularTechThe massive amount of regulation that already exists did not stop anything and more of what doesn't work is not going to fix anything.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I tried to cash--
February 8, 2009 - 17:23 ET by misterbillI tried to cash an Obama reality check at my bank yesterday--it bounced!!!!
The CRA did not cause the problem, the Fed Did
February 8, 2009 - 18:43 ET by PopularTechThis article repeats the same stupid myth that the CRA cause the housing bubble, no it did not!
Comptroller Dugan Says CRA Not Responsible for Subprime Lending Abuses (Reuters)
Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA (The Wall Street Journal)
- Only 6% of subprime loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders
Don’t Blame CRA (The Sequel) (The Wall Street Journal)
Sheila Bair: Stop Blaming the Community Reinvestment Act (U.S. News and World Report)
"Let me ask you, where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? Nowhere." - FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair
The Fed caused the bubble:
Did the Fed Cause the Housing Bubble? (Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. Economics)
Evidence that the Fed Caused the Housing Boom (Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. Economics)
The Housing Bubble in 4 Easy Steps (Mark Thornton, Ph.D. Economics)
Guilty as Charged (George A. Selgin, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Yes, Greenspan Did It (Stefan Karlsson, Economist)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
No money down and no doc loans
February 8, 2009 - 19:04 ET by Kingfish17I don't have that much of a problem with the CRA per se. It's not totally free market economics, but not much is. If we would have kept loan standards at 20% down payment then the bubble would not have happened.
The CRA should go but it has nothing to do with the bubble
February 8, 2009 - 19:12 ET by PopularTechYes the CRA should be abolished but it did not drive the housing bubble. The housing bubble is just where the easy credit enabled by the Federal Reserve's low rates wound up as ARMs.
Loan standards should be left up to the banks and when banks make bad decisions they should go out of business. The free market takes care of bad decisions on it's own.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT, CRA's Trashed 600 years of banking economic logic.
February 8, 2009 - 20:44 ET by upcountrywaterHere is that 6% in CONTEXT you KEEP POSTING..
The Post [and POPULAR TECH]also provided just one side of the data in its story. The
paper said that Bush "ratcheted up" the affordable-housing goal for
Fannie and Freddie, from 50% to 56%. But it left out the fact that the
previous president, the liberal Democrat, institutionalized the quota
and ballooned it up to 50%. Which move do you think had a greater
impact on the subprime market?
Humm Bush 6% Clinton 50%
Well, well well we agree on the "get rid of CRA's"
By 2000, fully half of the mortgage giants' portfolios consisted of
these risky loans, most of them subprime mortgages. In effect, the
Clinton HUD set a time bomb that would explode years later with the
collapse of home prices, which happened to occur on Bush's watch.
The bail out is to cover the FDIC insurance...Now we have an additional stimulus package, more cover for the CRA mess.
The demoRATS are willing to spend TRILLIONS some of it my money to bury this STINKING FACT.
FREEDOM
(D)
There is no CRA Mess - delusional partisans
February 8, 2009 - 21:33 ET by PopularTechNot liking the CRA and blaming the CRA for the mortgage crisis are two different things.
Your post makes no sense in relation to what I was talking about. Only economic illiterates would blame Clinton for something caused by the federal reserve.
- 43% of foreclosures in the third quarter of 2007 were subprime ARMs (Mortgage Bankers Association)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Nice touch PT.... WRONG YEAR!!!
February 8, 2009 - 22:29 ET by upcountrywaterSo you are not bothered, in the least by Government SCREWING with the banks?
Typical.
FREEDOM
(D)
Are you delusional?
February 9, 2009 - 09:42 ET by PopularTechI don't support the CRA, that has nothing to do with the fact that it did not cause the housing bubble.
But hey... YEAH!!! Blame the Dems!!! Because some right-wing idiot told you to.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
upcountry
February 9, 2009 - 01:30 ET by nofateIn addition to BDS, PDS, GDS (Greenspan), FEDDS (Federal Reserve), PT also has CRADS. He needs some chicken soup.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
It is funny to read his
February 9, 2009 - 09:20 ET by contraryIt is funny to read his posts. The psychology is very predictable.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Funny to read the facts?
