PDA

View Full Version : Elections Bloomberg: How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis


RINGLEADER
09-22-2008, 10:21 AM
This helps address some of the questions those on the left have posed regarding why didn't the Republicans, when they controlled congress, just pass the reform. Enjoy!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Chief Faithful
09-22-2008, 10:25 AM
The current crisis is the result of bad legislation dating back to 1977 that was strengthen in 1993.

tiptap
09-22-2008, 10:40 AM
So Bloomberg gives space to a McCain supporter and we should feel that Republicans were beat up on this question? So if this lies only within the scope of Fannie pair, why do we have to step outside of these institutions to control the panic. Are you wanting to tell me no other financial instrument are involved.

Now if you want to tell me that the down turn leveredged a panic, OHH I am ok with that. But the real size of the shit doesn't reside in Fannie Mae and Mac. Oh no it is in the amount of debt leveraged against that sector by those who made out like bandits when the government turned the other way. This is the difference in having something like the RTC and S&L bubble and the lost of ALL INVESTMENT BANKS as well as the down stream selling into MARKET ACCOUNTS. It didn't get isolated. But clearly a Presidential voice or Treasury or SEC voice against accelerating the practice would have gone a long way as well.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 10:45 AM
Anyone who puts this mess on the shoulders of only one of either of the parties, is playing partisan politics.

There is plenty of blame to be shouldered by both parties, as neither party did Jack Shit to stop it.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2008, 10:46 AM
Sorry, I don't see how it's just the Democrats fault. This is just partisan politics.

Don't get me wrong their intervening in markets for egalitarian political outcomes results in disasters as markets will have the last say. However, the monetarization of debt fueling inflationary trends, not seen clearly due to cheap imports, results in malinvestments because people think they have more money than they actually have in reality. This leads to speculative booms like .com and housing and wild price hikes. This was all done under Republican appointed Greenspan and Bernanke.

Everyone needs to step up and take a hard look. This is basically the results of false economic ideas in circulation for a long time.

Amnorix
09-22-2008, 10:53 AM
So, for clarity, even though Republicans have owned the WH for 8 years and had both branches of Congress for 6 out of those years, this crisis is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the Democrats.

Got it. Thanks for the info.

mlyonsd
09-22-2008, 10:59 AM
So, for clarity, even though Republicans have owned the WH for 8 years and had both branches of Congress for 6 out of those years, this crisis is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the Democrats.

Got it. Thanks for the info.

No, not at all.

It does show however McCain isn't as big a dolt on the economy/financial markets as some on this board and the Obama campaign want us all to believe.

Oh, and that Obama is just like any other politician when it comes to being bought off.

wutamess
09-22-2008, 10:59 AM
The Facts (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/)
Federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies. The center's list of contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees places Obama second. Ahead of him is Sen. Chris Dodd,
Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.


The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.
Explaining the difference, the Center for Responsive Politics said on its Web site that it does not include members of the board of directors because they could serve on boards of various companies. Their contributions are listed along with other employees of the companies they work for. And the center says lobbyists usually represent multiple clients as well, so their contributions are listed under their lobbying firms — except in-house lobbyists, who are included in the center's list.
The mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie became symbols of the nation's economic mess — and, to critics, of corporate greed — after the government recently took them over to bail them out, making donations linked to the company in any way potential political fodder.

Chiefshrink
09-22-2008, 12:31 PM
No, not at all.

It does show however McCain isn't as big a dolt on the economy/financial markets as some on this board and the Obama campaign want us all to believe.

Oh, and that Obama is just like any other politician when it comes to being bought off.

Precisely and double precisely on the Obama part. Change? Yeah right. Obama's chameleon effect is wearing off and his favorite color is bleeding throught more and more everyday -GREEEN $$$$ as opposed to RED WHITE and BLUE. Just another politician that happens to be more charismatic than most but with same self-absorbed agenda out there giving lip service to the "little people".:cuss:

On the flip side, the majority of Repubs and Bush looked the other way because they figured they would profit politically from the Economy which obviously did not happen. Shame on both parties with their hands caught in the cookie jar.:cuss:

ROYC75
09-22-2008, 01:24 PM
No, not at all.

It does show however McCain isn't as big a dolt on the economy/financial markets as some on this board and the Obama campaign want us all to believe.

Oh, and that Obama is just like any other politician when it comes to being bought off.


