"Good Morning America" economic reporter Bianna Golodryga narrated a segment on Tuesday's show that featured grainy black and white footage from the 1930s and two references to the Great Depression. The ABC journalist also featured clips from Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to amplify the warnings of impending economic doom.
While discussing the collapse of investment bank Bear Stearns, grainy footage of panicked '30s bankers appeared onscreen as Golodryga intoned, "The problems are so massive that the Fed is taking measures not seen since the Great Depression..." And while President Bush was briefly highlighted, assuring Americans that the United States will rebound, Paul McCulley, the managing director of the investment company Pimco, continued the comparison to the worst economic crisis the United States ever faced. Referencing impending action by the Federal Reserve, he asserted, "...You could have the Fed with great intentions but still a downward spiral in property prices that would give you a modern day depression." For comparison's sake, during the Great Depression, almost 25 percent of Americans were unemployed.
As if the footage from the Great Depression didn't quite make the point, Golodryga referenced Fed rate cuts and ominously warned, "But are these moves enough? Some say the economy is like a house of cards." While speaking, an ABC graphic of a house of cards appeared onscreen. Golodryga continued, "But the worst case scenario? The bottom could still drop out, sending markets into a free fall." The computer generated cards, which sat on what is presumably an inventor's desk, then tumbled downward.
GMA co-host Diane Sawyer, in a follow-up segment, interviewed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and demanded to know when things will get better. After an optimistic answer by Paulson on the outlook of the market, Sawyer urgently asked, "Making progress? Taking a while? What does taking a while mean? How much-- Just give people a general sense when they might start looking for some type of up-turn?"
Sawyer repeatedly insisted that Paulson just come out and label the current situation a recession. The ABC host started off by wondering, "This morning, are you willing to say that? The economy is in a recession?" Not getting the answer she wanted, Sawyer reiterated, "But, the fact that you won't use the word, does that mean you just don't want to use the word or you actually do not believe this is a recession?" After Paulson restated that he didn't know how helpful it would be for him to officially use the term, Sawyer yet again quizzed, "But, do you not feel it's a recession?"
Finally, the GMA host also insisted that Secretary Paulson take questions of a personal nature, as if to imply he was somehow detached from everyday Americans:
DIANE SAWYER: We have heard, Mr. Secretary, from so many people who have questioned, these are ordinary Americans, who have questioned the fact that the federal government has guaranteed the purchase of Bear Stearns, and we see from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition that the total fiscal assistance so far to banks has been $230 billion. Homeowners, they say zero. I'd like to play, if I can, a sound bite from a family, a family sitting in their own house. And they want to ask you the question, this is not me, I want you to listen to them.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN SITTING NEXT TO HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER: You're helping out all these big corporations but if it wasn't for the common people, you know, who are helping build these big corporations, that they wouldn't be there.
Now, of course the current economic situation isn't positive and obviously what happened to Bear Stearns over the weekend is worrisome, but how exactly to journalists help the situation by making allusions to the Great Depression and demanding snap answers to exactly when the economy will rebound?
For more on comparisons to the Great Depression, see a February 27 commentary over at the Business and Media Institute.
A transcript of the first segment, which aired at 7:01am on March 18, and a partial transcript of the second segment, follow:
ROBIN ROBERTS: But first, to the explosive roller coaster ride of Wall Street. It's likely to continue today. Two more big banks are expected to report earnings today. And on the heals of that bailout of Bear Stearns, that news could send another shock wave through the economy. All this as the Federal Reserve is set to make another preemptive move today to cut interest rates. Our Bianna Golodryga is at the New York Stock Exchange this morning with the latest. Good morning, Bianna.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Good morning, Robin. As soon as that news about Bear Stearns came out, everyone asked what is the next shoe that could possibly drop, what is the next bank that could take a hit? The name that came to everyone's mind was Lehman Brothers. Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs will be reporting earnings within the next hour. I spoke with a high level official inside the bank at Lehman Brothers. He said they're financially sound, but right now it's all about Wall Street's reaction. And we could be in a credibility crisis. Meantime, the Fed is stepping in. Today's expected interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve is just the latest in a series of extraordinary moves to sure up a faltering credit market and a teetering banking system threatening to send the entire economy into a tailspin.
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: Now we are in the soup.
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: I don't want to lose sight of the long-terms structural problems that we have.
GOLODRYGA: The problems are so massive that the Fed is taking measures not seen since the Great Depression, [file footage from 1930s type newsreel] stepping in to help save the fifth largest investment firm Bear Stearns and pumping billions of dollars into the economy.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The United States is on top of the situation.
