http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28806

It's quite interesting how the public is so ignorant to the truth. This guy outlines quite well, with references ranging from committee meeting videos and .gov links, how the democrats are entirely to blame for this $700 billion bullshit.

I've yet to see this truth on the news. It won't happen. Why?

Just because McCain is a republican, he is pigeonholed into being McBush... McSame and whatever other childish monikers 17 year old "anarchists" can think of. McCain stood out in that he wanted better oversight to the whole GSE situation.

Obama is aligned with the party that caused this whole mess. In fact, his wife (and him I'm sure) were involved with the black caucuses trying to get low income minorities into houses they could never afford through GSEs such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Well there's your problem. I'm a racist now, but the truth set me free?

Here's hoping for the silent majority on November 4th. Godspeed.

Ominus Risus,
Nuclear Rape

http://www.chuacuuthe.org/images/jesus-pic/images/Jesus%20Sad_jpg-crop.jpg

Sorry, but there is no other response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi9vXKWYaZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqIFoBXGizc

public... so ignorant...

IF consider myself so lucky/ fortunate not to be born/ live in that fucking county of yours.

Ps, wtf is Britney up to now a days?

In an investigative story by Matthew Kaufman and Jesse A. Hamilton, the newspaper reveals that although Dodd was a presidential also-ran in terms of votes, in terms of cash money he ranks among the top five receivers of donations from the nation's now-troubled financial sector.

"During the past 20 years," the Courant reports, "PACs and employees of finance-related firms have contributed more than $13 million to Dodd's election efforts, including nearly $6 million in the past two years."

That's $250,000 per month from people who expect legislative protection. That kinda money oughta cover the electric bills, anyway.

That's $250,000 per month from people who expect legislative protection. That kinda money oughta cover the electric bills, anyway.

Additionally, Portfolio.com reported in June that Dodd was among a select group of public officials who quietly received preferential loans that waived points, fees and company rules at Countrywide Financial.

Dodd's party has controlled both houses of Congress for the last two years. And although Dodd elbows his way to the front of any photos of congressional Democrats allegedly trying to solve the current crisis, the five-term senator is facing mounting criticism that he and others did way too little, too late to prevent this money meltdown.

As one representative of Common Cause diagnosed the situation for the newspaper, "We have a system where the special interests that give the most money tend to get policies out of Congress that are beneficial to them."


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/chris-dodd.html



The Hidden Secret Behind the Financial Bailout.




There is a hidden elephant in the economy that is being overlooked in the media but represents the driving force behind the fear in the financial markets. It is well known that the economy is driven by credit. Consumer spending relies upon it and businesses cannot grow without it. However; Americans unable to get credit is not the major issue surrounding the financial bailout.

Prior to 2007 there was a group of economists that saw no problem with this fact. The key to the new economy, they asserted, was not how much the United States was producing, nor how much the United States was spending. The real key was that foreign capital was funding it. In all prior economic environments government spending came at the expense of private spending. If the government had to borrow money it did so by getting it from domestic banks, which removed it from the private sector. In the new economy government spending excess is provided, not by dipping into the domestic money supply, but by bringing in new revenue from foreign capital. In this way government deficits were seen not as a problem but rather a benefit. Essentially the government could fuel the economy with OPM (other people's money). Likewise, banks and lending institutions could do the same and fuel the domestic economy with imported capital. That American assets were bleeding out of the nation was not perceived as a major issue. With $73 trillion in assets the United States could afford this trickle of blood for a number of decades until it had completely restructured the economy to not only stop the bleeding but begin re-aquiring those assets. The economists, bankers, and theoreticians believed they had found the perfect economic system and they knew they were smarter than everyone else.