February 9, 2009 - 09:43 ET by PopularTechInstead of the right wing partisan BS you are fed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Proving my point
February 9, 2009 - 13:30 ET by contraryhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/02/09/economic-risks-capitalism-derangement-syndrome
You better get on over there to uphold the standard for your cause and get the last word on everyone's posts.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
A general question for
February 8, 2009 - 22:06 ET by contraryA general question for anyone who can answer...
Are there two separate issues at play here? 1. The Fed reducing the rate therby increasing availability of loans and driving house prices up. (The Bubble) 2. The lenders relaxing the standards to qualify for these loans, through their own decision, as well as forced by government legislation. How are these linked? I'm looking for a strategic overview of action/reaction analysis to the development of the current housing/mortgage situation.
Thx
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
contrary
February 8, 2009 - 22:16 ET by Noel Sheppardcontrary,
Separate issues? A crisis like what we saw last year is decades in the making. You have to add all these things together to get this kind of mess.
In the end, the largest factor was the decision-makers at all these institutions foolishly believing their lending and real estate portfolios were insured by credit default swaps. If you really want to understand what happened this decade and last September, do a Google search on credit default swaps. ns
Oh I know they are not
February 9, 2009 - 00:15 ET by contraryOh I know they are not separate issues. I just want to know how they relate when looking at cause and effect. I will look at credit default swaps.
Thanks for the reply.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
The Housing Bubble House of Cards
February 8, 2009 - 23:02 ET by PopularTechThe increased availability for credit has to come from somewhere, that was the Federal Reserve. This available credit then has to go somewhere, this was mainly the housing market. Remember even if the Fed only increased the available amount of money by $200 Billion that gets multiplied 10x due to our fractional reserve banking system, thus $2 Trillion is available as credit to the consumer. The available credit at effectively negative rates allowed no money down loans and ARMs to take off, thus the bubble.
The reason these types of loans were easy to sell, is because the mortgage brokers did not have to hold them, they could sell them to the government mortgage agencies, GSE's (Government Sponsored Entities) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Everyone dealing in this assumed that the government would always bail out the GSEs. Thus profit was privatized, losses were socialized (by the tax payer). These subprime mortgages then got bundled with other good mortgages and sold as a MBS (mortgage backed security) on the market. The investment banks selling these were able to get them rated AAA (which was fraudulent) and thus attract investors.
The defaults started to happen as the Fed raised rates back up and the ARM mortgages started to reset. More and more home owners could not
pay their mortgages and defaulted. This caused the MBSs bundled with these subprime defaults to devalue - later being known as "toxic" since people were not sure what they were really worth. All the investment banks and most of the regular banks were highly leveraged on these securities, so much so that just a low percentage of mortgage defaults caused the whole house of cards to collapse. Effectively all banks holding a large percentage of MBSs and the insurance companies (like AIG) that were supposed to insure them became insolvent.
If the Fed never increased the available credit into the economy at such low rates and the GSEs did not exist none of this could have happened.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Thanks for the
February 9, 2009 - 00:12 ET by contraryThanks for the synopsis.
effectively you argue: The fact that the supply of money (loans) increased, created the demand in lending agencies to find a way to distribute the available dollars. Therefore, these same agencies, to remain competitive with one another, sought to attract more and more lenders through lax loan requirements, gaining a greater market share. To compound this situation, GSE's bought these loans and the risks were passed on to the taxpayers.
"If the Fed never increased the available credit into the economy at such low rates and the GSEs did not exist, none of this could have happened."
This statement probably sums it up best.
Thanks
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
Here We Go Again
February 8, 2009 - 19:50 ET by nofatePopular Tech: "I would love to see Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams run. The later two understand economics better than the whole Republican party."
reply to PT:
Where have you been, PT? You've been uncharacteristically unresponsive.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
LMAO, try reading
February 8, 2009 - 21:23 ET by PopularTech"The blame for our current financial mess rests with government, with the major player being the Federal Reserve Board keeping interest rates artificially low."