[Montage of cable anchors saying "Bear Stearns."]
GOLODRYGA: But are these moves enough? Some say the economy is like a house of cards. [Graphic of house of cards.] In the best case scenario, the Fed's move will enable a new foundation to grow.
PROFESSOR PETER MORICI, PhD (University of Maryland School of Business): Hopefully this would stabilize credit markets and permit banks to make more mortgages going forward and help stabilize the housing market.
GOLODRYGA: But the worst case scenario? [ABC graphic of house of cards collapses.] The bottom could still drop out, sending markets into a free fall.
PAUL A. MCCULLEY (Managing director, Pimco): You could have the Fed with great intentions but still a downward spiral in property prices that would give you a modern day depression.
GOLODRYGA: The Fed is hoping today's rate cute will be another booster shot for a severely ailing economy and that all its moves are not too little, too late.
MORICI: We are closer to the worst case scenario then we are to the best case scenario.
MCCULLEY: While I am still pessimistic on the depth of the recession that will be unfolding, on the back of the property market, I'm developing a touch of optimism that Washington finally gets it.
GOLODRYGA: A positive sign right now is that we are looking at a higher open on Wall Street. Of course we know that could change at a dime's notice. Diane?
7:07
DIANE SAWYER: One more question for you, if I can. As you know, the former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan has predicted this financial crisis will be judged by history and these are his words, as one of the most wrenching since the end of World War II and there's a poll on the front page of USA Today which says that 76 percent of the people in America, those polled, now say, let's basically call it what it is, the economy is in a recession. This morning, are you willing to say that? The economy is in a recession?
HENRY PAULSON: Diane, listen, economists are going to argue about the technicalities here for some time. There's no doubt the economy is in a sharp decline. I know it. The American people know it. I think it's much less important to them, the label that economists put on this, much more important is what we do to address it. And we're working very hard to address it, to get those stimulus payments out. We're working hard to limit the turbulence in the financial markets so there won't be -- to minimize a spillover into the real economy and to deal with, and help homeowners who want to stay in their homes and have capabilities to do that. So we're working hard --
SAWYER: But, you're not willing to use-- But, the fact that you won't use the word, does that mean you just don't want to use the word or you actually do not believe this is a recession?
PAULSON: I -- Diane, I know the economy is turned down sharply. I know it, I feel it. We're working to deal with it. And I don't think it's particularly helpful to, right now, be debating what term to use this. We're all over this, Diane.
SAWYER: But, do you not feel it's a recession?
PAULSON: I-- Who knows? Let the economists decide that. The label they put on it is much less important to me than what we do about it.
SAWYER: Well, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us this morning. Good of you to get up and be with us.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.















Comments Policy
This is the next strategy they've come up with for the Fall
March 18, 2008 - 15:21 ET by Prester JohnThey've got everybody saying the "R" word, now they're working on the "D" word, witness Chucky Shumer calling Pres Bush, "Herbert Hoover".
The fact that the situation today is nothing like the situation in 1928-29, of course, does not make Chucky pause or be embarassed.
Prester .. Hoover - Clinton..
March 18, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Gary HallThe leftist economist, Dean Baker of CEPR, used the Herbert Hoover analysis to label the Clinton administration's prowress over the economy.
Best I can tell, the MSM and the even further leftist media, who like Baker a heck of a lot, decided to skip the converstation of what is, during that period of economic turmoil. (:~> gary
but how exactly to
March 18, 2008 - 15:46 ET by balboabut how exactly to journalists help the situation
Journalists are supposed to help the situation?
It seems like we've still got two sides to the economy: Things are bad and could get worse v. things aren't great but it'll all work out.
No they are to REPORT on
March 18, 2008 - 18:40 ET by red_dragon311No they are to REPORT on it, not editorialize (sp?).
report facts, and stop using "Some say..." anything following those words are the opinion of the "some" not the facts.
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
There will be a depression,
March 18, 2008 - 15:48 ET by mattmThere will be a depression, if the socialist drift of this country continues.
Drill ANWR, ban ethanol, repeal onerous environmantal regulations, simplify and cut taxes, privatize SS, privatize healthcare, privatize the school system, phase out welfare, and do a few other similar things and the only depression will be among the socialists and bureaucrats (and MSM newsreaders)...
Well hey, 75% of Americans
March 18, 2008 - 15:51 ET by CapitalismRulesWell hey, 75% of Americans think we are in a Depression, I mean Recession, I mean Regression. as long as the media types keep using buzz words that end in "ession", a dem is bound to finally beat that pesky GW Bush and his tax cuts.
