• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Republican priorities

fff

Well-known member
Let's remember who got us into this financial mess: Conservatives, not Liberals. Now guess who they want to bail out with tax dollars. Not the American homeowner.

In a change from the original proposal sent to Capitol Hill, foreign-based banks with big U.S. operations could qualify for the Treasury Department’s mortgage bailout, according to the fine print of an administration statement Saturday night.

Paulson resisted suggestions being made by Democrats that the program be changed to include further relief for homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures and to include an additional $50 billion stimulus effort. Some Democrats have also suggested capping compensation of executives at firms who get the bailout help.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080921/pl_politico/13690

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Let's remember who got us into this financial mess: Conservatives, not Liberals. Now guess who they want to bail out with tax dollars. Not the American homeowner.

In a change from the original proposal sent to Capitol Hill, foreign-based banks with big U.S. operations could qualify for the Treasury Department’s mortgage bailout, according to the fine print of an administration statement Saturday night.

Paulson resisted suggestions being made by Democrats that the program be changed to include further relief for homeowners facing mortgage foreclosures and to include an additional $50 billion stimulus effort. Some Democrats have also suggested capping compensation of executives at firms who get the bailout help.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080921/pl_politico/13690

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

You are not taking into consideration the "Bottom Line" cause of this whole mess............it's loan defaults caused mainly by "Subprime" (applicants with little or no credit) mortgages and a direct result of greed by the banking industry.......................

How can any administration or even any congress dictate to a bank......Who Can.......and Who Cannot have a home loan? Every applicant is different with each applicants' situation different.

This is not a Conservation vs. Liberal issue. It's an issue of banks making unwise decisions that cannot be regulated to such a degree........
 

VanC

Well-known member
Yes, let's remember who got us into this financial mess.


The Rest of the Meltdown Story
Neal Boortz
Friday, September 19, 2008

What in the world is going on here?

You’ve seen the headlines, and you heard of the failures and buyouts. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG; all big names and all in big trouble. Then those mysterious quasi-government agencies with names like Freddie and Fannie become wards of the state and you learn that you and your fellow taxpayers are potentially on the hook for tens of billions of dollars. At the end of the week Washington Mutual is looking for a buyer, and you start to wonder about the security of your own bank and your own savings account. Let’s change that ad copy to WaMu -- boo hoo.

Somewhere in the back of your mind you understand that this is all tied somehow to bad mortgages. If you start reading a bit further to enhance your understanding you run into terms like Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and credit-default swaps, whatever in the world those are. Read further and you find out that a combination of falling home prices and mortgage defaults have put many investment banks and other financial institutions in deep puddin’. All this reading, all this watching the talking heads on TV, and you still don’t really know what in the world is going on here.

Fear not. I’m here to help. I know … I’m just another talk show host; but the fact is that when the stage was being set for the problems we’re seeing today I was making most of my money as a real estate lawyer .. closing loans for some of the very institutions that are the tank today. This rather unique combination – closing lawyer and radio talk show host – gave me a front row seat to the politicization of mortgage loans that led us to today’s headlines.

OK .. so we all know that a lot of really bad real estate loans were made. The political class would sure love for us to believe that the blame here rests squarely on “greedy” (try to define that word) mortgage brokers and lenders. The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.

Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was “redlining.” Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods. There I was closing these loans in the afternoons, and in the mornings offering a counter-argument on the radio to these absurd “redlining” claims. Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.

Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank’s efforts to grow if that bank didn’t make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the “subprime” mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage – but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN.
I won’t mention his name so as to avoid politicizing this column.

These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.

Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we’re seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn’t want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn’t all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed – and now we are left to enjoy today’s headlines.

So … why aren’t you reading the whole story in the mainstream media? Come on, are you kidding me? Do you really expect the media to blame this mess on deadbeat borrowers and political interference in the free market when it is so easy to put the blame on greedy lenders and evil capitalists? Remember … there’s an election going on. One candidate is decidedly anti-capitalist. Do the math.



Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

The bottom line is no one person or party is to blame. They are all to blame, at least those that have advocated more government interference in free markts. All people should have equal access to home ownership, but it's not a right to own a home. Only those who can afford it, and are willing to work hard for it should be able to achieve it. So now we have a situation where a lot of good, honest, hard working people are suffering because the government mandated that these institutions loan money to people that they KNEW were unable to pay it back. Worse yet, we have people saying that the solution to a problem caused by political interference is yet MORE political interference. Amazing. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But one of the Repub leading spokespersons puts the blame right back where it belongs - GW Bush and a corrupt crew that was asleep at the wheel...