Spot on ...... BTA, Obama is The One, so lay off of him .

ROYC75
09-22-2008, 01:26 PM
Anyone who puts this mess on the shoulders of only one of either of the parties, is playing partisan politics.

There is plenty of blame to be shouldered by both parties, as neither party did Jack Shit to stop it.


I agree Rob, both parties are at fault, it's easy to point the finger at the dems cause a bill didn't come to pass.

But is Obama going to step up and admit this, that he was against it ?

Garcia Bronco
09-22-2008, 01:43 PM
I agree Rob, both parties are at fault, it's easy to point the finger at the dems cause a bill didn't come to pass.

But is Obama going to step up and admit this, that he was against it ?


Was Obama in the Senate Banking Committee?

ROYC75
09-22-2008, 02:07 PM
Was Obama in the Senate Banking Committee?

Nope, it's my understanding he just against it...............

jidar
09-22-2008, 04:17 PM
This is ****ing retarded.

So it's Fannie Maes fault for buying these mortgage packages? Even if they didn't create them? Because they were the only ones buying them right? Oh wait, except so was every other damned financial instutition.

Look you can find all kinds of legislation at all kinds of points that might or might not have helped or prevented this crisis, but there is only one obvious culprit if you really want to find it.

It's this. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

It made it legal for normal deposit banks to start heavily moving into territory traditionally held by investment banks. Prior to that the subprime mortgage problem does not happen because most banks could not legally do the things that caused this whole mess. If that deregulation of the financial sector does not occur then the only companies failing these days would be investment banks and it would suck, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. But since it DID happen now we've got deposit banks like Washing Mutual who are carrying normal joes accounts and company payrolls suddenly needing a bailout, and we can't allow them to fail unless we want to send the entire economy into a tailspin so we HAVE to bail them out.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was spearheaded by a man named Phil Gramm, close personal friend and economic advisor to John Mccain, and former co-chair of the Mccain campaign before he tried to tell America the economic woes were all in our heads a few months ago.

You want blame? Here is your god damned blame. This shit is the fault of republicans, not only in spirit (because this is the type of policy they like to implement), but also in deed since they literally wrote the ****ing law that allowed it.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:21 PM
This is ****ing retarded.

So it's Fannie Maes fault for buying these mortgage packages? Even if they didn't create them? Because they were the only ones buying them right? Oh wait, except so was every other damned financial instutition.

Look you can find all kinds of legislation at all kinds of points that might or might not have helped or prevented this crisis, but there is only one obvious culprit if you really want to find it.

It's this. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

It made it legal for normal deposit banks to start heavily moving into territory traditionally held by investment banks. Prior to that the subprime mortgage problem does not happen because most banks could not legally do the things that caused this whole mess. If that deregulation of the financial sector does not occur then the only companies failing these days would be investment banks and it would suck, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. But since it DID happen now we've got deposit banks like Washing Mutual who are carrying normal joes accounts and company payrolls suddenly needing a bailout, and we can't allow them to fail unless we want to send the entire economy into a tailspin so we HAVE to bail them out.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was spearheaded by a man named Phil Gramm, close personal friend and economic advisor to John Mccain, and former co-chair of the Mccain campaign before he tried to tell America the economic woes were all in our heads a few months ago.

You want blame? Here is your god damned blame. This shit is the fault of republicans, not only in spirit (because this is the type of policy they like to implement), but also in deed since they literally wrote the ****ing law that allowed it.


Did Bill Clinton sign that law? And did Democratic Senators pass on a chance to filibuster/kill it? How many Dems voted "for" it? :hmmm:

jidar
09-22-2008, 04:23 PM
Did Bill Clinton sign that law? And did Democratic Senators pass on a chance to filibuster/kill it? How many Dems voted "for" it? :hmmm:

Listen that's not the damned point, they don't know what it's going to do but it's not their idea. Maybe some dems read it, wanted support for something else, didn't understand the implications and voted for it. Thats non-partisan politics. As for Clinton, he was lame duck at the time thanks to the Lewinsky scandal.

If you come up with a stupid idea and it fails, you can't blame everyone else for not stopping you, it's still your stupid idea. What happened to personal responsibility?

jidar
09-22-2008, 04:26 PM
Also, the OP argument is dumb.

