[Masthead] Partly Cloudy ~ 74°F  
High: 76°F ~ Low: 55°F
Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014

The Bailout Plan- Does anyone have the details

Posted Monday, September 29, 2008, at 6:13 PM

Without knowing what was really in this bill, it is hard to determine what I think about it.

Politics may have reared its ugly head OR it truly was not an acceptable bill.

Another possibility was that it was pushed so quickly that the details were never able to be adequately explained and therefore many of us distrusted it.

Did they solve the executive bonuses issue? My personal opinion is that executives who head up failed businesses, should share in the loss.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

From my understanding the executive pay provision was included in the bill. There was also oversight from Congress included. The way it was structured, there would not have been an immediate payout of the entire amount but it would have been done in stages as needed.

No one, and I mean no one, wanted to have to deal with this. From what I'm hearing, the feedback the house members were hearing from their districts was 20:1 against. 5 weeks before a national election this couldn't have come up at a worse time. My guess is that when they get back day after tomorrow (that's right they're off for the Jewish holiday) and the market has contracted another ten percent they may be more willing to show some leadership and get something passed.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 6:29 PM

Either way - I was suprised when they defeated it today. I heard Ron Paul on the radio today and one of his issues with was the special project pork they tacked onto it. I am so sick of the way they use one thing that is highly publicized to get passed while hiding (unless you know where/how/when to look) what they "don't" really want you to know about...and by the time you find out - it's too late.

If we could just get rid of that alone we would probably reduce our government spending by .........well......a LOT.

-- Posted by GeeWoman on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 7:37 PM

Here's the link to the roll call http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674....

For TN here's the breakdown:

Yeas: Jim Cooper, Steve Cohen, Bart Gordon, & John Tanner.

Nays: David Davis, John Duncan, Zach Wamp, Lincoln Davis, & Marsha Blackburn

Personally, I think it's interesting how the Republican President came up with this snake oil and all but one of our state's Democrat Representatives voted FOR it. I am sure glad it didn't pass, but I'm wondering what sort of backroom deal will be brokered before the next round of voting takes place for this.

-- Posted by Thom on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 7:55 PM

What will occur if the credit forecast comes about. No payrolls, no credit cards, no......

I can not believe there was still "pork" in there. That is why I was hoping there were details out there. We are all working on unconfirmed info, so how do we make a decision.

How many folks voting on it really knew what was in it or were just deciding based on what they leaders wanted them to hear?

Maybe it was a responsible decision, but the spinmasters are going to shovel it out there.

-- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 8:06 PM

It's nice when our elected officials show proper respect for the faith of their constituents.

Perhaps,they could conclude that the People of the Book (and everyone else) would be best served if pork were removed permanently from the political feed trough.

Then,we wouldn't have to worry about hidden deals that weren't kosher-or halal or reasonable and honorable by anyone's definition.

The voters might even appreciate that gesture more than taking time off work when particular holidays show up on the calendar.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 8:09 PM

I'm betting that there was only one person voting that read it. I agree that there should be a law requiring the Senators and Representatives to personally read every single bill before them prior to voting on it. I would imagine that the vast majority of Democrats voting for it did so because Pelosi did and the Republicans that voted for it did so because Bush wanted them to. I say throw 'em all out.

-- Posted by Thom on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 8:13 PM

If we don't know what it was in its' entirety, do we have an idea why those opposed voted no? MAybe that will tell us something and hopefully it is a shorter list than the other side.

-- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 9:19 PM

Take a look at this hot item: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/200809...

Seems those who are up for re-election were more afraid of all the phone calls they were getting from angry voters. Funny how differently they act when they know they are being watched.

-- Posted by GeeWoman on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 9:21 PM

http://www.t-g.com/blogs/nathanevans/

Nathan Evans, a fellow T-G blogger posted a blog with very finite details...

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 9:38 PM

Michelle Malkin had some pretty alarming breakdowns of what she is calling "the Crap Sandwhich" This is "must" reading!

The headline was just for starters:

Kill the bailout: The crap in the "crap sandwich;" 10 reasons to oppose the bailout; debt limit increased to $11.315 trillion

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/28/kil...

-- Posted by GeeWoman on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 9:42 PM

I believe this will pass pretty much as written and that today should be accepted for what it was, a nod to the will of the voters back home. The true constituents of our representatives will be bringing their considerable weight to bear on this passing pretty quickly, and it has already been decided, at least in my opinion.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 10:22 PM

The Best Statement I have heard concerning this problem describes exactly how I feel also:

WHY DO I FEEL LIKE I'M IN PRISON, TAKING A SHOWER, AND I JUST DROPPED THE SOAP???

