Who is to Blame? (Revisited)

[jficquette]

[quote=equalizer]Why didnt President Bush and the Repubs in 2000-2006 do anything about Fannie Freddie? What, they were blackmailed by dems? Dems had no power, they still dont. Real Answer: Those slime lobbyists paid off 368 out of 435 House and most Senators, and Greenspan gave them all cover. [/quote]

“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”

“Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.”

Our system is not a parliamentary system where the majority rules. It takes more then the majority to get things done. Rules procedures. Witness even now, as the Dems are the majority now but can’t get anything done with the Republicans.

The real blame lies at the feet of the selfish greedy baby boomers who were born with a sense of entitlement who have no intentions of sacrificing anything for the generations to come.

John

[equalizer]

jficquette,

OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.

Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.

[equalizer]

jficquette,

OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.

Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.

[equalizer]

jficquette,

OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.

Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.

[equalizer]

jficquette,

OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.

Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.

[equalizer]

jficquette,

OK, I agree with your last post.
—-
Greenspan did say in an interview that he was concerned with income inequality and believed that home ownership would help bridge that gap. That philosophy prevented him from acting to stop spread of the toxic disease.

Was going to mention that HUD act of 2005, but as the other person mentioned the subprime loans were 85% outside HUD,etc.

[DWCAP]

Americans like to blame someone. We want to point to a person, say it is all that persons fault, do something to punish that person, and then move on. The most classic example I think of is how we blamed everything on Saddam and his sons, and not on the Sunni tribes he hailed from that were very repressive to the majority of Iraq. We offed Saddam years ago, and yet the violence isnt over, the war isnt decided, and people are still dying. Obviously we focused too much on him, and not enough on the culture that spawned him.

We like to blame Paulson, BB, Bush, Maybe even congress (especially the other party in congress) and a few CEO’s. We could off (fire, not kill) all these people and we would still have the same problems we have today. It is the culture of the “American Dream” to be a home “owner” that is to blame. We are all apart of that culture and all share some responsibility for it.

The American dream as I remember it was never about owning something expensive, it was about having a better life than your parents, and making sure your kids had a better life than you. If owning a house enables that dream, then great. We as a culture put WAY too much social pressure on home ownership and not nearly enough on ensuring the things that really matter.

[DWCAP]

Americans like to blame someone. We want to point to a person, say it is all that persons fault, do something to punish that person, and then move on. The most classic example I think of is how we blamed everything on Saddam and his sons, and not on the Sunni tribes he hailed from that were very repressive to the majority of Iraq. We offed Saddam years ago, and yet the violence isnt over, the war isnt decided, and people are still dying. Obviously we focused too much on him, and not enough on the culture that spawned him.

We like to blame Paulson, BB, Bush, Maybe even congress (especially the other party in congress) and a few CEO’s. We could off (fire, not kill) all these people and we would still have the same problems we have today. It is the culture of the “American Dream” to be a home “owner” that is to blame. We are all apart of that culture and all share some responsibility for it.

The American dream as I remember it was never about owning something expensive, it was about having a better life than your parents, and making sure your kids had a better life than you. If owning a house enables that dream, then great. We as a culture put WAY too much social pressure on home ownership and not nearly enough on ensuring the things that really matter.

[DWCAP]

Americans like to blame someone. We want to point to a person, say it is all that persons fault, do something to punish that person, and then move on. The most classic example I think of is how we blamed everything on Saddam and his sons, and not on the Sunni tribes he hailed from that were very repressive to the majority of Iraq. We offed Saddam years ago, and yet the violence isnt over, the war isnt decided, and people are still dying. Obviously we focused too much on him, and not enough on the culture that spawned him.

We like to blame Paulson, BB, Bush, Maybe even congress (especially the other party in congress) and a few CEO’s. We could off (fire, not kill) all these people and we would still have the same problems we have today. It is the culture of the “American Dream” to be a home “owner” that is to blame. We are all apart of that culture and all share some responsibility for it.

The American dream as I remember it was never about owning something expensive, it was about having a better life than your parents, and making sure your kids had a better life than you. If owning a house enables that dream, then great. We as a culture put WAY too much social pressure on home ownership and not nearly enough on ensuring the things that really matter.

[DWCAP]

Americans like to blame someone. We want to point to a person, say it is all that persons fault, do something to punish that person, and then move on. The most classic example I think of is how we blamed everything on Saddam and his sons, and not on the Sunni tribes he hailed from that were very repressive to the majority of Iraq. We offed Saddam years ago, and yet the violence isnt over, the war isnt decided, and people are still dying. Obviously we focused too much on him, and not enough on the culture that spawned him.

We like to blame Paulson, BB, Bush, Maybe even congress (especially the other party in congress) and a few CEO’s. We could off (fire, not kill) all these people and we would still have the same problems we have today. It is the culture of the “American Dream” to be a home “owner” that is to blame. We are all apart of that culture and all share some responsibility for it.

The American dream as I remember it was never about owning something expensive, it was about having a better life than your parents, and making sure your kids had a better life than you. If owning a house enables that dream, then great. We as a culture put WAY too much social pressure on home ownership and not nearly enough on ensuring the things that really matter.

[DWCAP]

Americans like to blame someone. We want to point to a person, say it is all that persons fault, do something to punish that person, and then move on. The most classic example I think of is how we blamed everything on Saddam and his sons, and not on the Sunni tribes he hailed from that were very repressive to the majority of Iraq. We offed Saddam years ago, and yet the violence isnt over, the war isnt decided, and people are still dying. Obviously we focused too much on him, and not enough on the culture that spawned him.

We like to blame Paulson, BB, Bush, Maybe even congress (especially the other party in congress) and a few CEO’s. We could off (fire, not kill) all these people and we would still have the same problems we have today. It is the culture of the “American Dream” to be a home “owner” that is to blame. We are all apart of that culture and all share some responsibility for it.

The American dream as I remember it was never about owning something expensive, it was about having a better life than your parents, and making sure your kids had a better life than you. If owning a house enables that dream, then great. We as a culture put WAY too much social pressure on home ownership and not nearly enough on ensuring the things that really matter.

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette]
“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
John[/quote]

Hold the phone. Let’s try a couple of more quotes from that exact article:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Let’s see, the Republican proposal is limited to Fannie/Freddie, would keep them exempt from fraud charges, would continue to implicitly guarantee bailout, and would transfer control from Congress to the Executive branch…and you think that was great legislation?

Shoot, if I were a Senator or Representative, I wouldn’t agree to giving control to the White House either!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette]
“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
John[/quote]

Hold the phone. Let’s try a couple of more quotes from that exact article:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Let’s see, the Republican proposal is limited to Fannie/Freddie, would keep them exempt from fraud charges, would continue to implicitly guarantee bailout, and would transfer control from Congress to the Executive branch…and you think that was great legislation?

Shoot, if I were a Senator or Representative, I wouldn’t agree to giving control to the White House either!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette]
“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
John[/quote]

Hold the phone. Let’s try a couple of more quotes from that exact article:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Let’s see, the Republican proposal is limited to Fannie/Freddie, would keep them exempt from fraud charges, would continue to implicitly guarantee bailout, and would transfer control from Congress to the Executive branch…and you think that was great legislation?

Shoot, if I were a Senator or Representative, I wouldn’t agree to giving control to the White House either!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

[svelte]

[quote=jficquette]
“Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”
John[/quote]

Hold the phone. Let’s try a couple of more quotes from that exact article:

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

…

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Let’s see, the Republican proposal is limited to Fannie/Freddie, would keep them exempt from fraud charges, would continue to implicitly guarantee bailout, and would transfer control from Congress to the Executive branch…and you think that was great legislation?

Shoot, if I were a Senator or Representative, I wouldn’t agree to giving control to the White House either!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

[Author]

Posts