It's like blaming the fence for burglary existing. Yeah he takes some of the blame, but the damned burglary happens either way, just the money goes through different hands.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:27 PM
Listen that's not the damned point, they don't know what it's going to do but it's not their idea. Maybe some dems read it, wanted support for something else, didn't understand the implications and voted for it. Thats non-partisan politics. As for Clinton, he was lame duck at the time thanks to the Lewinsky scandal.

If you come up with a stupid idea and it fails, you can't blame everyone else for not stopping you, it's still your stupid idea. What happened to personal responsibility?

Any Dem who claims they "didn't know what the bill would do" should immediately resign. Clinton not having the stones to stop this....hell, his lame-duck status should have made him ENTHUSIASTIC in opposing it, in VETO-ing the Act, if it was such a bad idea.

Yes, in retrospect, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, and Republicans deserve blame for it; about half the blame. The other half should go to the guys who didn't stand up against it....and refused to stop it, when they could have--when they SHOULD have. And they haven't done jack shit to "fix" it in their two years since they took over Congress. Not a damn thing.

There's plenty of blame to go around. BOTH parties screwed the pooch on this.

Carlota69
09-22-2008, 04:29 PM
Any Dem who claims they "didn't know what the bill would do" should immediately resign. Clinton not having the stones to stop this....hell, his Lame-duck status should have made him ENTHUSIASTIC in opposing it if it was such a bad idea.

Yes, in retrospect, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, and Republicans deserve blame for it; about half the blame. The other half should go to the guys who didn't stand up against it....and refused to stop it, when they could have.

There's plenty of blame to go around. BOTH parties screwed the pooch on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Someone posted this in another thread. it has all those answers...there's a reason Clinton couldnt stop it and how many dems voted for it...

BIG_DADDY
09-22-2008, 04:31 PM
It's not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's a corruption & greed thing that is very prevelant in both parties.

jidar
09-22-2008, 04:33 PM
Any Dem who claims they "didn't know what the bill would do" should immediately resign. Clinton not having the stones to stop this....hell, his lame-duck status should have made him ENTHUSIASTIC in opposing it, in VETO-ing the Act, if it was such a bad idea.

Yes, in retrospect, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, and Republicans deserve blame for it; about half the blame. The other half should go to the guys who didn't stand up against it....and refused to stop it, when they could have--when they SHOULD have. And they haven't done jack shit to "fix" it in their two years since they took over Congress. Not a damn thing.

There's plenty of blame to go around. BOTH parties screwed the pooch on this.

No bullshit. This is a fundamental issue with the republican party. THIS CAME FROM THEM BECAUSE THIS IS HOW THEY DO BUSINESS, THIS IS THEIR PHILOSOPHY.
It's the type of shit they've been doing since at least Nixon and finally it's coming to bite us in our collective asses.

Normal people don't understand this shit though, normal people vote because "I don't like elitist liberals" and "STOP KILLING BABIES" and stupid non-issues like that, but at the end of the day the real policy coming out of that side of the spectrum be it economics, social, or foreign policy are all failed.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Someone posted this in another thread. it has all those answers...there's a reason Clinton couldnt stop it and how many dems voted for it...

So are you suggesting that the Dems looked the other way/ignored the stupidity of this law....because it helped them give homes to people who couldn't afford them? And because that was a generous and charitable thing to do, because it was in the name of Affirmative Action....basically, we should give them a pass?

Is that what the argument is? :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:35 PM
No bullshit. This is a fundamental issue with the republican party. THIS CAME FROM THEM BECAUSE THIS IS HOW THEY DO BUSINESS, THIS IS THEIR PHILOSOPHY.
It's the type of shit they've been doing since at least Nixon and finally it's coming to bite us in our collective asses.

Normal people don't understand this shit though, normal people vote because "I don't like elitist liberals" and "STOP KILLING BABIES" and stupid non-issues like that, but at the end of the day the real policy coming out of that side of the spectrum be it economics, social, or foreign policy are all failed.

And yet Dems, given the opportunity to stop it, and to fix it.....have done absolutely NOTHING, so far.

Wow. Sorry, I just don't see the logic in that.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:36 PM
It's not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's a corruption & greed thing that is very prevelant in both parties.

Yup.

jidar
09-22-2008, 04:37 PM
And yet Dems, given the opportunity to stop it, and to fix it.....have done absolutely NOTHING, so far.

Wow. Sorry, I just don't see the logic in that.

