Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freddie & Fannie Unconstitutional Bail Out Using What?
The National Expositor ^ | 21 July, 2008 | Devvy Kidd

Posted on 09/19/2008 6:25:34 AM PDT by kellynla

Arthur Henning of the Chicago Tribune said back in 1935, "The New Deal will bring the Communist Party within striking distance of overthrow of the American form of government…" Mark Sullivan of the Buffalo Evening News also expressed alarm in 1935: "The New Deal is to America what the early phase of Nazism was to Germany…"

The nation is awash in fear because they are coming to realize that while they’ve been buying all the hype from the cabal of gangsters in Washington for decades, reality is now setting in as poverty is slamming millions who used to belong to the middle class. From dangerous lending practices to the derivatives time bomb waiting to go off and inflation getting ready to launch into hyper inflation, the situation is more grim by the week. A financial catastrophe so many have been warning about for decades, it’s all coming home to roost. The "perfect storm" as it’s being called. The beast is now devouring itself and we the people are caught in their cross fire.

Unfortunately, most Americans haven’t been listening. They’re either addicted to sports, shopping, porn, drugs or yaking on their cell phones while the world has been heading for financial Armageddon. Oh, they perk up when they hear things like how many new jobs Bill Clinton created! Clinton used to love to brag that he had created 14 million new jobs during his tenure. He did? Sure, and Mr. Jones can thank Clinton for all three of his minimum wage jobs while Clinton supported the destruction of our true and meaningful job bases: ag, industrial and manufacturing. George W. Bush has steadfastly supported the same destructive redistribution of America’s wealth into the hands of foreign countries while our people go without - backed up by both Democrats and Republicans.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalexpositor.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: bailout; clueless; economy; fanniemae; federalreserve; freddiemac; housingbubble; tinfoil; treasury

1 posted on 09/19/2008 6:25:35 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla

That is exactly what I have been thinking....isn’t all this bailout illegal?


2 posted on 09/19/2008 6:27:53 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Since when has Congress let the Constitution stand in their way? Probably 80% of the laws they pass and money they spend is NOT allowed by the Constitution.


3 posted on 09/19/2008 6:30:23 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Maybe it is time to find that perfect country you envision with your unfailing policies and error free management. It’s pretty easy to sit at your computer and type criticism, but I don’t see your name on that perfect legislation.


4 posted on 09/19/2008 6:38:27 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

That’s a good article. That web site is interesting but a bit on the conspiracy side.


5 posted on 09/19/2008 6:40:22 AM PDT by caver (Yes, I did crawl out of a hole in the ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Well, that would be because I am not a legislator.


6 posted on 09/19/2008 6:43:26 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: caver
Those dumb ol’ “conspiracy theorists” also keep going on and on how people will catch on that it ain't no theory—after it's too late, baby.
7 posted on 09/19/2008 6:44:44 AM PDT by kcm.org (DRILL LOS ANGELES--DRILL NOW!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The gov't is in so many businesses where it shouldn't be (e.g., insurance, banking, loans, health, etc.) but we've let it happen. As to bailouts, Chrysler and the S&L bailouts opened the floodgates. Now, any time someone has a problem in competitive markets, they run to their congressman to seek salvation. My opinion: If you built a house 8' below sea level and didn't insure it and it gets wash away, you gambled, you lost...not my problem. If you invested in private companies that pursued high-risk loans and ignored all the red flags on the loan app, you made a bad loan and you get to eat it. You gambled, you lost...not my problem.

When you install a safety net under all private business, you reduce the perceived risk to those who own the company. Jumping in to save private stockholders with public money is not only unconstitutional, it's bad business. Any Congressperson who says they aren't beholding to lobbyists and votes for a bailout is lying through their teeth. At one time you could count on the GOP to try and rein things in...no more. The GOP is as bad as everyone else. I say toss the lot out in November.

8 posted on 09/19/2008 6:47:46 AM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

It is WRONG for the US government to punish all American taxpayers for the illegality of a few private citizens and representatives. It is idiotic to say that because there is no perfect system, we should just shut up and take our lumps when those in power abuse that power to line their own pockets.

Any time that humans are involved in a system of any type, it can be corrupted. The key to saving our civilization lies in how we respond to that corruption, and how we rebuild the system when we have the chance. Bush made the decision to weaken system by bailing out the guilty parties. McCain wants to create ANOTHER government entity to monitor the markets. No one is doing what keeps this kind of thing from happening in the first place... PUNISHING THE GUILTY, and letting them fend for themselves.