The Mother of All Bailouts = The Death of Fiscal Conservatism
By Michelle Malkin
• September 19, 2008 10:27 AM Scroll for updates…10:54am Eastern Bush speaking now…bailout will be “grease for the gears”… “we expect this money will eventually be paid back”…HA-HA-HA…



Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson just wrapped up his press conference announcing the Mother of All Bailouts. He said a “bold” approach was needed to achieve “stability” in the market.

Let me translate that.

“Bold” = Massively massive, taxpayer-funded rescue.

“Stability” = Privatizing profits and socializing losses on a scale we have never seen before in our lifetimes.

I have had it with Pollyanna conservatives who continue to parrot the “fundamentals of the market are great!” line.

The fundamentals of the market suck. The fundamentals of capitalism have been sabotaged.

Yes, yes, crony Democrats are to blame for much of how we got here. You don’t need to recite all the talking points back to me. I’ve been writing about the Fannie/Freddie debacle for years.

But it is September 19, 2008. And this is a Republican White House presiding over the Mother of All Bailouts. Every step along the way since stimuluspalooza began last summer, we’ve heard that every bailout step was just a one-off. Each step was supposed to calm the markets. Each new government intervention and allocation of taxpayer dollars was supposed to achieve “stability.” Each new package of goodies rewarding irresponsible behavior and bad financial decisions was supposed to prevent new ones.

None did. And now, here we are.

This is your Bush legacy — not Pelosi’s, not Reid’s, not Obama’s: A ginormous bailout of every last, failing, panicked financial institution’s illiquid assets that may reach into the trillions — TRILLIONS – when all is said and done.

Reader John in Venice, CA e-mails: “Going forward there is no debate a conservative can win when pitted against a liberal wanting to spend money on social programs. What would the argument be against spending money on terrible social programs? Government money does not work? Conservatives who are supporting this welfare bailout are no different than Maxine Waters or Barbara Boxer. We have lost. Conservatism has absolutely no more moral high ground to speak from.”

Fiscal conservatism has been on life support for quite some time. Bush/Paulson pulled the plug permanently today.

***

I mentioned the other day that both presidential candidates from the Evil Party and the Stupid Party support bailing out the automakers next.

Here’s more:

The auto industry and Wall Street took center stage in the presidential race Wednesday when Republican John McCain, after touring a suburban Detroit auto plant, declared in his strongest language so far that he will fight for government loans to help the U.S. auto industry retool.

Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign retorted that he’s late to the game.

McCain made an unscheduled stop at General Motors Corp.’s Orion assembly plant in the morning before joining his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for a town hall meeting in Grand Rapids.

He told a crowd of supporters in downtown Grand Rapids that the economy can be fixed.

“I reject the doom and gloom that says our nation is in decline, because our best days are ahead of us. We will restore America, we will restore this economy,” McCain said.

At the GM plant, McCain spoke to about 100 workers after a short tour.

“I’m here to send a message to Washington and Wall Street: We are not going to leave the workers here in Michigan hung out to dry while we give billions in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street,” McCain said. “It is time to get our auto industry back on its feet. It’s time for a new generation of cars and for loans to build the facilities that will make them.”

McCain’s support of the auto industry on Wednesday contrasts with his position last month when he visited the GM Tech Center in Warren and said he wasn’t inclined to support loans for the auto industry.

McCain, who also did not vote on the energy bill creating the loan program in December 2007, said then through his campaign that his proposals — a $5,000 tax credit for consumers to buy more efficient models and a $300-million prize for battery technology — would accomplish the same goals as the loan program.

Auto industry officials said they believed that without McCain’s support, the funding would get labeled a Democratic ploy. Michigan’s Republican lawmakers, especially U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, are credited with convincing McCain to back the loans.

Obama has backed up to $50 billion in loans for automakers.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/19/the-mother-of-all-bailouts-the-death-of-fiscal-conservatism/
 

fff

Well-known member
You guys can spin this all you want, but a major Conservative cry is "less/no government regulation." Well that's what we got from the Bush Administration. They're to blame for this mess. I don't know what proposal is going to come out of Congress/White House to "save" the economy, but if it's simply to bail these guys out and let them do it again, we need to talk.

Some economists are saying let them go broke, then take on the essential assets. That sounds good to me. But financial lobbyist met with Republican members of the House yesterday and laid out their demands for the bail out. Their DEMANDS!