The crisis in the financial markets puts this entire rationale at risk. The real fear is not domestic bank failures; but rather, that the influx of foreign capital will slow or stop if the government does not buy up the bad debt. If foreign capital is spent elsewhere the American economy will simply not have adequate revenue to maintain itself. Wall Street banks know very well that the bailout is needed to protect the integrity of the United States as a recipient of foreign capital. It is desperate to alleviate the losses to foreign capital suppliers. Otherwise they will simply invest in other regions. The American economy is largely dependent on bringing in outside revenue. If the United States financial system cannot protect the foreign suppliers it is destined to crash. The federal bailout is viewed as absolutely essential to reassuring the international capital markets that the United States is still a safe credit risk. If the American financial community cannot protect its international money flow from bad debt that flow will evaporate and take with it the financial system that has been built up over the past two decades.

For obvious reasons this is an impossible sale to the American public which would never willingly accept bailing out the Saudis or the government of Singapore. However; this is exactly what the bailout is required to do and why it is absolutely necessary. For Wall Street this ulterior need must be kept well hidden or it will never fly. Oops. I think I just spilled the beans.

http://www.politicalbull.net/hidden_secret_of_the_financial_crisis.html

http://www.chuacuuthe.org/images/jesus-pic/images/Jesus%20Sad_jpg-crop.jpg

Sorry, but there is no other response.

Because I'm a racist or because Republicans and even Clinton wanted more oversight of the GSEs?

Because I'm a racist or because Republicans and even Clinton wanted more oversight of the GSEs?

Because you're an idiot.

Because I'm a racist or because Republicans and even Clinton wanted more oversight of the GSEs?

Pretty much your entire post.

are the specifics and documents of the bailout legislation available to the public while it is still being passed? are any of the proposals floating around senate and the house available to the public?

are the specifics and documents of the bailout legislation available to the public while it is still being passed? are any of the proposals floating around senate and the house available to the public?

I doubt it, but it would be nice to be wrong. I'm thinking that if they're not even willing to show it to the people that are supposed to vote on it, they're not going to show it to us.

I doubt it, but it would be nice to be wrong. I'm thinking that if they're not even willing to show it to the people that are supposed to vote on it, they're not going to show it to us.

http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/5093

Thanks to Google.

How the fuck do you borrow then hand out 2 trillion dollars with no plans to increase your revenue in order to pay it back? What if instead you decrease your revenue?

We're a country with 10 trillion dollar debt, spending another 700 billion, yet both presidents have to promise to lower taxes. I'm sorry but it's just not possible.

How the fuck do you borrow then hand out 2 trillion dollars with no plans to increase your revenue in order to pay it back? What if instead you decrease your revenue?

We're a country with 10 trillion dollar debt, spending another 700 billion, yet both presidents have to promise to lower taxes. I'm sorry but it's just not possible.

We are doing it, aren't we?

I think about how hard it was for the colonial revolutionary minority to organize and throw the British out and unite the country under a new government, and then I think how practically impossible anything like that would be in this day and age. Think about it. I'm not some nut saying that's what is needed now, no. But really, the government can pretty much do whatever the fuck it wants at this point, and while people can be upset all they want, there's no way anything will ever change. There are, for instance, 3rd party candidates running in just about every election this November that are probably vehemently against such practices as these. Yet they will be lucky to get 0.5% of the vote in their races.

Hmm.

I think about how hard it was for the colonial revolutionary minority to organize and throw the British out and unite the country under a new government, and then I think how practically impossible anything like that would be in this day and age. Think about it. I'm not some nut saying that's what is needed now, no. But really, the government can pretty much do whatever the fuck it wants at this point, and while people can be upset all they want, there's no way anything will ever change. There are, for instance, 3rd party candidates running in just about every election this November that are probably vehemently against such practices as these. Yet they will be lucky to get 0.5% of the vote in their races.

Hmm.

Yup. There are some things that can be changed, but for the most part, we're just riding a comet (or a comet is heading straight toward us; either way...)

People freaking out about the economy and the bailout should just chill the fuck out. A new bailout is going through, and I would bet that a lot of the stuff you hated about the first one is still going to be there. Whether we're gonna be fine or not (I'm betting on the former), you guys might as well just go jack off instead of spouting apocalyptic shit.