9 posted on 09/19/2008 6:51:22 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: econjack
When you install a safety net under all private business, you reduce the perceived risk to those who own the company.

But there isn't a safety net under all businesses. There's been plenty of failures, losses of jobs, and loss of equity to go around.

Jumping in to save private stockholders with public money is not only unconstitutional, it's bad business.

It's perfectly constitutional unless you or someone else can get the SCOTUS to say it isn't.

10 posted on 09/19/2008 6:53:59 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Unfortunately, most Americans haven’t been listening.

That's it. Blame Americans. It worked for Jimmy Carter. /s

11 posted on 09/19/2008 6:55:18 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

First of all, your omniscient attitude displayed in this post belies the fact that your butt may have just been rescued by this step. It is not WRONG, sir, for the government to take steps to prevent millions of American citizens from losing trillions of dollars because of conditions.

The so-called “few private citizens and representatives” that you refer to are likely those who voted to alter some of the regulations, to the great delight of most of the public and 98 of the senators who voted on it at the time. There was a consensus that we were over-regulated and the world economy demanded we get more competetive. Guys like you were screaming, “Why are the illegal restrictions of this government stopping my freedom???” So, they relaxed the rules.

As happens, some took over-advantage and the pendulum has swung. But, ride the wave we did. And you benefitted. So, you were just as culpable as your bad guys. Grow up. This is not about “corruption”, but you sound like a silly little boy laying on your back kicking your heels. The stock market is recovering and salvaging your investmensts, so be grateful and put away the “I shouldn’t be punished for Jimmy stealing the twinkie”.

The world is complex and difficult. Let’s tear out all the wires from the space shuttle because they are just too hard for you to understand. Please. You have no idea what you are ranting about.


12 posted on 09/19/2008 7:28:29 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
But there isn't a safety net under all businesses.

Very true. Only those businesses that have a lot of employees (i.e., voters) are protected.

It's perfectly constitutional unless you or someone else can get the SCOTUS to say it isn't.

This is saying that nothing is illegal until the law is broken and someone tests it in court. That's not how the legal system works. You are charged with a crime, whether tested or not, and then the court judges this instance of the crime. One person may "get off" without sentence based upon the weight of evidence. Another person, tried for the same crime, may go to jail because the evidence is different. Bailing out private companies is not constitutional and, if I had the resources, I'd bring suit. The fact that I haven't makes it no less illegal than before. Perhaps someone with deep pockets will put an end to it.

13 posted on 09/19/2008 7:29:53 AM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: econjack
Very true. Only those businesses that have a lot of employees (i.e., voters) are protected.

Tell that to the Lehman employees, and the other hundreds of thousands of voters in the financial and real estate sectors who have already lost their jobs. (not to mention all the voters who have lost a fortune in equity).

This is saying that nothing is illegal until the law is broken

That's a mischaracterization.

and someone tests it in court. That's not how the legal system works.

Actually, that is how the legal system works. A law isn't considered settled until it's tested at the appellate level.

14 posted on 09/19/2008 7:45:12 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I agree, there are a lot of employees who still lost their jobs (Enron, Lehman, etc.) but I still maintain that you only get Congressional attention if lots of employees are involved. For whatever reasons, Enron, Lehman, et al, didn't get bailed out. My point is that none of them should be bailed out.

A law isn't considered settled until it's tested at the appellate level.

I don't buy this. I'm sure there are laws on the books that have never had their constitutionality questioned. The fact that someone can be charged with breaking a law, tested or not, suggests that the law is in force. If you murder someone, you are charged with that crime. The only hope of escaping the law is to use the weight of evidence to show that you didn't commit the crime or you were mentally incompetent at the time. Saying something isn't "settled" is a lot different than saying the law is not in force.

15 posted on 09/19/2008 8:07:29 AM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

What a dreamer you are.

Please explain how I “benefitted” from a 35% loss in my retirement portfolio, or from inflated housing costs, or from artificially keeping interest rates low so that people who could never afford mortgages in the first place could get them. While you’re working on that, why don’t you also tell us how Joe Taxpayer is culpable for for the criminality of Raines and the rest of his ilk?

The facts are indisputable: the mortgage mess was predicated on the part of democrat legislation to force banks to give away mortgages to the poor. The dems that legislated this morass were bought and paid for by Fannie and Freddie, whose directors were lying about earnings to generate huge bonuses. It is utterly sophomoric to suggest that because a few benefitted, the rest of America should foot the bill.Or do you think the government has it’s own money? Likewise, it is equally idiotic to suggest that because the market was up, every American is as culpable as the few who lied to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.