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Sep 29, 2008, at 10:28 PM

Ok somebody please explain to me ...We supposedly put no money into the stock market yesterday. Dow was down 777 points, this morning the market is up ..Why is there more confidence today I wonder?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 9:48 AM

That is a roller coaster I have never had faith in, so we do not invest. It seems that much of it is perception and if the press did not promote so much gloom and doom, we would probably avoid the extreme ups and downs.

-- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 10:41 AM

Why is there more confidence today I wonder?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 9:48 AM

Yesterday was an overreaction to the news of the rejection of the bailout plan. Low stock prices attract investors looking to buy low. There is also a lot of speculation that Congress will pass a revised bill, which they probably will.

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 2:36 PM

Below is a link to the 110 page bill that failed to get enough votes. I read somewhere about a single sentence within the bill that changes a very important rule that restricts the Federal Reserve, but I have not been able to locate any information that explains what the rule change will affect.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28...

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 3:04 PM

Thanks for the research Nathan.

Glad I got a laptop and can take this into my "favorite" reading room.

Haven't read it yet, but the room may be more appropriate than normal.

-- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 4:29 PM

Steve - Anytime you are reading about Congress, chances are that room is more appropriate.

Nathan - I second the thanks for you looking into all of this. I have been extremely busy lately and your research and the post on your blog have kept me informed. Thanks so much for posting.

-- Posted by Thom on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 6:40 PM

There is also a lot of speculation that Congress will pass a revised bill, which they probably will.

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 2:36 PM

You may be right but I do not think they will pass it until after the election and I think if it can wait that long they don't need it as bad as they are saying

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 9:23 PM

$25 billion loan package for troubled automakers.

Is this really a loan or just another bailout?

Wonder who else needs our tax money? You think WalMart will be looking for a bailout when Christmas sales are down?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081001/us_n...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 10:55 PM

Did anybody see all the extras the Senate put in this bailout bill??

If the house passes this now it just goes to show you it wasn't about passing 700 billion down to the taxpayers it is about getting the their own bills passed.

I read through some of these extras and I truly do not see how any of them are going to help the core of the problem. Maybe I am missing something If so please do tell me what it is.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Oct 1, 2008, at 9:00 PM

You think WalMart will be looking for a bailout when Christmas sales are down?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 30, 2008, at 10:55 PM

LOL! China will probably come to the aid of Wal-Mart if they hit hard times.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 8:29 AM

I do not have the details of the bailout but a friend of mine did send me the details which brought about the need for the bailout.

______

Dear Friends,

I am sounding an alarm! For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this is not being discussed on the media or why conservatives are not making their case: IT IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!! The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis":

1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.

Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.

2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.

2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!

If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condeming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9Xrqyr...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CS...

Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.

_______

All these Democratic "programs" need to be bundled up and sent to our worst enemy.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 8:32 AM

How the Senate voted: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/100...

Text of what the Senate passed: http://www.govtrack.us/special/econstimb...

Amazingly the bill went from 110 pages to 451!!! Corker and Alexander - FAIL.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 8:36 AM

I am sounding an alarm! For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this is not being discussed on the media or why conservatives are not making their case: IT IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!! The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis"

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 8:32 AM

Someone created this e-mail you received using this editorial by Terry Jones as a source: http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDAr...

Who is Terry Jones? http://www.tbjones.com/about/

You have posted one man's opinion. I especially love how the timeline bypasses 12 years of Republican presidents and completely misrepresents what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually do and how they are involved in the economic problems we face today. I also find it humorous that you receive an e-mail, verify nothing that it contains, and attempt to pass it off as fact. Researching a little and attempting to independently verify some of these things that you post may increase your knowledge on the subject a bit. Believing everything that is contained in an e-mail and then spamming it to others does not benefit anyone except the original creator of the e-mail that has turned you into a pawn. I find it hilarious, especially in the case of the $425,000 government check e-mail passed around last week, that people do not take a few minutes to verify the accuracy of its content before digesting it and making it part of their arsenal and then forwarding to everyone you know. If you cite invalid facts to people and get caught then you almost completely discredit your entire argument. The bottom line for me is that banks loaned out money to people that could not afford to pay or had a poor history of paying debts. Many of these banks designed loans that sounded good to unsuspecting sheep who wanted more than anything to own their own home, but the loan turned out to be a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. These same banks that designed these loans (loans that possibly were created to fulfill a REQUEST by President Clinton that banks find a way to lend money to minorities and disadvantaged Americans) also lobbied for rule changes that allowed them to expand their leveraging ability from 12 to 1 up to 40 to 1. They successfully lobbied the Congress to change bankruptcy rules so they could guarantee that those that entered into these unrealistic loans could not legally walk away. What I am saying is that the banks are the source of the problem and those that were supposed to regulate them (Republicans and Democrats) failed to do their job. This is just one man's opinion though. ;)

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 9:35 AM

I asked this on the other post... perhaps you will answer my question here.