Thanks for proving my point.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Reading As It Is Written
February 9, 2009 - 01:26 ET by nofatePT: "LMAO, try reading".
OK. As I freely pointed out, Dr. Williams did write the bolded sentence you took out of context. But in the two sentences just preceding the one you took out of context, he also wrote:
And, as you said about two comments previous to this:
Weren't the GSE's, among other things, the implementers of CRA? Or have I got that wrong too? You seem to be more informed than Dr. Williams and Dr. Sowell, whom you thought so much of in a previous thread.
Debating with you reminds me of two similar things. The first is: having an argument with the wife, which is ALWAYS a no-brainer major loser. The other is getting into a debate with the hyper-opinionated guy at work who likes to argue just for the sake of arguing. Get into a "debate" with him and it's like throwing red meat to a dog. No matter what points you offer to refute the minor point being debated, you are always wrong because he can't admit that you have offered a valid point if it goes against his thesis. Belay the "throwing red meat to a dog" comment and insert this: it's like arguing with a liberal. There is no way, even when you are able to show that they contradicted themselves, that they will admit to having made a mistake, even when the evidence is right in front of their face. The very fact that they have taken a side causes an emotional break with reality, leaving them unable to see valid arguments when those arguments contradict their own.
I'm tired of these silly debates with you over Palin, Bush, etc. and now CRA. While you certainly offer some good points at times, you are like a troll when you disagree and you seem to have a real problem with admitting that you may have to give an inch. You just sit there and laugh your ass off. The evidence is all on record, and it's time to move on to the many components of the meltdown that came together to put us where we are now. As Noel pointed out in his post:
Unfortunately, the seat of power seems to be in the "injecting federal money and power to stimulate the economy" mode, when it has been shown, over and over again, that that does not work. Here is the liberal President Kennedy on how to stimulate the economy:
There is more. Here, if I understand it correctly, is a ridiculous piece, written by a good lib, using good pretzel logic, attempting to square Kennedy's position on taxes. He is arguing that Kennedy was doing it for the right reasons, but when Bush did it for "supply side" reasons, that was the wrong way to do it. I guess that means if cutting taxes for the reasons Kennedy did, stimulates the economy, doing it for Bush's reasons doesn't stimulate the economy. Cutting taxes is cutting taxes, but it only works if you are JFK, I guess.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Took out of context? LMAO!
February 9, 2009 - 02:37 ET by PopularTech"The blame for our current financial mess rests with government, with the major player being the Federal Reserve Board keeping interest rates artificially low." - Walter E. Williams.
It doesn't say "with the major player being the CRA"! LMAO!
This is bad, you need to stop parroting partisan talking points. Your desperate attempt to just blame Democrats is pathetic. You thinking you are offering points that refute something does not make it so. Crazy me for sticking to the facts:
Comptroller Dugan Says CRA Not Responsible for Subprime Lending Abuses (Reuters)
Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA (The Wall Street Journal)
- Only 6% of subprime loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders
Don’t Blame CRA (The Sequel) (The Wall Street Journal)
Sheila Bair: Stop Blaming the Community Reinvestment Act (U.S. News and World Report)
"Let me ask you, where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can’t afford to repay? Nowhere." - FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair
Like I said before I don't like the CRA, I do not think it should exist but it did not cause the housing bubble.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
LMAO, WDYPT! There were
February 9, 2009 - 09:15 ET by contraryLMAO, WDYPT!
There were no partisan talking points in his post. It doesn't say "The Democrats are the major source of all fiscal problems."
The attempt to throw out non-sequiters is pathetic. Only logic-illiterates do that. Try addressing the argument.
"I don't have time for this. You all can continue your co-dependency posts and make yourselves feel all chummy... Frankly, you all don't represent where America is going and you might as well get used to it."