"Oh man, yeah that was so stupid of me to do. Why didn't you stop me? this is all your fault!"

Seriously, who is this dumb?

jidar
09-22-2008, 04:39 PM
So are you suggesting that the Dems looked the other way/ignored the stupidity of this law....because it helped them give homes to people who couldn't afford them? And because that was a generous and charitable thing to do, because it was in the name of Affirmative Action....basically, we should give them a pass?

Is that what the argument is? :shrug:

well I didn't know this, but according to the Wiki you can't put this on Clinton, it was veto-proof.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:40 PM
"Oh man, yeah that was so stupid of me to do. Why didn't you stop me? this is all your fault!"

Seriously, who is this dumb?

In case you haven't noticed, in Congress that's what's supposed to happen.

If one side or the other, or an individual comes up with a bad idea, the other side has the duty, the responsibility, and the moral obligation to stand up, find their testicles, their spine, and their gumption....to say "NO."

Politics have been conducted in this way in America, for a very long time.

Carlota69
09-22-2008, 04:40 PM
So are you suggesting that the Dems looked the other way/ignored the stupidity of this law....because it helped them give homes to people who couldn't afford them? And because that was a generous and charitable thing to do, because it was in the name of Affirmative Action....basically, we should give them a pass?

Is that what the argument is? :shrug:

I'm not arguing anything...he asked questions and those answers are there...Not giving anyone a pass. Where do you get that impression by my post? Or are you just reading into something that isnt there?

Just pointing out that it is a bipartisan situation ie..everyone in Washington is at fault-repub/dem doesn't matter.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:42 PM
well I didn't know this, but according to the Wiki you can't put this on Clinton, it was veto-proof.

Veto-proof or not, he SIGNED the damn bill. :shrug:

A real President would have said, "It's a bad idea; I'm refusing to participate in this bullshit. Now, we are gonna see if you bastards in Congress really want to dump this on the American people. Because NOW you are going to have to actually VOTE to over-ride this veto. Then the American people will KNOW who to blame."

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:43 PM
I'm not arguing anything...he asked questions and those answers are there...Not giving anyone a pass. Where do you get that impression by my post? Or are you just reading into something that isnt there?

Just pointing out that it is a bipartisan situation ie..everyone in Washington is at fault-repub/dem doesn't matter.

I read into what you posted, and why.

I'm just wondering why it was relevant; I agree with you, it IS bipartisan. I'm just arguing with jidar here who seems to want to ignore the Democrats support for the measure....and their complicity in the stupidity.

jidar
09-22-2008, 04:50 PM
Veto-proof or not, he SIGNED the damn bill. :shrug:

A real President would have said, "It's a bad idea; I'm refusing to participate in this bullshit. Now, we are gonna see if you bastards in Congress really want to dump this on the American people. Because NOW you are going to have to actually VOTE to over-ride this veto. Then the American people will KNOW who to blame."

I don't say they get off scott free, but a democrat in power doesn't even come up with something like this so I give them that much credit at least.

Besides, I supported the Iraq war, I know how convincing these neo-cons can be when they're lying through their teeth. I wont take blame for that either, I was lied to.

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 04:55 PM
I don't say they get off scott free, but a democrat in power doesn't even come up with something like this so I give them that much credit at least.

Besides, I supported the Iraq war, I know how convincing these neo-cons can be when they're lying through their teeth. I wont take blame for that either, I was lied to.

Politicians lie? :spock:

Really??? :hmmm:

Dang, now I know why I've instinctively never trusted the bastards! Geesh. I've always been under the impression that all politicians were honest and never lied to us. Ever.

Now I know, all Republicans lie all the time. Man, I'm glad to be a registered Democrat, then. It's cool being on the "good-guy" team.

Thanks, man. :thumb:


;)

jidar
09-22-2008, 05:03 PM
Politicians lie? :spock:

Really??? :hmmm:

Dang, now I know why I've instinctively never trusted the bastards! Geesh. I've always been under the impression that all politicians were honest and never lied to us. Ever.

Now I know, all Republicans lie all the time. Man, I'm glad to be a registered Democrat, then. It's cool being on the "good-guy" team.

Thanks, man. :thumb:


;)


You.. are trivializing the manufacturing of the Iraq war?

Mr. Kotter
09-22-2008, 05:13 PM
You.. are trivializing the manufacturing of the Iraq war?

Not at all. But I do understand the complexities of vetting any intelligence. I also understand the political battle that occurs whenever any foreign policy or national security matter is being debated.

I'll anxiously await the convictions and imprisonment, and impeachments, of those who you seem so sure have committed "lies" that, surely, will be demonstrated to be perjury and treason. For me the line between "lies" and political manipulation is much more grey than the one you are suggesting. But you seem quite certain. I'll be happy when we put these bastards behind bars.

Maybe in two more weeks, or so? :shrug:

;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2008, 05:17 PM
Did Bill Clinton sign that law? And did Democratic Senators pass on a chance to filibuster/kill it? How many Dems voted "for" it? :hmmm:

I believe that 1 Democratic Senator voted for it @ most.

jidar
09-22-2008, 05:24 PM
Not at all. But I do understand the complexities of vetting any intelligence. I also understand the political battle that occurs whenever any foreign policy or national security matter is being debated.

I'll anxiously await the convictions and imprisonment, and impeachments, of those who you seem so sure have committed "lies" that, surely, will be demonstrated to be perjury and treason. For me the line between "lies" and political manipulation is much more grey than the one you are suggesting. But you seem quite certain. I'll be happy when we put these bastards behind bars.

Maybe in two more weeks, or so? :shrug:

;)

If only there was transparency in government that might happen.

patteeu
09-22-2008, 06:11 PM
This is ****ing retarded.

So it's Fannie Maes fault for buying these mortgage packages? Even if they didn't create them? Because they were the only ones buying them right? Oh wait, except so was every other damned financial instutition.

Look you can find all kinds of legislation at all kinds of points that might or might not have helped or prevented this crisis, but there is only one obvious culprit if you really want to find it.

It's this. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

It made it legal for normal deposit banks to start heavily moving into territory traditionally held by investment banks. Prior to that the subprime mortgage problem does not happen because most banks could not legally do the things that caused this whole mess. If that deregulation of the financial sector does not occur then the only companies failing these days would be investment banks and it would suck, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. But since it DID happen now we've got deposit banks like Washing Mutual who are carrying normal joes accounts and company payrolls suddenly needing a bailout, and we can't allow them to fail unless we want to send the entire economy into a tailspin so we HAVE to bail them out.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was spearheaded by a man named Phil Gramm, close personal friend and economic advisor to John Mccain, and former co-chair of the Mccain campaign before he tried to tell America the economic woes were all in our heads a few months ago.

You want blame? Here is your god damned blame. This shit is the fault of republicans, not only in spirit (because this is the type of policy they like to implement), but also in deed since they literally wrote the ****ing law that allowed it.

So you're saying it's Bill Clinton's fault?

patteeu
09-22-2008, 06:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Someone posted this in another thread. it has all those answers...there's a reason Clinton couldnt stop it and how many dems voted for it...

The reason Clinton couldn't have stopped it was because there were too many democrats in favor of it to sustain a veto. That's not really a clean bill of health for Clinton or his party.

I'm not really interested in the blame game here and I think there's enough to go around, but if idiots (see jidar in this thread) are going to keep trying to blame Republicans for this, they're going to see that there are plenty of democrat fingerprints on this bipartisan scandal.

patteeu
09-22-2008, 06:18 PM
I don't say they get off scott free, but a democrat in power doesn't even come up with something like this so I give them that much credit at least.

Besides, I supported the Iraq war, I know how convincing these neo-cons can be when they're lying through their teeth. I wont take blame for that either, I was lied to.

It looks more like you just don't take responsibility for your own actions. LMAO @ "I was lied to"

Hoover
09-22-2008, 06:19 PM
So, for clarity, even though Republicans have owned the WH for 8 years and had both branches of Congress for 6 out of those years, this crisis is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the Democrats.

Got it. Thanks for the info.
But you forget how the Senate works, the minority has plenty of power to stop legislation, hence the desire for a 60 vote majority so you can actually pass you agenda out of that chamber

patteeu
09-22-2008, 06:20 PM
I believe that 1 Democratic Senator voted for it @ most.

The final bill passed the Senate by a vote of 90-8.

BIG_DADDY
09-22-2008, 06:23 PM
The final bill passed the Senate by a vote of 90-8.

LMAO

Bootlegged
09-22-2008, 06:26 PM
I believe that 1 Democratic Senator voted for it @ most.

Hamas Jenkins molests collies.