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 7:12 AM

I am curious PB, how does a home buyer in one of these Democratic voting blocks apply for a loan from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 9:38 AM

But the Senate bill is also laden with pork, including:

$223M for Alaskan fisherman

$192M for rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

$128M for auto racing

$33M for companies operating in American Samoa

$10M for film & TV production

$6M for producers of wooden arrows

Our Tax dollars at work...this makes me sick to even read.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 11:36 AM

Dainatn. I agree, they need to include more American made jobs, and American made products, I just wonder how many of those listed has some type of ties to them or an investment in some of those offered.

The Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac was suppose to be a positive plan that got misused. Clinton should have never asked for more lighter credit regulations on these two. It was already a risk that should have been watched and modified according to how well everything was going. In my oppinion, someone seen away to get rich off of this and took full advantage of this. When the Economy began to suffer, people started loosing jobs, getting laid off, and the prices of things started going up, but income did not, this ended up putting more and more people into foreclosure. If the Democrats were responsible for this then they need to except the blame, as well as all the others who are involved in it. I heard both party's had a hand in this, Dems more than Rep. Bush messed up the economy, people that were not risky mortgage borrowers were loosing their homes as well. It is really bad when things are in place to help those that need it, are abused by some that mess it up for all the rest. The rich thrives off of the poor, and often the able takes away from the unable.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 2:40 PM

I also find it humorous that you receive an e-mail, verify nothing that it contains, and attempt to pass it off as fact.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 9:35 AM

Maybe you could tell us exactly what was not factual about this information.

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 5:14 PM

Maybe you could tell us exactly what was not factual about this information.

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 5:14 PM

Research it for yourself devan like I did.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 5:28 PM

Sorry, I didn't know your research was proprietary.

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 5:37 PM

Believe me if What is going around "emails" is actually true, "IT WILL BE ON THE NEWS". "IN THE MEDIA" If it is not on the NEWS then it most likely is NOT true, or only Half truth, and the rest stretched lies.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 5:44 PM

Maybe you could tell us exactly what was not factual about this information.

-- Posted by devan on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 5:14 PM

Research it for yourself devan like I did.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 5:28 PM

Since it is pure factual that is the best answer he could give you Devan.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 7:34 PM

I am sounding an alarm! For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this is not being discussed on the media or why conservatives are not making their case: IT IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!! The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis"

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 8:32 AM

Someone created this e-mail you received using this editorial by Terry Jones as a source: http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDAr...

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 9:35 AM

nathan.evans,

I think the second line of the post mentions it is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis".

Anyway reading into it further I noticed it had had quite a bit of information that I remember first hand discussions of when they happened. Even an idiot like me knew the ramifications of all these Demoncratic "programs" back then. When are they going to learn it is nothing wrong with letting little Johnny wipe his own little butt for his own little self without mommy's "entitlements' and daddys "programs".

In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.

Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.

Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

McCain Urged Changes

That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sen. Harry Reid -- now Majority Leader -- accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."

The bill went nowhere.

This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Demoncrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Demoncrats and protected by Demoncrats.

That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.

These are unrefutable facts Nathan.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 8:12 PM

Affordable housing Did Not cause this crisis!!!

Affordable housing is just that AFFORABLE.

When someone goes to a bank or Mortgage company to apply for a loan if they qualify for a government backed loan (ie: HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Rural Development) the bank applies to them not the individual who is buying the home.

They deal directly with the bank. Meaning the bank does the apprasials , the bank does income verification. The slip up in this crisis is because homes were being appraised for more than their true worth. When the home was foreclosed on for whatever the reason they could not sell the home for the balance of the loan. Income being sent in that was untruthful...who did these things? The Banks!! Not the home owners.

Another problem was some banks giving "sub-prime" mortgages with ARM's. Payments soaring to double and people could not keep up with the increases.

Not to mention unemployment was rising everyday.

And all this people who was buying a home wanted was the same thing everybody else wanted in America..a home of their own!

Plain and simple this is about GREED

I think we can sum up the cause of our current economic crisis in one word -- GREED. Over the years, mortgage lenders were happy to lend money to people who couldn't afford their mortgages. But they did it anyway because there was nothing to lose. These lenders were able to charge higher interest rates and make more money on sub-prime loans. If the borrowers default, they simply seized the house and put it back on the market. On top of that, they were able to pass the risk off to mortgage insurer or package these mortgages as mortgage-backed securities. Easy money!

Unforuately this backfired on the Banks and mortgage companies. Housing prices fell, now they whine and cry and want the very ones they have been screwing to pay their way out.

Just google Home loans and see how many predators are out there promising the moon to unsuspecting homeowners.

Better yet Remember these ads in the t-g?

Tired of paying Rent?

Buy Now with No Money Down

No Credit Bad Credit OK

Hmmmm Sub prime? You better believe it!!

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 9:40 PM

That is so true Dianatn. Also some of these people that got these loans at that time probably could have afforded them. But changes in economy with higher pricing, lesser jobs, probably done some of them in. Not to mention alot of Americans are living off of one income because their better half has been sent out of the country to fight a war that was based on a lie, with possibilities of never coming back to their families alive. My 15 year old cousin has been sick off and on for the past 2 weeks since he got news that his mom, (My favorite Aunt) will be leaving in November to go to Iraq for a whole year. His dad just got back a year ago from Irag, was suppose to do 1 year, but ended up doing 2 years. His mom is the Nurturer and dad more of the discipliner. He will not say how he feels, but his body is definately showing how he feels. My prayers to them.

Their is Pride and honor in fighting for your country true enough (when that is TRULLY what we are doing), but we were attacked by alqaeda (sp) "Bin Laden" the man whose family supposedly had business meetings about Oil investments with the Bush family, and we wonder why they "supposedly" can not find him, and why we suddenly went after Saddam Hussein and Iraq on a lie of weapons of mass destruction all by ourselves. Your suppose to suck it up and do the presidents orders anyway. Just like we have to suck it up and do this $700 billion bailout.

It is amazing all the things they have added to the bill to try and entice a vote for passing it. Hardly any of it is beneficial to the average American, it was told they were favorites of the Republicans, again the Americans have to bend over and take it, or more Americans will suffer losses and total destruction of the economy.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 12:52 AM

Affordable housing Did Not cause this crisis!!!

Affordable housing is just that AFFORABLE.

When someone goes to a bank or Mortgage company to apply for a loan if they qualify for a government backed loan (ie: HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Rural Development) the bank applies to them not the individual who is buying the home.

They deal directly with the bank. Meaning the bank does the apprasials , the bank does income verification.

Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Oct 2, 2008, at 9:40 PM

Though parts of you statements have truth in them it can not be taken as "the truth" without a better explanaton.

While the affordable housing that Clinton hailed is in itself not the problem, the problem does lie in the "programs" that Clinton hailed as being the administrator of guidelines to disperse this 2.4 trillion of his.

You are a little of coarse also in laying the blame so much on the banks. The banks are given the guidelines that they have to follow. If the bank has to allow for a "stated income" they must allow. Many and most of these Demoncratic programs called for someone being able to simply "state" their income without having to provide any verification of their statement. Many people did not properly state their income. They naturally "wanted" more than they "needed" and since Slick Willie was giving they were all in to the taking.

Now, you must prepare to pay for 8 years of Slick Willies fruit that he bore.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 7:22 AM

does anyone know where i can look at the bill in its entirety, i am hearing alot of rumors about things in the bill that i would like to verify.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 10:06 AM

The Bill

http://www.govtrack.us/special/econstimb...

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 11:41 AM

Watching CSPAN coverage of the HOR debates, I am hearing that the Treasurer is going to have the ability to purchase vehicles on floor plans at car dealerships and vehicles purchased using home equity loans.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 11:44 AM

Ok I read the first 100 pages of the new bill and honestly almost fell asleep while trying to read it..

Do you happen to have the Bill in a Nut Shell?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 12:04 PM

In a nutshell:

http://milliondare.com/2008/10/02/the-se...

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 12:09 PM

Thank you

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 12:17 PM

well it looks like they got their 700+ Billion dollars.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 1:30 PM

thank you nathan

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 2:36 PM

Now, you must prepare to pay for 8 years of Slick Willies fruit that he bore.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 7:22 AM

Hmm... Why didn't Mr. Bush (which you deem infallible) change this legislation in the 5 years he had with a Republican controlled Congress? In that time he invaded two countries, one of which had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, or 9/11, passed N.C.L.B., tried to privatize Social Security (hmm, with a $700 billion dollar bailout, how do you think S.S. would be doing right now?)...

The fact is, you can blame this on whomever you wish, but if Bush was pushing to change this in 2003, he had no opposition in Congress... so why didn't he? I guess when you spend all of your first few years on vacation, and turning surpluses into deficits, and focusing on Iraq and other countries, instead of your own, it is easy to see why this legislation was ignored.

Isn't it ironic Parkebrothers how you attribute any failure that has happened in the last 8 years to the bad policies from Clinton (in the 90s), yet every success that occurred in the 90's you attribute to a Republican Congress... Guess what, that same Republican Congress which reigned with Clinton, passed the legislation that you accuse only he of perpetrating.

It is amazing what you discover when the wool is pulled from your eyes.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 10:45 PM

You are a little of coarse also in laying the blame so much on the banks. The banks are given the guidelines that they have to follow. If the bank has to allow for a "stated income" they must allow. Many and most of these Demoncratic programs called for someone being able to simply "state" their income without having to provide any verification of their statement. Many people did not properly state their income. They naturally "wanted" more than they "needed" and since Slick Willie was giving they were all in to the taking.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 7:22 AM

Even more ironic... These banks that you say had their hands tied, have reported profits every years since this legislation was passed... Many of the banks and other companies that "failed" even reported profit increases in 2007, and most ranked in the top 150 on Fortune 500's list of Largest American Companies.

These banks new what they were doing, and they have lobbyists on Capitol Hill, that could have put money behind this to have it stopped... But they didn't, therefore they should all suffer from inaction, complacency and refusal to act responsibly.

You can not excuse the banks from any wrongdoing when their CEO's reported HEFTY bonuses month after month, and one was on the job for THREE WEEKS, and his walk away compensation was $18+ million. Hmm. That is no policy of Clinton's, that is pure and simple unethical behavior, coming back to bite them.

-- Posted by Disturbia on Fri, Oct 3, 2008, at 10:50 PM

What happened to John "veto pork barrel spending" Mccain? He smells like bacon right now.

-- Posted by Richard on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 1:02 AM

Mr. "I'll go through every bill line by line, you will know their names, and I'll make them famous.." Well we already know John McCain's name and to some he is famous, so I guess he has a good start.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 6:36 AM

Disturbia,

I am not saying that some Republicans were not complicit and escaped the Democratic deception but by and large I think the last paragraph of this previous post below says what needs to be said.

All I can say is read this again:

In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.

Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.

Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

McCain Urged Changes

That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sen. Harry Reid -- now Majority Leader -- accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."

The bill went nowhere.

This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 7:32 AM

What happened to John "veto pork barrel spending" Mccain? He smells like bacon right now.

-- Posted by Richard on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 1:02 AM

He knows the value of time in a matter of this issue. He knows that the cost of time trying to remove the pork far outweighs the price of the pork and probably made a good business decision.

If a government is going to legislate and then regulate these "programs" they do indeed have the responsibility to rescue what "they" started.

They would not be rescueing or bailing if they had not gave birth to their child.

Yes, they gave birth to the mortgage baby, fed it and guided it and now must come get the adolescent out of trouble when all he did was follow the guidance of his birth parents.

If you do not want to come get your child out of trouble when he follows your instructions then by all means do not have these children.

Willie Wonka ought to have to come get this child of his out of trouble. But wait, he could not hear the message of his childs problem with that vacuum cleaner running under his desk. He sure could grin though during those State of The Union Addresses. I wonder what was putting that grin on his face.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 7:51 AM

Actually, Glass Stengall created a wall between lending and deposit institutions and the investment banks and insurance companies. Gramm Leach Bliley erased that wall, but Clinton only signed the act. It was authored by three Republican house members and passed with near unanimity by the House and Senate. Somehow, Clinton and Rubin are taking the heat for something everyone agreed with. The main sponsor, Phil Gramm is John McCain's economic advisor.

Interestingly enough parkerbrothers, you seem to not ever look at who is advising the leaders you look up to. And BTW McCain overwhelmingly voted for these same bills you stated he didn't support.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sat, Oct 4, 2008, at 11:46 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Steve Mills and his wife have one daughter and live on a farm outside of Bell Buckle. They previously owned two coffee/ice cream shops, currently operate an internet sales company and teach classes, but his primary job involves the paper industry worldwide. Hobbies and interests lie in gardening, photography, recorded music and of course, their pets.