So the Bush regime has
March 18, 2008 - 15:58 ET by balboaSo the Bush regime has nothing to do with our current economic position?
Sure they do, tons to do
March 18, 2008 - 16:00 ET by CapitalismRulesSure they do, tons to do with our current economic position which my friend is a FAR cry from a depression.
Of course Bush had nothing
March 18, 2008 - 16:15 ET by goldbarOf course Bush had nothing to do with the teetering economy that we're currently in.
The republican solution for this will be the same thing they say for every crisis:
"Shut up and put on a lapel pin"
Our economy is NOT
March 18, 2008 - 17:16 ET by Gary P JacksonOur economy is NOT "teetering". The correct term, at least at this point, is "slowing".
We still have over 52 weeks of positive growth. That's a record. We have YET to see negative growth in the economy. Which really says something, as the media have been cheering a recession/depression on, since January of 2001!
We still have historically low unemployment, and that doesn't even take into consideration the 10's of millions of illegals who work off of the books. Was a time when 5 percent was considered "full employment".
This entire slowdown has been media driven.
And as an aside, my dad and mom lived through the Great Depression. He picked cotten for 75 cents a day, and was glad to do it. Three families shared a house, that was so old, it had been used to store hay. Dad used to tell stories about the size of the rats in that place!
Most of the poorest among us have food daily, a car, and a warm, dry place to sleep at night. That my friend, is not depressing!
"We still have historically
March 18, 2008 - 17:22 ET by ckc1227"We still have historically low unemployment, and that doesn't even take
into consideration the 10's of millions of illegals who work off of the
books."
Or the millions of LEGAL citizens who also work off the books.
Exactly! For that matter,
March 18, 2008 - 17:42 ET by Gary P JacksonExactly!
For that matter, what about those who are on disablility, welfare, or SSI, who work off the books. In most cases, it's not illegal for them to work, and draw a check, but it does effect their bottom line. And it is a hassle.
A cell phone and a flat screen HD TV!
March 19, 2008 - 07:33 ET by PawpawNA cell phone and a flat screen HD TV! We're all so poor and in a depression!
"Of course Bush had nothing
March 18, 2008 - 17:19 ET by ckc1227"Of course Bush had nothing to do with the teetering economy that we're currently in. The republican solution for this will be the same thing they say for every crisis: "Shut up and put on a lapel pin""
Translation: I'm not really sure what Bush did to create the problem, but I'm pretty sure he did something, whether he did or not. It just feels like it, plus the media tells me he did.
Here's what he
March 18, 2008 - 17:28 ET by goldbarHere's what he did:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
Bal, you just go right ahead and vote those dems into office.
March 18, 2008 - 16:16 ET by R D HelmAnd when they raise taxes across the board, over-correct for everything under the sun, and start bailing out people right and left, soon thereafter you will see the very depression being talked about here.
_________________________
There is, however, one thing the Bush administration could have done to help avert this, though:
They could have stopped forever the federal government's stupid practice of forcing mortgage lenders to loan money to millions of unqualified buyers, as that has been going on in this country since the late 1970's (google ACORN if you don't believe me), and is a huge reason why we are in the shape we are in right now.
-And they should seriously consider letting the Bear-Stearns' of the word whither and die, as bailouts will only make the problem far worse.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Did I say that? No I
March 18, 2008 - 16:25 ET by mattmDid I say that? No I didn't. I mentioned socialist drift - something Republicans have also been guilty of. But, in typical Balboa fasion, you throw out a non-sequitur just to stir things up...apparently.
If I'm wrong about that, fine. Let's talk about Bush. Which of his policies has directly led to the current economic uncertainty? You can't say it's the tax cuts, since revenues to the treasury are ever increasing. So it must be something else...perhaps it's all that socialism that he went along with the Democrats on, or maybe it's just that he never got all the GOP economic platform items implemented....Congress has a hand in that.
Speaking of Congress, did you happen to notice that the economic "downturn" seems to coincide with the recapture of Congress by the Democrats?
I only asked because when
March 18, 2008 - 16:33 ET by balboaI only asked because when Bush got into office, and we seemed to be doing OK under Clinton, any economic woes were blamed on Clinton. So I just want to understand why these woes are obviously the Democrats' fault. (I have no knowledge of economics beyond "supply and demand")
Bal, the bipartisan truth is
March 18, 2008 - 17:25 ET by sarcasmo"It's both parties." See various links in my well-cloaked comment below this one for details.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
We were doing OK under
March 18, 2008 - 17:40 ET by mattmWe were doing OK under Clinton ...until the crash of 2000.