--The Dooper
The whole reason the blame the CRA argument exists
February 9, 2009 - 09:47 ET by PopularTechIs to give brainwashed right-wing fools something to blame other than Bush and Republicans for contributing to the mess:
Bush 'No Money Down' - Tax Payers Will Pay (Video) (6min)
Bush touts affordable housing (USA Today, April 18, 2000)
Mortgage giants get Bush support (USA Today, July 16, 2002)
Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership (USA Today, January 20, 2004)
Bush ties his economic policies to home ownership (USA Today, March 26, 2004)
Owning tops Bush housing agenda (USA Today, November 19, 2004)
Budget offers new mortgage options (USA Today, February 6, 2006)
American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 (HR 1276)
American Dream Downpayment Act: Fiscally Irresponsible and Redundant to Existing Homeownership Programs (Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. Economics)
Zero Down Payment Act of 2004 (H.R. 3755)
Congress's Risky Zero Down Payment Plan Will Undermine FHA's Soundness and Discourage Self-Reliance (Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. Economics)
But see being honest is too much for partisans, for once you support the football team you stop thinking for yourselves and become parrots for right wing talking points.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT, Typical, Call someone names, take CRA's out of context
February 9, 2009 - 13:03 ET by upcountrywaterCRA's will cost TRILLIONS and you link, failed Bush Ideas!
Late last year, Bush signed the American Dream Down Payment Act to help
families that can afford monthly mortgage payments but not the down
payment or closing costs associated with buying a house. The
legislation authorizes $200 million a year in down payment assistance
to at least 40,000 low-income families.
that's a DROP IN THE BUCKET.
The rest of your links are PROPOSALS LMAO,HELLO!!
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (AP)- Texas Gov. George W. Bush, appealing anew to
voters who have tended to support Democrats, Tuesday proposed a $1.7
billion program to increase housing for low-income people.
Now that's some early BDS, way back in 2000!!
The following is from of YOUR LINKS.
Fannie and Freddie have issued about 60% of the $3.9 trillion
in outstanding mortgage-backed securities, investment instruments that raise
capital in the bond market for financing home purchases.
Competitors of the companies and free-market advocates
say Fannie and Freddie have become too big and too dominant. The government
doesn't guarantee the companies' debt securities, but bond investors widely
believe the companies' charters would obligate taxpayers to pay their principal
and interest if the companies ever became insolvent.
PT CAN YOU SAY CRA!!!
Mortgage analyst Keith Gumbinger of financial publishers HSH Associates
says the Bush plan "would fill at least a small niche in the mortgage
market"
This went down in FLAMES
The legislation authorizes $200 million a year in down payment assistance to at least 40,000 low-income families.
PT, Do some math!! It's million then billion then TRILLION...
here is another PROPOSAL, BDSer
Bush's 2005 proposal called for the program to be based on dollar amounts rather than on a fixed number of vouchers.
another PROPOSAL.
The Bush administration Monday proposed two federally insured mortgage
products aimed at helping first-time home buyers with low or moderate
incomes get home loans.
What's with your weak links?
EARTH TO PT Bush tried to kill the CRA's and failed...
Burning down the house, video
FREEDOM
(D)
nofate,
February 9, 2009 - 01:19 ET by R D HelmLOL-Do you ever get the feeling when dealing with a certain formerly respected member here @ NB that you are banging you head against a concrete bridge abutment?
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
LOL!
February 9, 2009 - 03:14 ET by nofateBeats my analogy. His most recent reply just makes your point.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Cause and Effect
February 8, 2009 - 20:29 ET by slickwillie2001I always see cause and effect and possible solutions confused on this issue, imho. I say it is obvious that CRA didn't literally cause the crash. The CRA did however help set up a situation that would mean when a real-estate crash came, many homeowners would be negative-equity overnight. When CRA was set up (and reinforced over the years through bank regulators and ACORN thuggery) someone had a duty to think through what would happen when an inevitable reversal in real-estate values happened. So in that way CRA started it all.
Now CRA didn't literally say 'make bad loans', but it did say 'make loans in this neighborhood', which amounts to the same thing if it's a poor neighborhood full of poor credit scores. In that way it's a little disingenuous to say that CRA didn't force anyone to make bad loans. Also, some mortgage-making policies like the making of no-document mortgages are often lumped in with CRA, when I don't think they are literally a part of CRA. (?) But then they may have been a forced outcome of 'making mortgages in bad neighborhoods'.