We are doing it, aren't we?
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2006/1217.html

The government is insolvent. They've been saying it for years. It's impossible to pay back the ridiculous amount of money owed.

Just like the person that has a mortgage, car loan, student loans, and is using cash advances on one credit card to pay the minimum for another credit card. That person will downright deny that debt even to himself up until it's too late.

The thing is, it would be political suicide for any candidate to straight up tell american "We're almost bankrupt." It's a matter of national pride. National arrogance...

Because you're an idiot.

Nice one, homie.

Respect.

Yup. There are some things that can be changed, but for the most part, we're just riding a comet (or a comet is heading straight toward us; either way...)

People freaking out about the economy and the bailout should just chill the fuck out. A new bailout is going through, and I would bet that a lot of the stuff you hated about the first one is still going to be there. Whether we're gonna be fine or not (I'm betting on the former), you guys might as well just go jack off instead of spouting apocalyptic shit.

It's not a new bailout. See this thread:
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2162890

Also, your post is vague and uninformed. No offense but you can't say we'll be fine if you don't know what the situation is. The tv and politicians remind everyone of what life was like 3 or 4 years ago and people just assume that with this bailout things will for the long term go back to the prosperous 90s and early 00s. The truth is the next 20 years will be nothing like the last 20 years. We can't go back to the lifestyle of the peak housing boom.

It's not a new bailout. See this thread:
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2162890

Also, your post is vague and uninformed. No offense but you can't say we'll be fine if you don't know what the situation is. The tv and politicians remind everyone of what life was like 3 or 4 years ago and people just assume that with this bailout things will for the long term go back to the prosperous 90s and early 00s. The truth is the next 20 years will be nothing like the last 20 years. We can't go back to the lifestyle of the peak housing boom.

And what are you referring to when you speak of "that lifestyle"? People won't be able to buy flat-screen TVs? No more cars? No more renting videos at Blockbuster? No more food? Seriously...just because the economy is possibly going to decline, that doesn't mean it's the fucking apocalypse.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you and I aren't lower class and starving in 20 years. How will you explain that?

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2006/1217.html

The government is insolvent. They've been saying it for years. It's impossible to pay back the ridiculous amount of money owed.

Just like the person that has a mortgage, car loan, student loans, and is using cash advances on one credit card to pay the minimum for another credit card. That person will downright deny that debt even to himself up until it's too late.

The thing is, it would be political suicide for any candidate to straight up tell american "We're almost bankrupt." It's a matter of national pride. National arrogance...

It's not over. It's not impossible to turn this thing around. Our deficit is only 4 times larger than our GDP. Fuck it, just stop spending money on everything except stuff that absolutely needs funding (that does not include the War of Terror), get the American people behind the concept of paying off our debt, and hike taxes.

The key to this is getting the people behind it. We can spare $5k now. After a few years, our dollar will pick up and prices go down across the board and we are out of crisis mode.

A great place to cut spending is in getting victimless criminals out of prison and ending the drug war. Our country will suffer when it comes to government research and whatnot, but that is the cost of the stupidity of the people we have elected into Congress.

It's going to hurt but it absolutely needs to get done or its over.

I like how everyone on the internet knows how to fix everything.

Bottom line, the best economic advisers IN THE WORLD do not even know what the $700 Billion will even do. Their fucking motto right now is "Any action is better than inaction." I think the public should be made aware of the ruse put on by the dems in the congressional hearing about the GSEs. How they lied through their teeth, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank et al.

They should be lynched, we wouldn't even be in this mess if it wasn't for the dems and their cronies filling their pockets and saving their political face.

I'm pissed that McCain voted for the bill. He should have done a "I told you so." and sat back and hit the little red Nay button. Then he could have came out swinging, explaining his bill he proposed a few years ago, where the names "Freddie Mac" and "Fannie Mae" are outlined with "more oversight." He's too nice sometimes.