But I only brought up the Democrats because you brought up Bush. My main point was that there is too much socialism infused into the economy - by members of both parties.
I'm no economic expert either, but I don't think it takes one to see that raising taxes, expanding government programs, over-regulating certain key industries (like energy), and encouraging dependency upon one government program or another, is bad for the economy.
Talk about democrats and
March 18, 2008 - 16:34 ET by goldbarTalk about democrats and socialism all you want, but you'll never find a larger social program than the government using taxpayer dollars to payoff private lending instituions. You republicans piss and moan about socialism until it's your party taking part in it.
*sigh*
March 18, 2008 - 16:44 ET by candanceAnd goldbar is at it again.
We've been moaning about our party bailing out mortgages for months.
You can read about it here and here and here.
Seriously, do you even try to form coherent arguments against us?
I assume you're not buying
March 18, 2008 - 16:46 ET by balboaI assume you're not buying this "stimulus package" either? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll take $600, but it's going right into a savings account.
bal
March 18, 2008 - 16:50 ET by candanceThis stimulus package is nothing but communism by another name. Take a thousand dollars from a wealthy man's paycheck and give it to the working class people down the street.
It won't stimulate anything but people's desire for more free money.
And how will hubby and I use that check to stimulate the economy? We're paying off a credit card that we owe a thousand bucks on.
Where it will be available
March 18, 2008 - 16:51 ET by NL207Where it will be available as capital. Savings, that is, unconsumed or deferred income, is the only source of real capital. THIS is a form of economic stimulus.
don't get me started on the "stimulus package" Bull sh!!
March 18, 2008 - 19:13 ET by red_dragon311Lucky you......I will NOT be getting a check my wife has a green card and not yet a citizen SO we get screwed because we don't file seperately we file taxes as a married couple AND I have 3 kids (all born here) ..... Even though I was born here in 1975, have paid taxes from 1991 (when I started working) the fact that I married a mexican woman I can't even get the 600 for myself, my kids don't anything
anybody have thoughts on what I can do???
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
Goldbar, in case you have been lost in a Peruvian rain storm...
March 18, 2008 - 16:46 ET by R D Helm...many of us conservatives here have been ripping the republican party a new one for exactly that, as well as for the other hideous spending they voted for (in which they have literally out-liberalled the democrats).
Many of us are so fed up that we most likely will not be voting for McCain come November, come what may.
BTW-I do not support the taxpayer's bailing out Bear-Stearns. It is a stupid idea which will only deepen the problem.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
This bailout by the
March 18, 2008 - 17:01 ET by goldbarThis bailout by the republicans is costing us half of the money in the U.S. Treasury. It's not like we're just throwing a bone to a few lenders. Bush did nothing about subprime mortages and loan steering when he had the chance and so this is what we have. If China decides to call in its' marker be prepared to hold on very tight.
Goldbar,
March 18, 2008 - 17:15 ET by R D HelmI agree in principal, but GWB cannot just wave a "magic wand" and end in one swoop a practice that has been going on in this country since 1977, when ACORN and its supporters decided it would be a really good idea to force lenders to loan money to unqualified buyers. After all, homeownership is a "right," according to some.
This went on for years and progressed (regressed?) to the point where people could by a house without so much as a down payment. Real good idea that was.
Yes, the congress could have fixed this idiocy many times over the last 31 years, but didn't. Even now, seeing what is happening as a result of what is largely the actions of the federal government, they still haven't done anything to change the laws and regulations involved.
However, it appears the market is about to do it for them.
And I won't even get into the70 - 75% of the sub-prime mortgage apllicants who lied on their loan applications, as well as the idiot lenders who didn't bother to verify the information thereon.
There is more than enough blame to go around for this current mortgage mess.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Its not what he will do.
March 18, 2008 - 17:30 ET by goldbarIts not what he will do. Its what he didn't bother to do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
Elliot is (well, was...) one of the socialists in question.
March 19, 2008 - 03:49 ET by sarcasmoAnd the problem isn't "predatory" lending (WTF is that, anyway??). "Predatory lending" is a dishonest way to make banks (which at the time & now operated under a forest of socialistic rules assuming they're all "racist") somehow sound "evil," for not wanting even-more-rules from a socialist hypocrite like Elliot, rather than just stupid like their customers (see cartoon in my cloaked post below for an honest look at the actual problem). The bailout is corporate welfare, but trying to pin this mess solely on Republicans is historically wrong (see Wiki-link in the cloaked post) even if it would be politically convenient for your side.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Uh, folks....Things aren't so great. Face it.
