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 ...
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.
-----------------------------------------
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.
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 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?
Can you provide anything besides personal anecdotes that supports this belief?
There is enough blame to go around.
What blame does Bush deserve?
The next time California is on fire, the Government should not interfere.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The point is that the Government does have an appropriate role in times of crisis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And when those trillions are devalued to relative worthlessness? Sure, we won't lose any, in fact we'll have more! whoopee!
“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.
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.
You’re not too swift with sarcasm I take it.
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.