[ådrrraj]

Last video: Bill Clinton steering away from idiotic issues clouding the campaign

(Though I'd change that to a if he was previously saying something about associations with Duke that brought on the comparison between association with Duke and Wright.)

[NikkitaZ]

And Fox

[CaseyFronczekHomie]

Clearly Pelosi telling the Republicans it was their fault FORCED the Republicans to vote against what they thought was in Americas best interest? No no no, it could not possibly be they are playing partisan bullshit, instead, Pelosi has a magical power over them, wherein, they would have voted for the bailout, but Pelosi's speach forced them to vote against what they thought was in the U.S.'s best interest?

[golozhopik]

I think the idea that this could've been "avoided" is a bit of a pipe dream. If you want to say "dealt with in a less painful manner" then fine. But there was always going to be pain.

-Arrian

[gactanync]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Pelosi is Bene Gesserit! Do you think she will sell me some spice, or teach me the ways of the force? Clearly the Republicans are weak minded if they fall for jedi mind tricks.

*waves his hand* These are not the corporate tax cuts you are looking for!

[erepsysoulpfbs]

Wrong. The basis of the crisis is when regulating bodies under the control of the Republicans, changed regulations, i.e. eliminated them, while at the same time encouraging more people to take out mortgages they could not afford.

Prior, lenders were required to make some effort to ensure the people borrowing, could pay. The regulators removed that, this mess happened as a result(with some steps in between by private actors not members of the government).

People are treating this like some long term impossible to understand economic mystery, it is not.

Lenders did not mind giving out bad loans because they made a killing in the fees and then sold the loans to the big interests, who packaged good loans with crappy loans and split them into pieces, than sold them to investors. It lasted till people realized they were buying worthless securities, than no one wanted to buy them and the holders of the interests were than stuck with them.

If the regulation requiring that lenders actually see that the borrowers could afford to pay, this would not have happened.

[jgztw2es]

Except that although you and others on this board have been asked this many times you can not actual produce relevant regulations that were removed. Regulations for many agencies are internal and not something easily available to the public outside of official documents for the industry. Further, even if they are not readily available or easy to find, that does not mean they do not exist. I suppose the New York Times and other respectable media sources are lying about this in some sort of grand conspiracy?

You also can't produce Democratic proposed regulations to fix the underlying problems. Find Republican regulation proposals is easy. How is this relevant?

[rockboyzaza]

You want me to give you internal documents from an administrative agency which says that they will no longer regulate an industry in a certain way-where can I get that from? Simply because I do not have it, does not mean the policy does not exist. Do you think the New York Times and others in the media, as well as congressman who talk about it, invented this as a big lie? Is it a conspiracy?

It was the national policy for several years. You could go into a bank and ask for a mortgage and they would only ask you about your financial situation, not asking for any proof. 12 years ago if you walked into a bank and asked for a mortgage, the banks were required to get varying levels of proof you could afford it-what more evidence is needed?

The Republicans are to blame because they were in pwoer when the change was made.

[popandopulus]

Just something interesting about level 3 assets... and leveraging. (From May 08)

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=17068
Ten companies now have more Level 3 assets than capital. In order they are (as a % of total shareholder equity:

1) Bear Stearns (BSC): 313.97%
2) Morgan Stanley (MS): 234.88%
3) Merrill Lynch (MER): 225.4%
4) Goldman Sachs (GS): 191.56%
5) Lehman (LEH): 171.18%
6) Fannie Mae (FNM): 161.48%
7) Northwest Air (NWA): 142.02%
8) Citigroup (C): 125.06%
9) Prudential (PRU): 119.36%
10) Hartford (HIG): 108.52% You would have done pretty well shorting this list so far...

[TimoDassss]

You want me to give you internal documents from an administrative agency which says that they will no longer regulate an industry in a certain way-where can I get that from? Simply because I do not have it, does not mean the policy does not exist. Do you think the New York Times and others in the media, as well as congressman who talk about it, invented this as a big lie? Is it a conspiracy?

So, just to make this clear, something doesn't exist so instead of going with that you decide to assume it must exist to justify your ranting? Do you know what a truther is?

Vesayan

It was the national policy for several years. You could go into a bank and ask for a mortgage and they would only ask you about your financial situation, not asking for any proof. 12 years ago if you walked into a bank and asked for a mortgage, the banks were required to get varying levels of proof you could afford it-what more evidence is needed? And what made that standard practice? Again, look of Raines and then look up who his backers are. Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae are intimately liked to one party. Hint, it isn't the Republicans.

[9Goarveboofe]

Patroklos: Yes or no: "I believe that the New York Times and other members of the media as well as members of Congress have lied to us about changes in regulation."

[panholio]

Hmmm... someone(s) else seems to have taken a notice to HIG (off the level 3 list... though that's probably not where they noticed it )

Falling like a rock.

[Alupleintilla]

Originally posted by Aeson
Well, I don't think they need to be illegal, just firms have to be held accountable if they leverage themselves up on illiquid assets. It's not rocket surgery... if you can't sell an asset quickly and you're leveraged up 30:1... a ~3% move can wipe you out. And 3% moves, even in the most stable assets, can happen rather quickly. But the thing is that we all pay for it when they are held accountable. Since that's the case we need to outright prevent it.

[Immampdah]

Originally posted by Lancer
This is great. We're all agreed that this whole mess is a case of the left using home mortgages that could never be repaid to buy votes among the poor? Yes? I seem to recall a certain President of the United States, when running for re-election in 2004, touting the high percentage of home ownership achieved under his presidency.

[CefGemYAffews]

I'm not looking at this thread anymore.

Its all politics Zkrib, they're all dirty rotten scoundrels in Washington both sides but there's so many in this forum that I can troll its hard to resist. Sorry, not meant to disturb you, but you know.

[pavlik]

Lancer nailed it in OP. Clinton treied to 1 up the "chicken in every pot" statement. Typical of an administration that practiced sexual instant gratification, and loosed that outlook on the housing market. "Buy more house than you need", being the rallying cry.
As a result, Loans were granted in 2 part harmony, the smaller of the 2 home loans on an ARM. Both not clearly visible, creating an illusion. Didn't work.
Tax on many home purchases weren't included in the payments, leaving home owners to save towards that on their own. Again, creating an illusion that the borrower could afford the purchase.
We'll go back to the 20% down and mortgage insurance.

[vansVoish]

Originally posted by Lancer
Believe me, the 70s were screwed up too. Lots of businesses died screaming for gov help against unfair competition but got no hearing. What's so screwed up about that?

[FredderiK]

Of course we do. Don't be silly.

[jojocomok]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course we do. Don't be silly. Oh? Like what? Airliners and a very few cars, and weapons.

Other than that we sell raw materials.

[PRengin]

First thing we should do is tax all imports that are manufactured for pennies per hour worked right up to US union wages cost so that industry can again have a chance here Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act FTW!

-Arrian