March 18, 2008 - 15:59 ET by sarcasmoSee this well-done WaPo cartoon or this more boring but disturbing chart for why we're likely to hear the words "counterparty risk" a LOT more in the near future, if my guess is right...When a giant company like AIG "can't reliably quantify losses" in derivatives, a relative pipsqueak like "Ambac" just isn't going to be that strong, IMO, when the doodoo fully hits this fan. And it's silly to try to blame one political party, IMO, since the cartoonish behavior started in 1995 or so. In the end, it's corporate welfare.
Regulatory/law enforcement resources over the past few years were spent stupidly & hysterically attacking honest forms of money, instead of going after this looming disaster on behalf of American taxpayers. I know, I saw it happen, and saw the news media do a crappy job of not-covering it...It's hard for political types to get any sympathy from me for that reason.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
What the Bush
March 18, 2008 - 16:01 ET by goldbarWhat the Bush administration fails to realize is that our economic problems haven't been caused by people not spending enough money. The problem is that we've spent too much money. We need to be saving money to bolster the economy. Conservatives don't like welfare for the poor, but don't seem to mind welfare for the rich. We need to let some of these institutions fail in order to make the system stronger.
Good way of putting it
March 18, 2008 - 16:04 ET by CapitalismRulesGood way of putting it despite perhaps the oversimplification on the welfare point, but it is understood. My whole point has been that if we do not shore up the dollar first, the rest of the "stimulus" plan is useless.
Neither of you even
March 18, 2008 - 16:29 ET by dscottNeither of you even understands the basics of economics, it is obvious from your comments. Next you'll tell us to raise taxes and pump prime the economy.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Enlighten us, oh economic
March 18, 2008 - 16:37 ET by goldbarEnlighten us, oh economic master.
Look below, it's been
March 18, 2008 - 16:42 ET by dscottLook below, it's been explained. Though you have eyes, yet you can not see.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Only a partisan hack would
March 18, 2008 - 16:23 ET by dscottOnly a partisan hack would use the words Depression or Recession at this point. So GMA is just engaging in Dem talking points again for the benefit of the 2008 election cycle.
What are the facts? 1. Unemployment is dropping, 2. Treasury receipts for February have dropped indicating a one month drop of GDP. 3. What did the average home value do in February? We won't know until the 25th when the NAR comes out. 4. What do we know about home values http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/files/EHSreport.pdf/$FILE/EHSreport.pdf Seasonally adjusted overall the US had a 0.4% decline in numbers of sales from January over December, the Midwest actually had an increase of 3.4%. On the average mean cost there was a -4.6%, a decrease in value from January over December, however, in the Northeast there was an actual increase in value of 2.3%. 5. Interest rates have dropped again.
So how do we interpret the facts? We are not in a Recession, let alone a Depression. We experienced a one month contraction of GDP in February, but the unemployment rate dropped indicating home owners are not in jeopardy of loosing their jobs and lower interest rates mean those ARMs when they reset will not be drop kicking anyone from their homes. The reduction of GDP will in all proability be mostly from the Financial Services Sector. This will be one of the few economic slow downs were the people at the high end of the economic scale will feel the pain before the average Joe and Jane.
Now if the GMA people were acting like journalists and actually doing their homework they would be asking the question why did Bear Stearns go belly up. It's called "Derivatives", the subject is clearly too complex for the morons at GMA to discuss. Let me make this simple for the morons, as long as housing prices drop, more companies like Bear Stearns will go belly up due to derivatives acting like margin calls. All leverage instruments are based on the value of the asset, if the asset value falls, the amount that can be leveraged falls and therefore the difference must be paid down. Got it you idiots? The solution therefore is for the government and banks lower the default rate on mortgages by renegotiating as many loans as needed so foreclosed homes don't flood the market and drive down the asset values. The value of any asset is what people are willing to pay for it, as long as there are lots of foreclosed homes who will pay full price when they can get something for 3/4 of the price??? It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
The government has fudged
March 18, 2008 - 16:47 ET by goldbarThe government has fudged the job numbers by counting part-time jobs as full-time jobs. The unemployed who have fallen off the unemployment insurance radar screen. aren't counted. You're in la-la land about the foreclosure rate. Go to Florida and Arizona and you'll see so many foreclosure properties it'll make you sick. A co-worker of mine whose a conservative was thinking along the same lines as you and went to Florida and bought a foreclosure home as a rental. Guess what? He's going broke because he can't rent it for the amount to pay his mortgage, he can't sell it--no buyers because the market is so flooded, and he's now scrambling because he's now on the verge of foreclosure because he thought he knew what the market was going to do.
goldie
March 18, 2008 - 16:53 ET by candanceI hate to break it to you, but the government fudged numbers all the same during the Clinton years. There are all kinds of ways to twist around numbers. Problem is, Democrats only complain when they see Republicans doing it.