You actually seem to think that the collapse of the housing market and the slide of the stock market are not interrelated in the least, and that the losses incurred my so many millions have nothing to do whatsoever with corruption. Do you even read the news? Your complete lack of comprehension is belied by your immediate degeneration into personal attacks. I guess that’s what some people do when they can’t compete in the arena of rational debate... or even reality.


16 posted on 09/19/2008 8:09:13 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: econjack
Why don't you point out a country that doesn't get involved when there are widespread financial problems and maybe I'll be convinced?

I'm sure there are laws on the books that have never had their constitutionality questioned. Not just whether they are constitutional.

Sure, like the laws that are never used or enforced. There's always questions about applicability and meaning for new laws, not just constitutionality.

If you murder someone, you are charged with that crime.

Geez, why don't you pick a transgression that predates legal systems next time?

17 posted on 09/19/2008 8:20:30 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

If I explained, you would not listen. Therein lies your problem. The “facts” are subject to interpretation. But, please get off the grassy knoll.

The collapse in the housing market was exacerbated by overbuilding, and I was one of those contributing. Sure easy lending helped, but we thought it would never end. But, sometimes supply exceeds demand. And a lot more than a few were intending on benefitting from that run up. Many folks did get their first home and are still there.

I have a comprehension; it just doesn’t include your self-righteous Monday-morning quarterbacking rants. Leave the fixes to the adults, son. Go back to your video games and screaming at the TV screen. And check your retirement plan next year after the doers get up and work with maturity to make some changes. If it is back up, don’t you dare take credit. And, don’t bother to check the market today after the “crash”.

Read the news? The media is full of the pompous self-appointed experts with a community college degree in journalism and you don’t like them when it comes to reporting on McCain/Palin, but now they are your new best friends when it comes to the economy? Wake up! They are contributing to chaos and fright to get an effect: You ranting at the “government corruption”.

Your life is so easy compared to the rest of the world, it would be laughable if your complaining were not so pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.


18 posted on 09/19/2008 9:10:43 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
The facts are indisputable: the mortgage mess was predicated on the part of democrat legislation to force banks to give away mortgages to the poor. The dems that legislated this morass were bought and paid for by Fannie and Freddie, whose directors were lying about earnings to generate huge bonuses.

Not a flame, just a correction. This mess rests clearly on the shoulders of George W. Bush, whose Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico) was signed on September 6, 2001. From this agreement, the New Alliance Task Force was formed in 2003 to create new ways to tap the illegal alien market. Among the changes was a relaxation of banking rules. One of the changes allowed the illegal aliens to use a Matricula Consular card as ID and an tax return with an ITIN instead of US SSN as proof of income.

What legislation are you describing that required banks to give home loans to the poor and who signed it into law?

19 posted on 09/19/2008 9:51:21 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
The collapse in the housing market was exacerbated by overbuilding, and I was one of those contributing.

What part did Bush's Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico) and New Alliance Task Force play in the collapse of the housing market?

20 posted on 09/19/2008 9:54:19 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

I personally believe very little. We builders in AZ went hog-wild thinking that the boomers were all going to retire here. For a while it looked that way. The illegal population allowed for more construction, but everyone would complain loudly if the labor had not been available. I wanted to secure the borders, but I also wanted the stucco finishers to keep that price in budget. There is enough blame to go around.


21 posted on 09/19/2008 10:12:21 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
What legislation are you describing that required banks to give home loans to the poor and who signed it into law?

-----------------------------------------

It is called the Community Reinvestment Act, (originally signed by President Carter), which required banks to report the percentages of loans to minorities, which was reported as their "CRA" score, that was taken into account by bank regulators whenever any bank requested permission to do anything (which is why banks gave "grants" to organizations like ACORN).

When banks were unable to find enough minorities with good credit to make those loans, this was followed by legislation that allowed banks to sell "sub prime" mortgages, followed by legislation that allowed these mortgages to be combined into "securities" and sold under the assumption that they were guarenteed by the Fed.

Several articles today, including one by Boortz, discuss it so adequately that I don't need to repeat it here.

22 posted on 09/19/2008 11:31:12 AM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
It is called the Community Reinvestment Act, (originally signed by President Carter), which required banks to report the percentages of loans to minorities, which was reported as their "CRA" score, that was taken into account by bank regulators whenever any bank requested permission to do anything (which is why banks gave "grants" to organizations like ACORN).

