Bush's Place in History.

[SadisticNature]

There are two governing laws:

• The Fair Housing Act of 1968
• The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The make up in both of the Congresses of the time was majority Democrat in both houses! By ratios even higher than today;

• 90th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 64(D) 36(R)
  • House -- 247 (D) 187 (R)
• 95th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 61(D) 39(R)
  • House -- 292(D) 143(R)

So to try to blame this on the Republican party does not comport with the facts.

Further, to make it a violation of law to not give loans to persons in a certain area or certain type, without regard to any reason, is exactly the same as saying; "you must lend even if they look like a bad risk. Fail to do so at your own peril! Do not forget we control your existence as a business!"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/7126...tion-gone-wild

This is a partial list of some of the policies that led to the too big to fail situation that caused the bailouts.

It starts with the 1982 Garn -St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

As the eighties wore on the economy appeared to grow. Interest rates continued to go up as well as real estate speculation. The real estate market was in what is known as a "boom" mode. Many S&L's took advantage of the lack of supervision and regulations to make highly speculative investments, in many cases loaning more money then they really should. Not because they were required to, but motivated by profits.

When the real estate market crashed, and it did so in dramatic fashion, the S&L's were crushed. They now owned properties that they had paid enormous amounts of money for but weren't worth a fraction of what they paid. Many went bankrupt, losing their depositors money. This was known as the S&L Crisis. In 1980 the US had 4,600 thrifts, by 1988 mergers and bankruptcies left 3000. By the mid 1990's less than 2000 survived.

The S&L crisis cost about 600 Billion dollars in "bailouts." This is 1500 dollars from every man woman and child in the US. This was the February 1989 bailout under the first Bush.

Despite this deregulation causing a huge crash and bailout, the process of deregulation was continued leading to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act by 1998 (After 25 attempts and $300 million in lobbying).

In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. Thomas Theobald, then vice chairman of Citicorp, argues that three "outside checks" on corporate misbehavior had emerged since 1933: "a very effective" SEC; knowledgeable investors, and "very sophisticated" rating agencies. Volcker is unconvinced, and expresses his fear that lenders will recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public. For many critics, it boiled down to the issue of two different cultures - a culture of risk which was the securities business, and a culture of protection of deposits which was the culture of banking.

Volcker had it right, but this opposition led to him being replaced by Alan Greenspan.

The problem was the banks owned too much property. Why? Because people removed the regulations preventing it. It's not one or two property acts that are trying to limit discrimination that caused the problems.

If the banks were giving out loans they knew in advance were bad, they never would have appealed to have more and more restrictions reduced. They were giving out loans they thought they could make money on, and were leveraged beyond belief. Yet the record shows the continuously appealed to the government to let them leverage more and more.

It's no surprise that the first to go was Bear Stearns, one of the first to lobby for and get limits removed.

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=c...ngency-fee.txt

CHICAGO -- In a CNSNews (www.CNSNews.com) nationally-syndicated story published on Monday, Illinois Republican National Committeeman Bob Kjellander once again defended the $800,000 contingency fee he received earlier this year from Bear Stearns, the bond house that handled Governor Rod Blagojevich's $10 billion mortgage to balance Illinois' FY 2004 budget.

It's also a matter of fact that the lobbyists for Bear Stearns and the deregulation involved in the matter were active republican party members.

So yes, it does correspond to the facts to blame the republican party for this. It just doesn't correspond to your personal world view.

[SadisticNature]

You might want to actually read these laws before you cry foul.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

The conditions of the fair housing act merely say you can't refuse a loan based on race. This means if a bank extends a loan to a white person who has a certain risk factor you can't refuse to extend the same loan to a black person with the same risk factor.

There is a difference between refusing a loan BASED on race, and refusing a loan to a minority.

The community reinvestment act of 1977 is more complicated, and there are some potential concerns here. That being said, the assets resulting from such practices were graded AAA, and sold around the financial world like hotcakes.

I have a specific questions for you Duncan, so stop the dodging and try and give them honest answers:

1) If these assets were as toxic as you describe why were banks trying to buy them from each other, well beyond their legal obligations to any act?

2)Why were they lobbying (successfully) to get their credit limits increased and then buying up more and more of these assets?

The only answer I've found that's consistent with the facts is this one:

Subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.

Which you can find either here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

or

http://www.innercitypress.com/cra1bailout092808.html


Even more telling is this:

There's a major factual problem, though: with a single exception, no bank sought CRA credit for its subprime loans. And the investment banks which were purchasing, bundling and securitizing the loans were not covered by CRA.

There are two governing


laws:

• The Fair Housing Act of 1968
• The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

The make up in both of the Congresses of the time was majority Democrat in both houses! By ratios even higher than today;

• 90th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 64(D) 36(R)
  • House -- 247 (D) 187 (R)
• 95th Congress
  
  • Senate -- 61(D) 39(R)
  • House -- 292(D) 143(R)

So to try to blame this on the Republican party does not comport with the facts.

Further, to make it a violation of law to not give loans to persons in a certain area or certain type, without regard to any reason, is exactly the same as saying; "you must lend even if they look like a bad risk. Fail to do so at your own peril! Do not forget we control your existence as a business!"

[denuseri]

One of my friends sent me this little excert with a picture of the people involved. If I could figure out how to post pics in the forums here I would have attached it. lol


"A doctor had his tv on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,"I'm the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to confort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side The nurse took a picture.

It was George W. Bush!

He had heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.. Bush only ask for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The president Is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital." The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead. He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.. Obama flew in days later and held a "photo " session in a gym and did not even go to the hospital. "

[DuncanONeil]

So then which is the compassionate man?

One of my friends sent me this little excert with a picture of the people involved. If I could figure out how to post pics in the forums here I would have attached it. lol


"A doctor had his tv on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, "I am okay." Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,"I'm the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery."

The soldier's wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to confort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side The nurse took a picture.

It was George W. Bush!

He had heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.. Bush only ask for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that "The president Is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital." The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead. He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.. Obama flew in days later and held a "photo " session in a gym and did not even go to the hospital. "

[steelish]

I didn't agree with most of Bush's policies while he was in office, but I think he's a much better PERSON than Obama is.

[MMI]

Call me a cynic, but I cannot believe even Bush did not understanad that political capital would be made out of his visit. Pity he didn't react like that on 9/11 or when Hurricane Katrina struck. So just how good a person is he really?

Which would you bet on: did he take the opportunity to comfort the people injured in the shooting, or did he take the opportunity to get there before Obama?

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps not cynical, but merely somewhat biased!

Call me a cynic, but I cannot believe even Bush did not understanad that political capital would be made out of his visit. Pity he didn't react like that on 9/11 or when Hurricane Katrina struck. So just how good a person is he really?

Which would you bet on: did he take the opportunity to comfort the people injured in the shooting, or did he take the opportunity to get there before Obama?

[denuseri]

I believe that if he was there for a photo op, he would have came in with the reporters running hilly nilly in his wake if not there before him.

[Seroquel]

Bush will be insignificant as history goes, he's not popular enough to be worth remembering, he started to be seen as a joke by a majority. After this generation no one will remember him, Obama at least has potential. If nothing else he'll be remembered as the first black president, much as Thatcher (for those who don't know, practically everyone in the north of England and most of the rest of Britain despises her) will be remembered as the first female Prime Minister.

I don't think it's fair to judge a leader on how they respond to disasters, in my opinion letting politicians "help" usually ends up being a waste of time and manpower that can be put to better use elsewhere. Not much of what Obama has done has reached me over here but from what I've heard he seems to be working to change the "people are poor because they don't work as hard as me" mentality some Americans have.

[DuncanONeil]

It appears that you are of the opinion that the "poor" can be eliminated as a category of people.

Just how do you propose that this happen if they do not have to work hard to not be poor?

Just how do you define "poor", in concrete terms?

Bush will be insignificant as history goes, he's not popular enough to be worth remembering, he started to be seen as a joke by a majority. After this generation no one will remember him, Obama at least has potential. If nothing else he'll be remembered as the first black president, much as Thatcher (for those who don't know, practically everyone in the north of England and most of the rest of Britain despises her) will be remembered as the first female Prime Minister.

I don't think it's fair to judge a leader on how they respond to disasters, in my opinion letting politicians "help" usually ends up being a waste of time and manpower that can be put to better use elsewhere. Not much of what Obama has done has reached me over here but from what I've heard he seems to be working to change the "people are poor because they don't work as hard as me" mentality some Americans have.

[mkemse]

His place in History will probably not be known for years

[DuncanONeil]

No matter to whom; "His place" refers, the sentiment is absolutely correct!

His place in History will probably not be known for years

[mkemse]

And I doubt hisreal place in History wil even be know durig our live times, just too soon it wil takes years and year to determine that

[denuseri]

Please do get a room you two....lol.

How about we debate the topic...without making things personal...for a change.

Does anyone here seriously think Bush is "personally" responsible for the bursting economic bubble?

Do you all really think that it will be the economey that defines his administration in history...or will it be oh, I don't know...the war perhaps?

[Torq]

And yet ANOTHER good thread RUINED, with personal attacks in lieu of

STAYING ON TOPIC!!!

T