Now, you can argue that Fed policy caused the reversal in the trend of long-term real-estate appreciation and maybe they did, but that is a separate argument.
Similarly, changes in the maximum debt/equity ratio and mark to market rules and ending (part of) Glass-Steagall didn't cause the crash, but their absence might have limited the damage somewhat. Fannie and Freddie was also mismanaged at the highest levels including their fuzzy private/government-guaranteed status.
I believe not enough attention has been paid to the mechanism by which bundled mortgages were rated by S&P, Moody's and others. There may be some criminal fraud there, and I don't see a whole lot of attention being put on them. The FBI got involved last fall with some fanfare that lasted a day or so, and I've heard nothing more since.
On the whole, I say that too much regulation coupled with social engineering caused the financial meltdown, and those that claim 'not enough regulation' caused it are simply misinformed or biased.
I now believe we are headed straight for a depression...
February 9, 2009 - 02:22 ET by R D Helm...and I am not sure we will be coming out of it for at least a decade, if not far longer, if ever.
Everything the federal government is doing, or proposing to do, is exactly the things that put this nation into a depression in the 1930's. WW II is what got us out of it. I see nothing on the horizon that is going to get us out of the one I believe is coming.
Right now, there is over $13 trillion being held offshore, mostly due to the confiscatory 35% corporate tax rate in this country. Yet, if anyone even tries to suggest lowering that ridiculous tax, the Obama people look upon them with scorn.
It is clear to me that the democrats, and particularly the Obama administration, have no clue what got us to this sorry point to begin with, and are even further in the dark about what would actually help get us out of it.
Sadly, most of the American people today are equally clueless.
I am as sorry as I can be, but I am of the belief that this nation is now too stupid to get itself out of the economic hole the government has put us in. Only an Obama voter would believe that this same government is going to get us out of it.
God, how hideously depressing this is. :-(
-Dave
Our clueless political leaders are about to drive us all over a cliff. The time to HITM is now-before we go over.
Actually Capitalism after WWII got us out of the Depression
February 9, 2009 - 02:44 ET by PopularTechWhy the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War (PDF) (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
We know that
February 9, 2009 - 07:27 ET by Blogger Guy00001Normal, clear-thinking people know that the president doesn't have a lever on his desk that controls the economy. But the media wanted people to think that Bush had a series of buttons on his desk, one marked "Gas - $4.50" another "Gas - $4.00" etc.
It's really wishful thinking on the part of libs. They really WANT the government to control prices and salaries in what was once called communism and is now called progressivism.
the economic engine that drives America, Light Trucks and cars
February 9, 2009 - 12:51 ET by JIMMY1660funny how our left wingers can blame everyone except themselves. Ladies and gentleman, if we had gotten ourselves off foreign oil years ago, drill baby drill, cars and light trucks, which are in every nook and cranny of the USA, would be selling, which means all the related vendors which support the auto industry will also be thriving. When someone tells you about alternative fuel, ask them to name it. something we can turn on tomorrow. There are three fuels, Coal, Oil, Natural Gas.
Enough Natural Gas, which burns 80% cleaner and is 40% cheaper than Gasoline, to last 240 years. and that's just one vain.
However our Eco-communists will not allow drilling. Okay you live in a cave, i like my car and turning the switch to light up my home. Look at the price of oil once GWB just mentioned pulling the ban from drilling. Went down. Remarkable!! Our economy was good enough the last 8 years for Bill Clinton to amass millions,
what happened the last few years, Senate and Congress controlled by Communists left wingers. who hate success by the individual.Your well being by the government, we know whats best for you.
BHO and his band of merry communists-are anti American, period.
allow me to Love America
McCain...
February 9, 2009 - 13:06 ET by MaximusBraveheartIf you don't TELL the TRUTH, you think the enemy will?? He was "too civilized" to attack... Not willing to defend yourself will get you killed. Thanks a lot! Palin got screwed and she hung in the wind for the most part. Terrible!
M-B