Now the Dems and Bush take their typical "throw money at the problem" stance like Bush has been doing with Iraq for the past 5 years.

Now the Dems and Bush take their typical "throw money at the problem" stance like Bush has been doing with Iraq for the past 5 years.

Out of curiosity, why aren't you including the Republicans in this when the vote shows the same problem there?

And now it seems that the IMF will step up with an inspection of the banking irregularities and the US economy. Maybe then the truth will be revealed and Ben Bernanke will be held to an accounting and then be asked to resign or face termination.

Der Spiegel wrote that the IMF had "informed" Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke of plans that would have been unheard of in the past: a general examination of the US financial system. The IMF's board of directors has ruled that a so-called Financial Sector Assessment Program is to be carried out in the US.

This, Der Spiegel wrote, "is nothing less than an X-ray of the entire US financial system", adding that "no Fed chief in US history has been forced to submit to the kind of humiliation that Ben Bernanke is facing".

The fact that the IMF is knocking on the very doors of its parents and waving legal papers about who lost the house, the car and the kids will, if the past is anything to go by, be buried in the US by pom-pom waving on CNBC telling all what a great time it is to buy.

But the news that the US Fed has now lost its last vestige of credibility did not end with the German report.

The Telegraph from London weighed in, following the Royal Bank of Scotland's statement last week (also lost on the US public) that it was time to head for the crags, and reported Barclays Capital's closely watched Global Outlook analysis that said US headline inflation would hit 5.5% by August and the Fed would have to raise interest rates six times by the end of next year to prevent a wage spiral.

If the Fed hesitates, the bond markets will take matters into their own hands. "This is the first test for central banks in 30 years and they have fluffed it," the report found. "They have zero credibility, and the Fed is negative if that's possible. It has lost all credibility."

Der Spiegel reports that the IMF is threatening to seriously study the accounts of America, something President George Bush is determined to prevent at least while he is in the White House, informing the IMF that it can begin its investigation but cannot complete it until he leaves office.

But the reckoning will come and it will shine a light in places where light has been desperately wanted for all too long.

"As part of the assessment," Der Spiegel said, "the Fed, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the major investment banks, mortgage banks and hedge funds will be asked to hand over confidential documents to the IMF team. They will be required to answer the questions they are asked during interviews. Their databases will be subjected to so-called stress tests — worst-case scenarios designed to simulate the broader effects of failures of other major financial institutions or a continuing decline of the dollar."

Under its by-laws, the IMF is charged with the supervision of the international monetary system. About two-thirds of IMF members — but never the US — have already endured this painful procedure.

http://business.theage.com.au/business/imf-finally-knocks-on-uncle-sams-door-20080629-2yui.html?page=fullpage#

Out of curiosity, why aren't you including the Republicans in this when the vote shows the same problem there?

Because he's an idiot. The fact is no amount of deregulation forced the lenders to give out money. There was rampant greed and overinvestment and shady accounting involved in the mortgage crisis. Much of it supported by free market conservatism. I mean, look how full of shit Nr is. "john mccain should have hit the nay button" BUT HE DIDN'T AND NOW HE'S PART OF THE BLAME.

Because he's an idiot. The fact is no amount of deregulation forced the lenders to give out money. There was rampant greed and overinvestment and shady accounting involved in the mortgage crisis. Much of it supported by free market conservatism. I mean, look how full of shit Nr is. "john mccain should have hit the nay button" BUT HE DIDN'T AND NOW HE'S PART OF THE BLAME.

He's not to blame for the problem. The Democrats covered up and inflated figures in regards to the success of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs. Your lack of knowledge on the issue shows in your childish response. The Bush administration bolstered good policy over politics in relation to the matter. But the Dems inflated statistics and lied through their teeth to you.

"During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd -- who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 -- actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation. "
Wow... WaPo blaming Dems for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html) It must be true. Wake up.

McCains bill, supported by two others, Republicans all.
S.190 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@L&summ2=m&)

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2006/1217.html

The government is insolvent. They've been saying it for years. It's impossible to pay back the ridiculous amount of money owed.

If you think about it in a historical context then it really isn't so bad. Think about Britain after the Napoleonic Wars, the debt GDP ratio was about 2.9. I don't want to necessarily downplay the situation but I'm optimistic about recovery for a number of reasons.

Because he's an idiot. The fact is no amount of deregulation forced the lenders to give out money. There was rampant greed and overinvestment and shady accounting involved in the mortgage crisis. Much of it supported by free market conservatism. I mean, look how full of shit Nr is. "john mccain should have hit the nay button" BUT HE DIDN'T AND NOW HE'S PART OF THE BLAME.

This. The loan officers got nice commisions for signing up more and more people.

"Hey, its not my money!"

This. The loan officers got nice commisions for signing up more and more people.

"Hey, its not my money!"

Democrats got some nice commissions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politics over policy, Clinton administration, $200 billion buyout... then a $700 billion failout (maybe?). $900 billion now... but shit, who's counting? And to think, all these dollars might not even fill the hole the PC Democrats, Bush and his bullshittingly expensive war can dig.
Mr. Clinton encourages sub-prime lending. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60)

Sub-prime lending. A Democrat tradition. ;)

sub-prime lending, I don't think, is the issue. The issue is giving loans to people who can't pay them back. Just because they aren't white and didn't grow up in the suburbs doesn't mean they are credit risks. To say that Democrats in general encourage sub-prime lending and then intellectually link that to credit risks is dishonest.

sub-prime lending, I don't think, is the issue. The issue is giving loans to people who can't pay them back. Just because they aren't white and didn't grow up in the suburbs doesn't mean they are credit risks. To say that Democrats in general encourage sub-prime lending and then intellectually link that to credit risks is dishonest.


Yeah, greed. Yeah, politics. Yeah, not being racist. Clinton says "I want everyone to have a home." Knowing full well, responsibility lies now on the government. Banks sell their loans to Fannie and Freddie. Banks give out loans to people under "introductory" rates. Sub-prime, all of it.

Where did sub-prime lending become legal? 1980. Jimmy Carter. Democrat. 96th Congress, both chambers... democrat. Huge sub-prime lending boom in the mid 90's. Clinton encourages GSEs to lend sub-prime. Give everyone a house, the government has your back. Blame Bush. I don't get it. Why won't people go out and find this stuff for themselves. Laziness? Indifference? You let me know, ok? I love this country, so I learn truth. Media will play you like a harp from hell.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf

Where did sub-prime lending become legal? 1980. Jimmy Carter. Democrat. 96th Congress, both chambers... democrat. Huge sub-prime lending boom in the mid 90's. Clinton encourages GSEs to lend sub-prime. Give everyone a house, the government has your back. Blame Bush. I don't get it. Why won't people go out and find this stuff for themselves. Laziness? Indifference? You let me know, ok? I love this country, so I learn truth. Media will play you like a harp from hell.

Gitmo. Republican congress and President. Therefore, Republicans like torturing people.

Why is your reasoning so faulty? Laziness? Indifference? Don't let me know, because you probably could not articulate it.

See also: http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10527683&postcount=2

Gitmo. Republican congress and President. Therefore, Republicans like torturing people.

Why is your reasoning so faulty? Laziness? Indifference? Don't let me know, because you probably could not articulate it.

See also: http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10527683&postcount=2

I was just giving facts. I'll recognize your oversimplified and condescending reply as your failure to learn what you refuse to believe.

OP, I would appreciate it if you kept your trolling out of PLRC. Thanks.

OP, I would appreciate it if you kept your trolling out of PLRC. Thanks.

I thought this would be a good place to discuss politics to be honest—wasn't aware I was trolling.

I thought this would be a good place to discuss politics to be honest—wasn't aware I was trolling.