I hate to say this, but looking at the plan as leaked, I have to say no deal. Not unless Treasury explains, very clearly, why this is supposed to work, other than through having taxpayers pay premium prices for lousy assets.
As I posted earlier today, it seems all too likely that a “fair price” for mortgage-related assets will still leave much of the financial sector in trouble. And there’s nothing at all in the draft that says what happens next; although I do notice that there’s nothing in the plan requiring Treasury to pay a fair market price. So is the plan to pay premium prices to the most troubled institutions? Or is the hope that restoring liquidity will magically make the problem go away?
Here’s the thing: historically, financial system rescues have involved seizing the troubled institutions and guaranteeing their debts; only after that did the government try to repackage and sell their assets. The feds took over S&Ls first, protecting their depositors, then transferred their bad assets to the RTC. The Swedes took over troubled banks, again protecting their depositors, before transferring their assets to their equivalent institutions.
The Treasury plan, by contrast, looks like an attempt to restore confidence in the financial system — that is, convince creditors of troubled institutions that everything’s OK — simply by buying assets off these institutions. This will only work if the prices Treasury pays are much higher than current market prices; that, in turn, can only be true either if this is mainly a liquidity problem — which seems doubtful — or if Treasury is going to be paying a huge premium, in effect throwing taxpayers’ money at the financial world.
And there’s no quid pro quo here — nothing that gives taxpayers a stake in the upside, nothing that ensures that the money is used to stabilize the system rather than reward the undeserving.
I hope I’m wrong about this. But let me say it again: Treasury needs to explain why this is supposed to work — not try to panic Congress into giving it a blank check. Otherwise, no deal.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/no-deal/
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
You guys can spin this all you want, but a major Conservative cry is "less/no government regulation." Well that's what we got from the Bush Administration. They're to blame for this mess. I don't know what proposal is going to come out of Congress/White House to "save" the economy, but if it's simply to bail these guys out and let them do it again, we need to talk.

No matter how many times you say it that does not make Bush a Conservative! You really need to do some studying to learn what a Conservative, Liberal, Democrat and Republican are!

Hint part of the answer on Conservative is in your reply above! Now go study and come back and we will have a quiz on this in a few days! :wink: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I've got some news that is going to be shocking to you libs; Bankers know the difference between a good loan, an iffy loan, and a bad loan. We don't need a government regulator to tell us. If the government would get the hell out of the way, we would make good loans, price the iffy ones accordingly if we took them, and deny bad ones. Risk/reward would be in play, as it should, and if a banker made to many risky loans that went South, he would lose his job and that would be an example to other bankers not to make bad loans.

However, thanks to the government regulations, there was only reward, and no risk. You had a crappy loan, send it to Washington, they were buying. And to make matters worse, as Van pointed out, the regulations (that liberals want more of) were responsible for curtailing common sense and demanding that you made loans that you normally wouldn't. If you don't make enough loans to a certain demographic or geographical area, you get your nuts wrung because you're descriminating. It doesn't matter that the majority in that demographic or area had shitty credit scores (you get those from not paying your bills), or didn't have the debt/income ratios necessary to pay on a mortgage. You made the loan or faced the wrath of the regulators. After all, according to the liberals, it is everybody's right to own their own home (but somehow not their responsibility to make themselves creditworthy). Liberals aren't real good with that responsibilty for your own actions thing.

A lot of bankers figured this out and decided that if that was the game they wanted to play, they'd play it. They wrote crappy loan after crappy loan, packaged them up and sent them off. IF most of those regulations were removed, not more added, this probably wouldn't of happened.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I've got some news that is going to be shocking to you libs; Bankers know the difference between a good loan, an iffy loan, and a bad loan. We don't need a government regulator to tell us. If the government would get the hell out of the way, we would make good loans, price the iffy ones accordingly if we took them, and deny bad ones. Risk/reward would be in play, as it should, and if a banker made to many risky loans that went South, he would lose his job and that would be an example to other bankers not to make bad loans.

However, thanks to the government regulations, there was only reward, and no risk. You had a crappy loan, send it to Washington, they were buying. And to make matters worse, as Van pointed out, the regulations (that liberals want more of) were responsible for curtailing common sense and demanding that you made loans that you normally wouldn't. If you don't make enough loans to a certain demographic or geographical area, you get your nuts wrung because you're descriminating. It doesn't matter that the majority in that demographic or area had shitty credit scores (you get those from not paying your bills), or didn't have the debt/income ratios necessary to pay on a mortgage. You made the loan or faced the wrath of the regulators. After all, according to the liberals, it is everybody's right to own their own home (but somehow not their responsibility to make themselves creditworthy). Liberals aren't real good with that responsibilty for your own actions thing.

A lot of bankers figured this out and decided that if that was the game they wanted to play, they'd play it. They wrote crappy loan after crappy loan, packaged them up and sent them off. IF most of those regulations were removed, not more added, this probably wouldn't of happened.

That makes too much sense for the resident liberals to understand. Can you siplify it so they might grasp it please! :roll:
 
Top