While the CRA certainly was in effect, the current meltdown can be placed directly at the feet of Bush, not Carter. It was Bush's policies that led directly to the change in banking rules and regulations under the terms of the P4P agreement and NATF.

Banks didn't give grants for housing to ACORN. Banks, like Citibank formed a partnership with ACORN to create new mortgage programs for low-income (read: illegal aliens) wage earners. (See: Mortgages to Illegal Immigrants Come Under Fire) FWIW, Citibank was one of the founding members of the New Alliance Task Force. (See: Chicago: Banks Allow Mortgages to Illegal Immigrants)

2. The Democrats, under Clinton, strengthened a government-created monster called the "Community Reinvestment Act." This law was then used by "activists" and "community organizers" (like Obama?) to coerce lending institutions to make these bad loans ... millions of them.

Congress didn't need to coerce any banks or lending institutions to make these bad loans. These loans were always a part of the New Alliance Task Force formed under the auspices of the terms of Bush's Partnership for Prosperity Agreement. Banks were the driving force here, not Congress.

I quote from the FDIC's own web site about the P4P agreement (Linking International Remittance Flows to Financial Services: Tapping the Latino Immigrant Market):

Several other key barriers contribute to the high number of unbanked immigrants, primarily a limited ability to understand and speak English and cultural distrust of financial institutions. These barriers create real challenges. However, in Chicago and other parts of the Midwest, organizations are bringing unbanked Latino immigrants into the financial mainstream with the right mix of innovative products, financial education programs, effective outreach programs, and a strong commitment from banks to serve this market, all of which are being facilitated by the development and activities of a few organizations, including the New Alliance Task Force (NATF).

New Alliance Task Force

  • Comprises representatives from the FDIC, Mexican Consulate, 34 banks, community-based organizations, federal bank regulatory agencies, government agencies, secondary market companies, and private mortgage insurance companies.
  • Organized into four working groups that provide updates during the NATF's quarterly meetings.
  • Financial Education—educates immigrants on the benefits and importance of holding accounts, the credit process, and mainstream banking.
  • Bank Products and Services Working Group—encourages banks and thrifts to develop financial service products with remittance features as a strategy to reach the unbanked immigrant community.
  • Mortgage Products—created the New Alliance Model Loan Product for potential homeowners who pay taxes using an ITIN.
  • Social Projects—provides scholarship funds for immigrant students and fosters economic support for Plazas Comunitarias, a program that will give Mexican citizens an opportunity to finish their high school education.

The NATF was launched in May 2003 by the Consulate General of Mexico in Chicago and the Chicago Office of the FDIC's Community Affairs Program in support of the U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Prosperity. The NATF is a broad-based coalition of 62 members, including the Mexican Consulate, 34 banks, community-based organizations, federal bank regulatory agencies, government agencies, and representatives from the secondary market and private mortgage insurance (PMI) companies. The majority of the participating financial institutions are community banks in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. The coalition's programs and initiatives address the critical need among Mexican immigrants, both established and recently arrived, to successfully develop asset-building strategies to improve their quality of life in the United States. This goal is critical as Latinos continue to have lower homeownership rates and less access to mainstream financial services and credit instruments.

In addition to promoting general educational opportunities for immigrants, NATF members sponsor financial education programs and are developing financial products that include remittance features and mortgage products that help immigrants overcome barriers to homeownership.

The NATF's Financial Education Working Group educates immigrants on the benefits and importance of holding accounts, the credit process, and mainstream banking as an alternative to the "fringe" banking system. Ten thousand immigrants have participated in financial education classes and workshops using the FDIC's Money Smart, a Spanish-language adult financial education curriculum, and similar financial education programs in the Chicago area. A number of delivery channels exist, including financial institutions, churches, housing organizations, job training centers, and community colleges. In addition to these programs, the Mexican Consulate of Chicago, in collaboration with local banks, launched a financial education program in Spanish in January 2004. Several institutions donated simulated ATMs to train immigrants on banking technologies.

The NATF Bank Products and Services Working Group encourages banks and thrifts to develop financial service products with remittance features as a strategy to reach the unbanked immigrant community. In recent years, banks in the Midwest have begun to realize the significant dollar amounts generated by remittance transfers and have taken steps to break down some of the barriers preventing immigrants' access to the banking system. Community banks in Chicago and Milwaukee, for example, have taken the lead in offering international remittance services. Second Federal Savings and First Bank of the Americas were the first community banks in the country to accept the Mexican Matricula Consular card and develop remittance products through dual ATM cards. Soon afterward, Mitchell Bank and North Shore Bank in Milwaukee followed suit. These institutions are aware that many immigrants, regardless of their current immigration status, will eventually settle in this country. This offers an opportunity for banks to cross-sell other products and offer a wider range of financial services.

Fifteen of the 34 NATF banks are now offering products with remittance services that allow immigrants to open bank accounts, avoid high-cost wire services, and incur lower remittance costs for sending money back home. Dual ATM cards or stored-value cards offer the lowest transfer cost: 1.5 percent of the amount sent.29 In the past two years, 50,000 new accounts totaling $100 million (with an average account balance of $2,000) have been opened at NATF banks in the Midwest. Many of these accounts were opened using the banks' remittance services. Other NATF banks, including South Central Bank and Lakeside Bank, are using the Federal Reserve System's recently unveiled FedAutomated Clearing House International Mexico Service as a cost-effective alternative to expensive wire transfers.30

Conclusion

Recent economic and demographic trends, coupled with increased financial flows across international borders, have significant implications for U.S. banks and thrifts. As more insured financial institutions reach out to the Latino immigrant market, these institutions are expected to experience more rapid deposit and loan growth. In the Midwest, both small and large banks are capitalizing on remittance flows as a short-term strategy to draw immigrants into the formal banking system. Leveraging these relationships will help these institutions offer a broader range of financial services, positively contributing to their bottom line.

Many Latino immigrants will eventually settle in the United States and raise families. Banks in the Midwest are taking steps to capitalize on the growing presence of this immigrant group. The continued success of the New Alliance Task Force demonstrates that unbanked Latin American immigrants can be brought into the financial mainstream. As a result, the FDIC is considering the feasibility of expanding the NATF pilot to other parts of the country where there are significant immigrant populations. These broad-based private-public sector alliances will help immigrants increase savings, build assets, and strengthen their financial security.

When banks were unable to find enough minorities with good credit to make those loans, this was followed by legislation that allowed banks to sell "sub prime" mortgages, followed by legislation that allowed these mortgages to be combined into "securities" and sold under the assumption that they were guarenteed by the Fed.

Again, I must ask to which legislation you're referring here and which President signed it into law that forced banks to make loans to illegal aliens?

23 posted on 09/19/2008 1:08:56 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
I personally believe very little.

Can you provide anything besides personal anecdotes that supports this belief?

There is enough blame to go around.

What blame does Bush deserve?

24 posted on 09/19/2008 1:11:48 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

The next time California is on fire, the Government should not interfere.


25 posted on 09/19/2008 1:16:48 PM PDT by verity ("Lord, what fools we mortals be!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Can you provide anything besides personal criticism to support your belief that Bush deserves the blame? After all, are you connecting the dots in reality or in your own mind?

Tom holds up bank, Tom is to blame.
One hundred million people do four hundred million actions and thirty million get hurt. Is Bill to blame? What about Dave? What if Steve is partly to blame? Could Sam have contributed?


26 posted on 09/19/2008 1:24:25 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
Can you provide anything besides personal criticism to support your belief that Bush deserves the blame? After all, are you connecting the dots in reality or in your own mind?

I have provided the links that pointed directly to his policies, when they were implemented, the market they affected and the effect they had. Didn't you read anything to which I linked?

So, I guess the answer to my question is, no, you cannot provide anything besides personal anecdotes that Bush's policies had only a small part in the sub-prime meltdown.

One hundred million people do four hundred million actions and thirty million get hurt. Is Bill to blame? What about Dave? What if Steve is partly to blame? Could Sam have contributed?

Perhaps you could show how Bush's policies did not cause the sub-prime meltdown and how other factors are to blame.

27 posted on 09/19/2008 2:02:34 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: verity
"The next time California is on fire, the Government should not interfere."

I'll let that wisecrack pass...but don't press your luck.
Remember, FR is from CA too, genius.
28 posted on 09/19/2008 2:23:59 PM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Surely you don’t mean that article that claims criticism for home sales to illegals in Chicago? That’s your empirical proof that George Bush is directly to blame for the various troubles in the financial & housing sectors? And the banking issues about dealing with potentially illegal aliens is still a stretch to see a connection.

So, you can guess, the answer to your question is actually, you have not provided anything but a bunch of links, so, hey, check out the car parts at Checkers.

How to prove something did not cause something else? What would you consider sufficient evidence? Before I start down your rhetorical rabbit trail, it would be useful to know if you have any intention of listening.


29 posted on 09/19/2008 2:26:47 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
Surely you don’t mean that article that claims criticism for home sales to illegals in Chicago? That’s your empirical proof that George Bush is directly to blame for the various troubles in the financial & housing sectors? And the banking issues about dealing with potentially illegal aliens is still a stretch to see a connection.

The fact that you say you do not see the connection does not mean there is not a connection. These were not banking issues dealing with potentially illegal aliens as you erroneously state.

These were banking policies put into place to specifically tap the illegal alien market by providing banking goods and services such as checking and savings accounts, credit cards, home, auto and business loans. Banks placed representatives in all Mexican consulates to explain to Mexican illegal aliens while they obtained Matricula Consular cards how they could make use of these newly authorized banking services.

This was not limited to Chicago. Chicago was the starting point in 2003. By 2005, it had spread across the country and all banks and lenders were taking part. That's why this meltdown has been so far-reaching.

None of this would have been possible before Bush and Fox signed the Partnership for Prosperity agreement in 2001 and the formation of the New Alliance Task Force in 2003. Prior to that banks were prohibited from providing these goods and services to illegal aliens because the illegals lacked the proper credentials to obtain them. This all changed after 2003. In May, 2003, the New Alliance Task Force relaxed banking rules and regulations so banks could go after the growing illegal alien market.

How to prove something did not cause something else? What would you consider sufficient evidence? Before I start down your rhetorical rabbit trail, it would be useful to know if you have any intention of listening.

Right now all you've provided is just so much hot-air.

How about you prove the cause of the sub-prime meltdown was something other than Bush's policies? At least that would be a start.

I will give what you provide the same consideration you've given mine.

30 posted on 09/19/2008 3:38:52 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

The point is that the Government does have an appropriate role in times of crisis.


31 posted on 09/19/2008 4:21:31 PM PDT by verity ("Lord, what fools we mortals be!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

If a company is so big that the government has to bail them out, the very first thing the government needs to do is break up the company.


32 posted on 09/19/2008 4:24:49 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Back to front. I don’t have to “prove” that Bush did not cause the housing problem. You can give that any consideration you wish. The fact is, you have not even established a credible link. Your “proof” may satisfy your mind, but it is far from persuasive, let alone conclusive.

The illegal market was minimal (maybe not in Chicago)in AZ. I know, when we were building, not one of the buyers were Hispanic, let alone illegal. But, there were plenty of “get rich quick” Californians looking to plunk down $ 500 & turn it into $ 50,000 of equity in a year. A couple of shifty family style investors posing as owner-occupants, even an angry postal worker. But, illegals were not the target market of anyone around the South Valley.

Check out Yahoo Finance today for the article that asks Billionaires what they think of the situation. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“...Mike Bloomberg casts a wide net. The mayor of New York, former Wall Streeter, and founder of financial services company Bloomberg (which made him the 8th richest person in America with a net worth of $20 billion) told reporters Tuesday that, “You can’t just blame the banks, you also can blame the people that took out mortgages ... We were brought up that you first had to put some savings together and then enjoy. But this whole society has gotten to the fact that we’re a ‘now, give it to me today’ kind of society. I think regulation has not been adequate.

“There’s no one person to blame other than all of us,” he added.

Copyrighted, Forbes.com. All rights reserved.”

Well, now. I take that back. I guess I can “prove” that it is not primarily the President’s fault. Mr. Bloomberg is my star witness and your opinion is on the other side of the argument.


33 posted on 09/19/2008 4:27:11 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Why don't you point out a country that doesn't get involved when there are widespread financial problems and maybe I'll be convinced?

I really don't care if every country does it; that still wouldn't make it right. My position is that private transactions between private parties should find those parties bear the risk and reward regardless of whether the reward is positive or negative. If you can point to the article in the Constitution that says it's the duty and obligation of the Federal government to insure that large companies don't lose money or go bankrupt, fine. assuming there is no such article, I don't think federal dollars should be used to bail out bad private business decisions.

34 posted on 09/19/2008 4:48:04 PM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
Back to front. I don’t have to “prove” that Bush did not cause the housing problem. You can give that any consideration you wish. The fact is, you have not even established a credible link. Your “proof” may satisfy your mind, but it is far from persuasive, let alone conclusive.

I didn't ask you to prove Bush didn't cause it.

I asked you to prove what did cause it.