Honestly?

He's not to blame for the problem. The Democrats covered up and inflated figures in regards to the success of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs.

If this is true, why aren't the Republicans, as a party coming out and establishing this for the fact you claim it is? They don't seem to have a problem with it at any other time. Source, since you're providing them?

The Bush administration bolstered good policy over politics in relation to the matter. But the Dems inflated statistics and lied through their teeth to you.

... right. The Bush Administration did that. By taking what you claim was a lie by the Dems, at face value and basing policy on it. Wow, shades of Iraq War here.

"During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd -- who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 -- actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation. "
Wow... WaPo blaming Dems for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html) It must be true. Wake up.

This would sound like a fine upstanding Republican Party deal, if you didn't immediately follow it up with:

McCains bill, supported by two others, Republicans all.
S.190 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@L&summ2=m&)

Have you actually read that? After looking up some of the things mentioned in that bill, and realising that it's abolishing existing federal regulation in favor of putting it in some "independent" (private?) corporation, how does this constitute more and better oversight? It sounds like he's doing the exact same thing you claim the Dems were doing.

What really bugs the hell out of me is the free pass you keep giving the Republicans on the issue of "throwing money at the problem" bailout, knowing full well that they voted for it too. What's up with that?

Have you actually read that? After looking up some of the things mentioned in that bill, and realising that it's abolishing existing federal regulation in favor of putting it in some "independent" (private?) corporation, how does this constitute more and better oversight? It sounds like he's doing the exact same thing you claim the Dems were doing.

This explains it better than I could:
Mr. Wallison was referring to a bill before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2005. At issue was a Republican-supported provision that would have required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell off the $1.5 trillion in mortgage assets that the companies were holding as investments. The bill would have "considerably altered" the business models of the two companies by transforming them from "very large investment funds" into "conduits" that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities, and sold them on the market, according to a Congressional Research Service report on the bill.

The aim of the bill was to prevent what ended up happening this month [being the $200 Billion buyout], when taxpayers were made to bail out the two companies after the housing market turned and wiped out their huge investment portfolios.

The bill was opposed by Mr. Schumer and other committee Democrats on the grounds that it would make it more difficult for people to get mortgages. Mr. Schumer said at the time that all the bill would accomplish — other than shifting the risk from taxpayers to the private market — was to have "reduced the commitment to housing."
Full article. (http://www.nysun.com/national/pro-deregulation-schumer-scores-bush-for-lack/86321/)
Dems wanted to keep handing out mortgages for political gain. They were beyond sub-prime, more closely related to never-prime. The OFHEO was insufficient, Dems knew it too. Then when the foreclosure shitstorm blows in, Bush is in office and Republicans get the blame. It's genius!

For all your other comments, just scroll up to the top of the thread and start from there. CHECK THE LINKS, those are the sources.

This explains it better than I could:
Mr. Wallison was referring to a bill before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in 2005. At issue was a Republican-supported provision that would have required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell off the $1.5 trillion in mortgage assets that the companies were holding as investments. The bill would have "considerably altered" the business models of the two companies by transforming them from "very large investment funds" into "conduits" that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities, and sold them on the market, according to a Congressional Research Service report on the bill.

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't have changed things - my point is that it appears to be a shell game that doesn't actually change much other than the privatization and deregulation of something they're claiming to put more oversight upon. Changing them, sure. Making them better. Speculation...?

The aim of the bill was to prevent what ended up happening this month [being the $200 Billion buyout], when taxpayers were made to bail out the two companies after the housing market turned and wiped out their huge investment portfolios.

... because something being the stated aim doesn't mean that's going to happen. Obviously they didn't feel strongly enough about it to challenge the Democrats, and I'll remind you that this was a Republican-dominated Congress under a ridiculously strong republican presidency. They may have aimed to improve things, but they certainly weren't showing the foresight implied by saying they knew what was going to happen and chose to let it happen.

