By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Democrats Caused Housing Mess

HappySqurriel on 29 September 2008
Jandre002 said:

IT WAS! And we saw lots of profit from that. Our country prospered for years, but that isn't the issue. The issue is not regulating mortgage-backed assets AT ALL. These companies make their own terms, apply their own value, then disperse these assets as if mortgage was reliable. Giving more money to more people isn't the issue. Mortgage backed assets are the issue.

Sure without mortgage backed assets there would never have been nearly as many loans, but the rating, distribution, and percentage of assets distributed with subprime ratings was what caused the crash. Percentages of CDO's issued with subprime ratings went from 6% in 1994 to nearly 70% in 2006. No one can know that except the companies investing in them, yet as the rules stand the SEC can intervene on a "voluntary basis only". Giving crooks the option of whether the police can stop by or not is stupid, isn't it?

 

 

Personally, I think the one sentence explaination for why we have gotten into the position we're in is "... because there was way too much credit!"

Regardless of whether you blame the changes in regulation under Bill Clinton, the greedy wallstreet bankers, or the federal reserves inflationary monetary policy the fact is that too many people were able to get loans they couldn't afford with almost no money down.

Like all times when credit is too easy to access, there was massive ammounts of fake equity produced which made people believe they were living in a time of great prosperity. The unfortunate consequence is that this period of great prosperity is typically matched by a period of great pain.



Around the Network
Jandre002 on 29 September 2008
HappySqurriel said:
Jandre002 said:

IT WAS! And we saw lots of profit from that. Our country prospered for years, but that isn't the issue. The issue is not regulating mortgage-backed assets AT ALL. These companies make their own terms, apply their own value, then disperse these assets as if mortgage was reliable. Giving more money to more people isn't the issue. Mortgage backed assets are the issue.

Sure without mortgage backed assets there would never have been nearly as many loans, but the rating, distribution, and percentage of assets distributed with subprime ratings was what caused the crash. Percentages of CDO's issued with subprime ratings went from 6% in 1994 to nearly 70% in 2006. No one can know that except the companies investing in them, yet as the rules stand the SEC can intervene on a "voluntary basis only". Giving crooks the option of whether the police can stop by or not is stupid, isn't it?

 

 

Personally, I think the one sentence explaination for why we have gotten into the position we're in is "... because there was way too much credit!"

Regardless of whether you blame the changes in regulation under Bill Clinton, the greedy wallstreet bankers, or the federal reserves inflationary monetary policy the fact is that too many people were able to get loans they couldn't afford with almost no money down.

Like all times when credit is too easy to access, there was massive ammounts of fake equity produced which made people believe they were living in a time of great prosperity. The unfortunate consequence is that this period of great prosperity is typically matched by a period of great pain.

Yeah that sums it up. Too much, too fast. Credit is an obligation but has no physical representation of definite value. I always wondered how the hell are market could be going up so fast while the rest of the world was crawling along for the most part and I guess this answers that question.

Scary times indeed. I always thought America would fall from grace, but I never thought it would be before 2010. We have really f*cked ourselves this time.

 



Kasz216 on 29 September 2008
akuma587 said:
Aiemond said:

 

So why didn't the republicans fix this? They had congress and a pres. Why didnt they want to raise interest rates? Why didn't they try to regulate it more? Face it, they got cought with their pants down too, bush even trumpeted house ownership. They didn't think there would be a bust either and now both sides are trying to point fingers. Americans are smarter, they know that both sides screwed up. Trying to blame only one party is such a foolish and partisan position it is laughable.

This is what everyone who is blaming the Democrats is ignoring, that the Republicans had more than enough power to get this passed if they really wanted it.

 

Not when it was only the conservatives pushing the reform... and the Neo-cons joined with the democrats in stopping it.  Well the Neocons and those getting a lot of lobbying money.

 



Aiemond on 29 September 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Aiemond said:

 

So why didn't the republicans fix this? They had congress and a pres. Why didnt they want to raise interest rates? Why didn't they try to regulate it more? Face it, they got cought with their pants down too, bush even trumpeted house ownership. They didn't think there would be a bust either and now both sides are trying to point fingers. Americans are smarter, they know that both sides screwed up. Trying to blame only one party is such a foolish and partisan position it is laughable.

This is what everyone who is blaming the Democrats is ignoring, that the Republicans had more than enough power to get this passed if they really wanted it.

 

Not when it was only the conservatives pushing the reform... and the Neo-cons joined with the democrats in stopping it. Well the Neocons and those getting a lot of lobbying money.

 

 

So then we just lump the neo-con and politicians that were lobbied with the democrats? Those were republicans. There is no way to spin it. Both parties botched.