As far as proof, all you've provided, and all I suspect you will provide is anecdotes. No facts. No figures. No links. Nothing. And, quoting your hero, Mike Bloomberg is not proving what caused the sub-prime meltdown.

"...“There’s no one person to blame other than all of us,” he added."

Bloomberg is saying that all 400 million American citizens are to blame for the sub-prime meltdown.

Are you in complete agreement with his conclusion?

Since you're claiming Bloomy as your star witness, please explain how all 400 million Americans are to blame for the sub-prime meltdown.

Please provide cites.

35 posted on 09/19/2008 5:59:17 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
It is not WRONG, sir, for the government to take steps to prevent millions of American citizens from losing trillions of dollars because of conditions.

It is wrong when a republic is subverted to socialism or worse, corporate communism, by it's leaders who actually have pledged to protect the constitution.

In fact it's treason. Nothing under the sun can excuse this treason against the American people.
36 posted on 09/19/2008 6:05:22 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
It is not WRONG, sir, for the government to take steps to prevent millions of American citizens from losing trillions of dollars because of conditions.

And when those trillions are devalued to relative worthlessness? Sure, we won't lose any, in fact we'll have more! whoopee!

37 posted on 09/19/2008 6:09:23 PM PDT by ovrtaxt ( One useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a Congress. --John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

“Whoopee”?

Tragic that you revel in the possibilty of collapse. At least the adults are trying to fix the problem and minimize the damage. Whether our tax bills continue to be costly or your pension plan goes to zero, is important to me. I would rather bear the load than have you in poverty because every security your retirement goes belly up.


38 posted on 09/20/2008 12:02:01 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

Bloomberg, who has a lot more money & savvy than your Chicago article (which didn’t prove the national housing crisis was Bush’s fault anyway).

And read the article on the Old Timers of Wall Street. This stuff too will pass.


39 posted on 09/20/2008 12:11:56 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

You’re not too swift with sarcasm I take it.


40 posted on 09/21/2008 8:00:00 AM PDT by ovrtaxt ( One useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a Congress. --John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
Bloomberg, who has a lot more money & savvy than your Chicago article (which didn’t prove the national housing crisis was Bush’s fault anyway).

I posted more links that to just that one article. Read the other links I posted.

41 posted on 09/21/2008 9:25:48 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
Wow. For a newbie, you sure can blather.

The collapse in the housing market was exacerbated by overbuilding, and I was one of those contributing.

Projection of your actions onto others... what a liberal tactic. In addition to not answering a single point I raised, you're not even aware of your admission for what you imagine I should take blame for; namely, benefitting from this whole morass.

Leave the fixes to the adults, son. Go back to your video games and screaming at the TV screen.

What the hell are you talking about?

The media is full of the pompous self-appointed experts with a community college degree in journalism and you don’t like them when it comes to reporting on McCain/Palin, but now they are your new best friends when it comes to the economy?

Huh? Facts aren't subject to interpretation, they are facts. Unless, of course, you believe in the liberal fallacy of "perception is reality", which it sounds like you do. Check my posting history to see where I get my news... I assume you know that you can do that, right?

I'm done with you, my friend.
42 posted on 09/22/2008 6:46:41 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: snowrip

I appreciate that, assuming it means you will refrain from useless rebuttals.


43 posted on 09/22/2008 6:49:59 AM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: caver
That web site is interesting but a bit on the conspiracy side.

You mean Paulson wasn't head of GS in the heydey of packaging CDOs and stuffing people's pension funds with them?

44 posted on 09/22/2008 7:04:01 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2085108/posts

The CRA was signed into law by Carter in 1977. It was a social-engineering move to eliminate “redlining”, and was lightly-enforced until Clinton’s Treasury Dept. expanded it into the trillion-dollar giveaway that helped to bring down the industry. It essentially forces major lenders to assign mortgages to high-risk applicants in minority neighborhoods (lenders which ordinarily would NEVER have qualifed for those loans). There are a wealth of links on the subject; I included one of the links from my About Page, which covers the history and some of the banking aspects.

The point is that these things were set in motion before Bush ever took office. I should mention that I am no Bushbot; his policies on illegal aliens and his position on the NAU, LOST and new world orderisms absolutely disqualify him as a conservative, in my opinion. He has done great things in the WOT, but has lost focus on reshaping the military and many other things that would benefit Americans. Thanks for the well-researched links.