The bill was opposed by Mr. Schumer and other committee Democrats on the grounds that it would make it more difficult for people to get mortgages. Mr. Schumer said at the time that all the bill would accomplish — other than shifting the risk from taxpayers to the private market — was to have "reduced the commitment to housing."
Full article. (http://www.nysun.com/national/pro-deregulation-schumer-scores-bush-for-lack/86321/)
Dems wanted to keep handing out mortgages for political gain. They were beyond sub-prime, more closely related to never-prime. The OFHEO was insufficient, Dems knew it too. Then when the foreclosure shitstorm blows in, Bush is in office and Republicans get the blame. It's genius!

Don't mistake what I'm saying for implying that the Democrats have no fault in this. My problem is your repeated insistence that they are SOLELY at fault, that the republican party as a whole and Bush in specific are a bunch of innocent victims of the evil conniving Democratic party. That's just partisan bullshit.

For all your other comments, just scroll up to the top of the thread and start from there. CHECK THE LINKS, those are the sources.

Having checked those sources again, I see that not one addresses my main point, that the Republicans are guit-free. Certainly, that blogger claims that they are, but does nothing to back the claim. Like a typical partisan asshole, he believes that pointing the finger at one party while ignoring the other means that their party of choice is guilt-free.

Like a typical partisan asshole, he believes that pointing the finger at one party while ignoring the other means that their party of choice is guilt-free.

That's the name of the game. ;)

Of course Republicans are partly to blame. Christ, where was the support for that bill?.... only 3 or 4 Repubs sponsored it. The Dems did largely ignore or deny a need for it. But the Republican champion at the moment, McCain DID in fact support it so that's what I have to run on, yanno.

I'm a fan of corps paying for their mistakes, but we footed the $200 billion. Now $700B on top of it. Bullshit, I say. I'm disappointed in McCain for having as much to do with the Paulson plan as he did. But not enough to cast my ballot for Obama come Nov. 4th., hell the Democrats wanted that passed so bad. I wonder why. ;)

What does the 700 billion bailout plan means?

The key point is: Now Treasury Department requires no approval from Congress - pumping billions of dollars of fresh capital into the home loan market through purchases of mortgage-backed securities.

It also means a wholesale action on bad loans possible - according to FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. The way she suggested was to work out better terms for as many borrowers as possible, turning unaffordable, delinquent loans at current income levels. The best way to do that in a large portfolio is not on a retail, loan-by-loan basis, but rather by using a "systematic" approach where all delinquent borrowers who fit pre-set criteria could automatically qualify for a modification of payment terms.

It means if a man bought a house of 500k value, but his income level only can afford to pay a 300k value house, he would exempt from to pay that extra 200k. His speculation will get a 200k reward. It is big.

The 700 billion bailout plan helps the greedy Wall Street bankers and investors. They made good profit in sub-prime loans. Once it turns out to be bad debt, they sold it to government. It also helps those irresponsible house buyers, some of them speculators. The plan will reward them big value of the house. Who pay the money? The hard working, dutiful tax-payers will pay off these debts in coming years. Is that absurd?

This housing crisis did not come about b/c democrats got minorities loans.

When all else fails, blame any non-white, eh?

This is too simplified and is a desperate attempt at republicans to blame someone, because the blame has been landing squarely a rightfully on their "free market rocks, deregulate everything" asses.

Your trolling lacks vision, nuclear rape.

This housing crisis did not come about b/c democrats got minorities loans.

When all else fails, blame any non-white, eh?

This is too simplified and is a desperate attempt at republicans to blame someone, because the blame has been landing squarely a rightfully on their "free market rocks, deregulate everything" asses.

Your trolling lacks vision, nuclear rape.

In our culture being wrong is associated with failure. Rather than acknowledging new information and incorporating it into their conclusions, trolls get on the defensive.

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/??

Draw your own conclusion. The information clearly places a lot of blame on republicans.