Now Playing: The Witcher (PC)

Consoles Owned: NES, SNES, N64, PS1, PS2, Wii, Xbox 360, Game Boy, DS

Kasz216 on 29 September 2008
Aiemond said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Aiemond said:

 

So why didn't the republicans fix this? They had congress and a pres. Why didnt they want to raise interest rates? Why didn't they try to regulate it more? Face it, they got cought with their pants down too, bush even trumpeted house ownership. They didn't think there would be a bust either and now both sides are trying to point fingers. Americans are smarter, they know that both sides screwed up. Trying to blame only one party is such a foolish and partisan position it is laughable.

This is what everyone who is blaming the Democrats is ignoring, that the Republicans had more than enough power to get this passed if they really wanted it.

 

Not when it was only the conservatives pushing the reform... and the Neo-cons joined with the democrats in stopping it. Well the Neocons and those getting a lot of lobbying money.

 

 

So then we just lump the neo-con and politicians that were lobbied with the democrats? Those were republicans. There is no way to spin it. Both parties botched.

That's what I said?  People like Akuma try to lump it all on the republicans because they were the ones in power.... when in reality the democrats were helping to stop the reform to prevent this crisis from happening.

 



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 29 September 2008
Kasz216 said:

That's what I said?  People like Akuma try to lump it all on the republicans because they were the ones in power.... when in reality the democrats were helping to stop the reform to prevent this crisis from happening.

 

 

Many people also make the (flawed) assumption that because the senate or house is "controlled" by one party they have the ability to produce legislation without the aid of the party in opposition; this really isn't the case. In both chambers and for both parties there are few individuals who vote along party lines almost all of the time ...

Now the (unfortunate) problem is that all of the people in the senate and congress are politicians and a large portion of them will not vote for the right thing to do if it is politically risky. If you're proposing legislation that is designed to prevent a potential crisis by producing a controlled slow down you will need the support of both parties in order to get it passed both to compensate for the people who won't vote for it, and to help manage the political optics of the situation.



bigjon on 29 September 2008
Kasz216 said:
ManusJustus said:
bigjon said:

Again less regulation is a good thing, more oversight is a good thing.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

Sure you can.

It's like giving rules to a child.

For example you don't want a child to eat sweets before bed.

Regulation is like saying "You can't be in the kitchen after 5pm"

Oversight is like telling your child he can't have sweets... then punnishing him for doing it.

Predatory lending was illegal... it's just nobody bothered to have any oversight.

Some people believe regulation and assurance  is better.  If he's not in the kitchen he obviously can't eat the sweets kept there.

Other people believe oversight and freedom is better.  If he's not aloud in the kitchen he can't do a great number of things he can do that's perfectly ok for him to do.  Like get some juice or play a game on the kitchen counter.

very good example. Regulation just cost businesses, whether it be opportunity cost or the cost of adhering to the regs.

Also to whoever said I am a joke- Nothing I have posted in this thread are not true. The joke is that the people that do not agree with me think I am a joke. It is a way for them to undermine what I am saying. Call me a joke, therefore nothing I say at all can be taken seriously, and therefore must not be true.

@Desroko

I do not believe I was reffering to the CRA. The only bill I reffered to was the revision of Glass- Stegal. I am not familiar with CRA. And I do know what I am talking about. The only time I am ever wrong is when I interject my opinion, which could be on or off base. I do not present something as fact unless it is true. Most people are smart enough to reconize a statement of fact from an opinion. It was my opinion that Obama showed poor judgement in using Raines. It is fact that Raines is connected to the Obama campaign. I should not have said a specific job, since I do not know for sure his official title, but he is connected to Obama and his campaign.

 



End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)

Wii- 72 million   3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases

360- 37 million   Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak

PS3- 29 million  Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut

bigjon on 29 September 2008

Ok, I should have made a better Subject line.

I believe all of washington is to blame for the crisis. Both Parties.

I should have said "Dems to Blame For Fannie and Freddie Failure Which Lead to Collapse of Financial Markets"

basically what the point of this was, if the dems had not been in bed with Fannie and Freddie the snowball would have been stopped before it got too big. It still would have been bad, many of the Bad loans had been made.



End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)

Wii- 72 million   3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases

360- 37 million   Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak

PS3- 29 million  Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut

SnesTea on 29 September 2008
FishyJoe said:
But in 2004 the Republicans were in control of the House, Senate and Presidency. I don't see how you can only blame the Democrats when they were powerless to do anything without the approval of the Republican Party.

 

Those were the days.



akuma587 on 29 September 2008
bigjon said:
Ok, I should have made a better Subject line.

I believe all of washington is to blame for the crisis. Both Parties.

I should have said "Dems to Blame For Fannie and Freddie Failure Which Lead to Collapse of Financial Markets"

basically what the point of this was, if the dems had not been in bed with Fannie and Freddie the snowball would have been stopped before it got too big. It still would have been bad, many of the Bad loans had been made.

The Federal Reserve made it into a problem before anyone in Congress did by keeping rates low for so long.

And you should say that the Democrats and the Neo-cons caused the problem if any group of people was responsible.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson