Posted on 09/15/2008 5:31:42 AM PDT by KStorm
Wow. Politicizing it right out of the box. Just what you want in a leader....... not!
Agreed! Obama's charges are going to stick unless refuted. The RATS were successful in tying the corporate corruption that occurred on Bildo Klintoon's watch to the Bush administration because every time a new case was announced, the RATS said, "See? Look at how all this stuff is happening now!" Of course, what was happening now was the prosecution, not the crimes, but without refutation, it was seen as a Bush problem.
From everything we've seen the past few weeks with the McCain campaign, I think this will be refuted. Further, I think I'm not alone in hoping part of that is a huge stomp on that scum Jamie Gorelick.
And I would imagine she's gotten filthy rich in the process.
She must be laughing her ass off at the frauds she's perpetrated on the American people.
How many Wall St types have been writing checks to Obama because he’s hip (according to the Drive Bys and Hollywood, not me)?
Like it was discovered that one of Obama’s advisors was in it thick at Fannie, he probably shouldn’t go down this road either.
Yes, W pushed the ownership society to the silly level as well, but it can be laid more at the feet of the Dems than the Pubbies, generally. Still, I like McCain’s focus on reforming the financial markets, rather than pointing blame. It’s the perfect counter to Obama’s less than credible finger pointing.
dims own 99.999% of this problem... keep lying you muzzie POS... we know it is what you do!
LLS
As long as the dems have the mainstream media in their pocket, they don't have to have logic on their side. They have their pals keep hammering dem talking points until truth cannot see the light of day. Hey don't they have twenty something percent of the american people believing 9/11 was an inside job?
She went to the "right" schools and has the "right" friends. But, yeah. Why isn't that woman in jail????
(I subscribe to William F. Buckley's statement that we'd be better off being governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard.)
What is really pathetic is that BO is talking to the uneducated 1/2 of the voters that believe every word he says and elect these stupid bums back into office cycle after cycle.
Yes, and as I posted the following on another thread earlier today, this is how that policy—requiring that banks not adhere to sound lending standards!—played out:
The Boston Fed published a study in 1992 that led to banks being pressured to lower their mortgage standards in order to avoid disparate effects within different racial groups. That is, banks holding to high mortgage lending standards was itself deemed to be discriminatory. Here’s an excerpt that’s available online: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/side/partthree.html and indeed subprime lending (disproportionately to minority borrowers) is a large part of this crisis.
Banks were forced to make the loans, and then they took available steps to move them off their balance sheets.
FDIC COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION MANUAL
Available by Subscription from the FDIC
Fair Housing Section
In the previous section of this guide, A Comparative Analysis of Residential Loan Applications, we stressed the importance of reviewing loan policies and procedures for any disparate impact implications, i.e., where policies and practices may appear neutral on their face but have the net effect of a disparate impact on a protected group. If an adverse effect or impact on a prohibited bases group is shown, it is the responsibility of the institution to justify the particular policy or practice by a “business necessity.” Some policies or practices that may raise disparate impact questions include, but are not limited to, the following excerpted from the”FDIC Compliance Examination Manual”
* A requirement that the property securing a mortgage loan must not exceed a particular age, or appraisal practices that establish unrealistically low values for older properties
* Restricting mortgage lending to loans for certain types of properties, such as single family homes, properties having no more than two floors, those with large lots, garages, or with large square footage requirements
* A policy of not making loans on properties in certain locations or appraisal practices that arbitrarily discount the value of a property because of its location
* A policy of making mortgage loans only to applicants who have previously owned a home
* Establishing highly restrictive downpayment or income requirements, e.g., requiring a 25 percent downpayment or setting a very low (such as 20 per-cent) maximum monthly mortgage payment to income ratio
* Setting high minimum mortgage loan amounts that effectively exclude low-income borrowers or low maximum loan amounts that limit the financial institution’s participation in the mortgage market
* Arbitrarily excluding FHA or VA mortgage loans
In addition, general and not specific subjective lending criteria may raise effects test or disparate impact questions. Examples of subjective lending criteria that may lead to possible unlawful discrimination include:
* The property should be in a “stable” or “rising” area, should be “well-maintained” and have an “attractive appearance” or “good curb appeal”
* The neighborhood should be “desirable”; there should be “homogeneity of residents and structures”; or the neighborhood should reflect “satisfactory pride of ownership”
* Applicants must not be of “questionable” character; must have an “excellent” credit rating; or must have “adequate” longevity on the job
Such subjective criteria may allow lending personnel to arrive at differing interpretations. Also, they may have the effect of discouraging creditworthy applicants.
This one goes back on both parties. You can selectively highlight areas where the Dems were responsible, areas where the GOP was truly responsible and areas of shared blame.
This mess was 15-years in the creation with the allowance and development of derivatives. People really didn’t learn anything from the 1994 derivative blowup that forced Orange County into bankruptcy.
Greenspan then tossed too much gas on the fire trying to keep it from going out after 9-11. His gas did help Bush get elected to a second term. But he poured too much on.
I have one word for the cause of this crisis...
G R E E N S P A N!
Wasn't he appointed and re-appointed by Republicans and Democrats alike?
Not much.
But then, from 1998 up through 2006, pols of both parties were basically sticking fingers in ears and joining the happy chorus of
"la la la la - housing prices can only go up - la la la - these mortgage tranches are AAA rated by Moody's - la la la - subprime is contained - la la la - Can't Hear You!!!"
GOP and Rats both guilty as sin on this one. Both put the interests of their banker and builder donors above the national interest. As if that is something new....
I shocked my wife with that exact statistic just yesterday. I believe I said "35 percent of dems" which was the number I heard and that's pretty close to your 20 something percent of all USAmericans". She had a "were domed" feeling after hearing that.
LLS
What “crisis”? the market is only down 2.5%. It was down 3% two weeks ago. Big whoop. So Lehman failed. So what? They should have failed. Goldman Sachs will do fine because they weren’t as stupid as Lehman or Bear. Let the markets work!
“but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to.”
Free-market capitalism, where the government has little control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.