During the Clinton era the
March 18, 2008 - 17:13 ET by goldbarDuring the Clinton era the economy was so incredibly good, it didn't really matter.
Got to love that economy, goldbar
March 18, 2008 - 17:22 ET by Gary HallGot to love that economy, "incredibly good," goldbar:
Wow in one week - just one week! I suspect Bush would have been smart (in fact, I said so then) had he pulled out before the convention and let the Democrats actually inherit the economic crash - the millions who would loose their jobs, their health insurance, their kid's college education funds, and a federal govenment that would quickly see a shift from silly projected surpluses to actual deficits totaling $1 Trillion (Iraq war costs and tax cuts omitted) by 2003.
I don't know about you,
March 18, 2008 - 17:50 ET by goldbarI don't know about you, but I made way more money in the Clinton era, and yes, after a great stock market run with a tech bubble, there was a correction. But there were no government bailouts, some institutions were left to fail and be bought out. Now we have a housing bubble that is bursting, mainly because the government made it too easy for some people to get way too much money. It was predator lending. Steering highly volatile loans to minorities and others who only wanted to have a home for their family. The market became overbought and now its imploding, but as much as you'd like, it wasn't the democrats fault.
leadbar... "Now we have a
March 18, 2008 - 17:55 ET by Clear thinkerleadbar...
"Now we have a housing bubble that is bursting, mainly because the government made it too easy for some people to get way too much money."
You blame the government for this?
"Abstain from McCain"
I'll C&P this because no
March 18, 2008 - 18:12 ET by goldbarI'll C&P this because no one is reading the WSJ link:
Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.
In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.
But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
Goldbar,
March 18, 2008 - 18:15 ET by R D HelmDuring the Clinton years, we were not at war. Well, actually, we were, but few really realized it at the time.
It was predator lending. Steering highly volatile loans to minorities
and others who only wanted to have a home for their family.
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. While there have been some less than scrupulous lenders out their, most of this lunacy was caused by the government's response to the cries of "red-lining," and racism, among other things.
The federal government did far more than just "encourage" giving mortgage loans to unqualified buyers, they required it.
As I have been in and around the home building/construction industry my entire life, everyone I know in the mortgage industry, and that is a considerable number of people, have all told me that they, as lenders, were forced to make many of these loans, even though they knew they were bad deals. Many of us saw this coming several years ago.
Government types would come nosing around their offices from time to time and look at their loan books. If the government auditor did not think these institutions were carrying an acceptable percentage of high-risk loans, the lenders were subject to all kinds of very unpleasant penalties, including stiff fines, or worse. No excuses were accepted.
This small, yet very significant fact, has gone largely un-reported in the media, yet I believe this is THE biggest reason we are now facing this mess, as the economy was doing pretty well until people's ARMs started going up.
Since most of these marginal buyers were not required to put much, if any, money down up front, they have lkittle or no equity in their homes. Even if they can manage to sell, they are still deep in the hole.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
From Greg Palast
March 18, 2008 - 18:24 ET by goldbarFrom Greg Palast investigative reporter:
Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.
‘Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.
But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hearty – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m.
Full article:
http://www.gregpalast.com/elliot-spitzer-gets-nailed/
goldbar,
March 19, 2008 - 23:15 ET by R D HelmYou know as well as I do that icome levels alone are not the only criteria for qualifying for a mortgage.
There is also debt-to-income ratios, credit histories, locations of the homes in question, as well as other things.
Part of how we got into this mess, particularly where I live, was the local media looking only at income levels.
Higher risk borrowers are going to payhigher interst rates. If the lenders are forced to lend money to these people, they are going to charge accordingly.
Any rational loan officer would.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
*snicker* Greg Palast
March 20, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Roger the Shrubber*snicker*
Greg Palast
goldbar
March 18, 2008 - 18:19 ET by Gary HallMy intent was not to blame it on anyone particular. I did well last year in the market and got out. In fact, I got out much cleaner than I did in 2000 - but that is personal. And I'm still a little pissy about Global Crossing and Enron - the Clinton WH pampered them way to much - and then left so many holding the rubber check.