45 posted on 09/22/2008 7:14:11 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
The CRA was signed into law by Carter in 1977. It was a social-engineering move to eliminate “redlining”, and was lightly-enforced until Clinton’s Treasury Dept. expanded it into the trillion-dollar giveaway that helped to bring down the industry. It essentially forces major lenders to assign mortgages to high-risk applicants in minority neighborhoods (lenders which ordinarily would NEVER have qualifed for those loans). There are a wealth of links on the subject; I included one of the links from my About Page, which covers the history and some of the banking aspects.

Thanks for the link. It is an informative article.

I don't doubt that the CRA was the means to the end for groups like ACORN and their ilk.

But, as one of the articles I linked to showed, they, like the banks, had to adapt to the changing marketplace. Mexican (and other latin american) illegal aliens began to displace what had been their core customer base.

As the FDIC page shows, banks were looking to cash in on this market, but were blocked by federal banking regulations which prevented them from doing business with illegal aliens. The fact that Bush met with Vicente Fox to discuss the terms of the P4P a mere three (3) weeks after his inauguration shows Bush was only too eager to get the ball rolling.

So, he put into motion the final straw that broke the camel's back, i.e.: the P4P agreement and NATF.

The P4P agreement, signed a mere 7 months later (September 6, 2001), and NATF (formed in May 2003) removed this obstacle and with the conduit already in place vis-a-vis Clinton's aggressive enforcement of the Carter's CRA, the banks set about shoveling mortgages to illegals as fast as they could.

...Manuel Lopez came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in 1999 after his bus-driving business in Ecuador failed due to runaway inflation. He stayed here illegally and eventually brought over his wife and son and had another daughter here. He makes about 40-thousand dollars a year working for a downtown Chicago parking garage. Two years ago, he started looking to buy a house but the interest rates his broker quoted him were 8 to 9 percent. Then he heard about a program with much better terms run by Citibank and the non-profit group Acorn Housing...

...This savings and loan got its start serving Eastern Europeans but had to adapt – or die – once the neighborhood changed. Mark Doyle is president and CEO of Second Federal. His bank became one of the first to pioneer the practice of making mortgages to undocumented immigrants several years ago...

According to IRS records, since its inception in 1996 they've issued over 11 million ITINs. Wells Fargo reported in 2004 that between 2001 and 2004 they opened over 400,000 new accounts for Mexicans using a Matricula Consular card when, at the time of the report, were opening an average of 22,000 new accounts a month. This figure was just for Wells Fargo and was reported in 2004, when we had not yet reached the height of the sub-prime lending boom. This does not count Bank of America, CitiBank, WaMu, etc., etc., etc.

Since an ITIN and Matricula Consular card are the two primary tools used for the sub-prime loan programs banks used for illegal aliens, we could be looking at as many as 11 million sub-prime loans held by Mexican illegal aliens.

This figure is a fuzzy one since the IRS and Social Security Administration are not sharing information with ICE. If they were, it would be a simple matter to compare IRS ITIN tax records with ICE immigration records to quickly determine who is in the country illegally. If they filed a tax return using an ITIN but they don't have a valid visa, then they're probably here illegally and should be deported. Ditto for false matches on SSNs.

But, it's not in the bankers' best interests to have all their hard-earned customers thrown out of the country, especially at the height of the sub-prime lending boom they helped create. Once again, Bush stepped in to lend a helping hand and ordered ICE to stand-down on interior enforcement.

Worksite arrests of illegal aliens fell some 97 percent, from 2,859 in 1999 to 159 in 2004. Investigations targeting employers of illegal immigrants fell more than 70 percent, from 7,637 in 1997 to 2,194 in 2003. Arrests on job sites fell—precipitously, from 17,554 in 1997 to 445 in 2003. Fines levied for immigration-law violations fell from 778 in 1997 to 124 in 2003. Notices of intent to fine employers fell from 865 in 1997 to just 3 in 2004.

There can be no mistaking Bush's actions here.

He took clear steps to make sure the banks had ready access to the Mexican illegal alien 'market' with no interference from law enforcement.

IMO, it was his first priority as President. And it was these actions which led directly to the sub-prime meltdown.

As the sub-prime adjustable loans reset, the Mexican illegal aliens, who have no allegiance to the US, simply up and left leaving the house to fall into foreclosure and the banks holding the bag.

Except that, now, Bush's Treasury Secy. Paulson is leading the way for the taxpayer bailout of the very same bankers Bush sought to help on February 16, 2001 when he met with Vicente Fox.

46 posted on 09/23/2008 5:24:04 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (While the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson