It wasn't Bush, after all, it started with Clinton

no, it didn't start with Clinton.

Go back to about FDR or so. This has been a looooong time coming...there have been a couple of exceptions to the rule, but by and large, we've been headed this way for a long while.

 

Yea, right Ladyeagle, everything bad in our country started with Clinton!

 

Actually, there is no single piece of legislation or administration that put us in this mess. I think it's the outcome of legislation from two distinctly different philosophies. While the conservatives were giving tax breaks and loopholes to the folks on Wallstreet the democrats were giving aid and opportunities to the people on Main Street. What we should learn from this situation and the great depression is those two philosophies don't co-exist to well. We either have to pump money in the top and hope it trickles down to the common man or take it from the top and give it to the common man. If the top weren't greedy the former would work but the later is needed because man is inherently greedy.

 

Carter signed the CRA into existance.. Clinton gave it steroids...
Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2003, democrats blocked it.
McCain tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2005 democrats blocked it.

Obama was a community organizer pushing for less regulation and more support of CRA...before he was senator
After he was senator he voted to NOT regulate Freddie and Fannie...

It is very clear just by looking at the history of CRA that the democrats brought this onto the country by rewarding people (who didn't work, and who wouldn't pay their bills thus having bad credit,) with subprime mortgages...

Fannie and Freddie made big money.. Obama even received money from them...

The economy went sour...
Gas prices soared...
People quit paying for their homes...(what would you expect from people with BAD credit... duh)
Banks lost money because the supposed back-up money that backed the subprime loans didn't exist because Fannie and Freddie lied.. and the democrats protected Fannie and Freddie...

You may say, "Well it is the bank's fault for giving loans to people with bad credit"... NO... it is the Democrats, Carter, Clinton, that pushed the CRA through which threatened to fine banks for not providing the loans.
Along with, guess who, OBAMA who actively supported CRA while being a Community Organizer.. .and then refusing to vote to regulate the industry when he had the chance...

Obama... ready to lead? Heck no! He was in cahoots with all the crooks that are swindling this 700 Billion out of our pockets....

A bill for the 700 Billion should be sent to Carter, Clinton, Obama, and all others that pushed CRA...

And when the dust clears... guess who said in 2003 that something needed to be done.... BUSH. Who would have guessed!

 

Yeah, give money to people who refuse to work and pay their bills...
That was what the CRA did....

Loans went sour, and started the domino effect...

 

You are confusing welfare with those who had a job but needed a little help qualifying for a home loan. These people wanted to pay back their loans as well as pay all their bills. Like I said, if it wasn't for greed at the top we wouldn't have needed these programs. When you limit my pay to a nickel so you can make millions then the guy with the nickel will need a little help.

Well, doh, when you give a person a loan then take away their job or have them move to one with lower pay, I would agree, the loans will go sour.

 

Actually this piece of legislation was the culprit...
And while I know this is from Wiki... the facts are still there, and irrefutable... If you don't believe it... prove it wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C.§ 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.

The CRA was passed into law by the 95th United States Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community.[1] Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act.[2] The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB).
The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market.[3] Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.[4]

In 1995, as a result of interest from PresidentBill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.
These revisions[5] with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.[citation needed]
Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. [6] The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent. [7][8]
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market. [9]

In 2003 the democrats blocked legislation to regulate Fannie and Freddie
It happened again in 2005....

From the same article:
Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Barney and Friends owe America 700 Billion Dollars!

 

When the Gov threatens to fine banks (that know more about how to give loans than the idiots in congress) if they don't give loans to low income people... you have a situation that is going to fail...

McCain and Bush both tried to warn people but democrats kept their heads in the sand, and Barney even said Freddie and Fannie were safe!

This is what happens when the Government becomes nothing but a social program to help people... Massive economic failure...

If the banks were not threatened by the Gov.. they wouldn't have gave loans to people who didn't deserve them or couldn't pay them back.

Sure there are good people who fully intended to pay off thier loans... but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions... and good intentions will not pay back $700 Billion.

 

Good point... FDR started the socialism our country is now muddling through.. and Obama fully intends to keep it up...

The sad part is.. McCain is not much different!

 

I say this is only one piece of the problem. This legislation didn't call for ARM's or Balloon loans. This legislation didn't call for stated income loans. This legislation didn't say give 125% the value of the property. This legislation did give tax breaks to companies who sent the loan payers jobs overseas.

There is far more that caused this problem than one piece of legislation. I think this legislation could have worked if the bankers didn't consider it a blank check to creatively finance the loan industry.

Also, this legislation greatly increased the building market and put a lot of American's to work in the construction trade and in jobs that support construction. It was foundationally a good piece of legislation the problem is what Man made of it.

 

You can't just say low income, criteria still had to be met. They gave loans to people who didn't meet the criteria. That is the bankers fault.

 

Yep! The mortgage crisis is a product of social re-engineering programs that were started by Democrats. It's the Democrats that will want to add the same kind of points to the bailout plan as well.

 

Shame on those democrats for wanting the average person to get a break. Simply despicable... :thumbs:

 

This explains it better than I ever could...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

 

Shame on the democrats for forcing banks to give loans to people who didn't qualify for loans pre-CRA...

The democrats really gave America a break this past week...
A Broken economy!

And the sad part is... BUSH is for it now!

I hope the bailout falls through.

 

Shame on them for using the average person to build their own wealth and power at the expense of the principles on which our nation was founded. Shame on them for building a generation of people who've come to believe all good things must come from the government. Shame on them for stealing the wealth of some to give to others in return for votes. Shame indeed upon them! Double shame also on the many Republicans that have joined in the same practices.

 

You mean give OBama the elite a break...


Sen. Obama received $105,849 from Fannie, Freddie, 3rd behind Kerry and Hillary
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=62638

OH, how the democrats love to sing the song that they are for Average Joe... But the average Joe is not Biden...
Or Obama
Or Kerry
Or Clinton....

So let me get this straight...

Fannie gives Obama, Kerry, and Clinton money....
then we have to bail Fannie out?
Where does the money come from?

OH, that's right, Average Joe...