Here's a good read from you - from the left and pubished by the left. Bursting Bubbles..
.. from the economist who compared the Clinton economy to Herbert Hoover, i.e., he called a duck a duck. Will the corporate and accounting fraud be as prevelant this time as then? Will millions loose their jobs as then? The larger problem here is the MSM - making folks ignorant. If one is going to celebrate bubbles, then you might as well celebrate the pain on the other end. And the Democrats share a heck of a lot of fault here in steering highly volatile loans to minorities and others. But honestly, I'm not trying to make it partisan - the media does that just fine.
I saw Dean Baker last night
March 18, 2008 - 18:29 ET by goldbarI saw Dean Baker last night on Glenn Beck and he made a lot of sense. Read this:
http://www.gregpalast.com/elliot-spitzer-gets-nailed/
well good, goldbar
March 18, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Gary Hallwell good, goldbar - because if he made a lot of sense to you, then you should appreciate how he describes the economy of the 90's. Everyone hears the constant blasting of the Bush economy (under any R) from the media - the problem is that the voters (especially on the left) seldom get to hear about their own.
Most Americans think (and thought in 2003) that the main reason the federal budget went from surplus into large deficits was because of the "Bush" (we'll skip the D's 2001 tax rebate) tax cuts and the Iraq war. It's simply not true - not even close. Some things have to be cleared off the table before a dialog can take place.
So you don't agree with the
March 18, 2008 - 19:08 ET by goldbarSo you don't agree with the Bush tax cuts? BTW it had BI-partisan support. McCain will make them permanent.
goldbar.. did you read the Baker piece yet?
March 18, 2008 - 19:36 ET by Gary Hallgoldbar.. did you read the Baker piece yet?
Dean Baker was on Glen Beck? See, that's the thing (and my main interest here is media bias) a conservative like Beck will pound on Bush on his own, and even go so far as to invite a way out there leftist economist on his show. The MSM would have never been interested in letting Baker go public with his views on the Clinton economy. Period.
Meanwhile the rest of the entire MSM does not allow dissent - dissent agaist their negative views of conservatives, nor dissent against their positive views of Democrats or liberal agenda.
Baker was screaming for attention from the late 90's into the early 2000's - and was completley ignored. As soon as it was time for him to dig into the Bush economy - the MSM wanted his message, and wanted it out on the street.
Actually in the moment back then I did support the short term stimulus the D's forced into the Bush long term tax cut plan, and under the circumstances (not being able to trim entitlement spending) etc., I was rather wimpy on the the very top end of the income tax cuts. I did support the dividend tax cut (and preferred Bush's over Corzine's only for the corporate side) and I supported the capital gains cut and the death tax cuts. I thought then, and do now - that the middle class needs more relief. Way too much fraud and waste in government at the local, state and federal level - surely a 1/2 $trillion a year could be found w/o cutting services.
Baker asserts Bush
March 18, 2008 - 19:25 ET by goldbarBaker asserts Bush encouraging consumer spending is what's killing the economy and consumers not being so far in debt they aren't able to save, which is what is really good for the banking industry and the economy.
Clinton inherited a growing
March 18, 2008 - 18:02 ET by mattmClinton inherited a growing economy and a shrinking deficit (as a percentage of overall budget), and bequeathed a stock market crash to his successor.
I'm not directly placing blame, but don't give us that "Clinton Era Great Economy" crap - because that's all it is - crap.
Clinton inherited a growing
March 18, 2008 - 18:02 ET by mattmClinton inherited a growing economy and a shrinking deficit (as a percentage of overall budget), and bequeathed a stock market crash to his successor.
I'm not directly placing blame, but don't give us that "Clinton Era Great Economy" crap - because that's all it is - crap.
Let's see, on 1/22/2001 these were the numbers!
March 18, 2008 - 18:18 ET by PawpawNLet's see, on 1/22/2001 these were the numbers! DOW at 10,578.24 and on 3/18/2008 it's 12392.66 after war and housing collapse; Nasdaq was 2757.91 on 1/22/2001 and today was 2268.26 after total TECH burst; and S&P was 1342.50 on 1/22/2001 and today ended at 1330.74. So we had TECH Bubble Burst, we've had attack on USA, we've had what most say 2 wars, we've had Housing Bubble Burst, we've had the dollar shrink, we've got Gold over valued, and the list goes on & on. Wages up by good percentage, more people own homes than ever, more people have savings than ever, more people have retirement plans than ever, and on & on. I retired at 56 1/2, many others at 55, etc. Can we get an AMEN for this deep dark recession we're in!
Mattm - you can say that again...
March 18, 2008 - 18:21 ET by Gary Hallsnicker snicker. (double post) (;~> g
The government has fudged
March 19, 2008 - 08:51 ET by dscottThe government has fudged the job numbers by counting part-time jobs as full-time jobs.
You are asserting a conspiracy where there is none, part timers were always counted (even under Clinton's time) in employment stats, nothing has changed, in fact part timers are also tracked - 4.9 million per the last report.
The unemployed who have fallen off the unemployment insurance radar screen. aren't counted.
False, they are counted via the household survey whether they draw unemployment benefits or not.
You're in la-la land about the foreclosure rate. Go to Florida and Arizona and you'll see so many foreclosure properties it'll make you sick. A co-worker of mine whose a conservative was thinking along the same lines as you and went to Florida and bought a foreclosure home as a rental. Guess what? He's going broke because he can't rent it for the amount to pay his mortgage, he can't sell it--no buyers because the market is so flooded, and he's now scrambling because he's now on the verge of foreclosure because he thought he knew what the market was going to do.
I mentioned nothing on the "rates" of foreclosure. I said as long as there are (significant) foreclosures the price of housing will continue to loose value. Thus part of the solution was to renegotiate loans where ARMS have reset and put people in trouble. The fact that the Fed knocked down the rates 3/4% gives lots of homeowners in this situation some breathing room. I sympathasize for your friend, however, he choose to buy a house for speculative purposes in order to rent it out and probably to sell it later when the market went back up. His failure to do "due deligence" on the rental market is not the failure of the government. It's his personal failure, as painful as that might be. It's called Capitalism, you want the reward you accept the risk. As far as flooding the market, that topic has been touched upon with the foolish lending practices mandated by government (started with idiot Carter, made worse by moron Clinton, Bush did nothing to correct the practices which makes him equally guilty). It also was made worse by foolish loan officers who gave out loans to builders who put up speculative homes, this is not unlike the end of the 80s where builders put up office buildings for speculative purposes. A speculative home or building is when the builder puts up the building without a prior signed lease committment or buyer. They flooded the market and thus drove down the values which inturn cascaded back on the banks because then like now, LTVs were too high. Once the value of the property fell below the value of the loan, the property was in technical default which meant the owners had to pay down the loans to re-establish the LTV. This is similar to a margin call on stocks. Now the Market is punishing the foolish and lots of people are going to get hurt in the process.
My assessment of your understanding of economics still stands, you understand very little and quite frankly you're so wrapped up in the Dem talking points that you are incapable of learning or understanding. When you cling to dogma, you can't understand concepts outside your understanding. I suggest if you really want to learn about the subject, ask questions - with respect. Spouting ignorant assertions only tells the rest of us that you aren't interested in anyone's opinion but your own. But thanks for the confirmation bias on liberals, it's nice to know I have a firm bead on you guys. LOL
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
So, let's sum this up,
March 19, 2008 - 09:14 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo, let's sum this up, shall we?
Douchebar is a poorly-informed partisan hack who fellates Bill Clinton in his dreams every night, has a poor grasp of economics, still thinks it is 2004, and keep friends around him who are also not economists, and poor judges of investments.
Dscott - 7
Douchebar - 0
hate to say it
March 18, 2008 - 16:27 ET by candanceI know I'll prolly catch some flack for this, but our economy is heading for a rough patch. Maybe not a depression but some major problems. Jason Lewis and Glenn Beck have been talking about it for a while.
No flak from me, you are
March 18, 2008 - 16:33 ET by dscottNo flak from me, you are correct. The derivatives market has to unwind here and that's not going to end until housing prices stabilize. The subprime market started a domino effect. Look for CitiCorp and Lehman Sherson to go next or someone else of that stature in the Financial Services sector. This is capitalism, and there are consequences for stupidity and greed.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Here's some interesting
March 18, 2008 - 17:16 ET by goldbarHere's some interesting reading for you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
Look at the byline and tell me the author wasn't set up by the Bushies.
What's a "Bushie"? I
March 18, 2008 - 18:00 ET by Roger the ShrubberWhat's a "Bushie"?
I thought Bill Clinton was greatly responsible for the housing crisis. But hey, we all know it's been messed up since Carter, and all the presidents are to blame.
Thanks for the riveting partisan rhetoric, Douchebar. Your lingo is oh so 2004. It might be time to remove that Gore 2000 bumper sticker from your Miata, and join the rest of us in 2008.