Originally Posted by
Lyle
Say what you will Captain Happy but out of the Democrats' own mouths come the words that I can use against them. Fannie and Freddie ARE corrupt organizations and the reason why stems from the coupling of BUSINESS and GOVERNMENT...GSE's are WRONG!
Once again I don't say the Republicans are not at fault, I just say the Democrats need to admit that the Republicans aren't alone. I also say that the Democrats have fucked us over in continuously bailing out the Wall Street brats who sold EVERYBODY out!!!!
F and F are far less corrupt than the rest of the system. Now that the US government is currently bailing out every major US bank not only F and F but the entire US banking system are now Government Sponsored Enterprises. So is GEC, the car industry, half the insurance industry, state governments, etc. They're all socialist now baby. And again, if F and F had never existed the exact same thing would have happened. They're just two more privately-owned financial companies that are now on government welfare.
Republicans are alone. Exactly who has bailed everybody out so far Lyle?
Here's a new newspaper report today. I'm guessing this won't get much TV coverage :
The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.
“Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,” California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.
Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.
“These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages,” David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.
Bank regulators had proposed new guidelines for writing risky loans in 2005, but were rebuffed by the White House. The proposed regulations might have avoided the worst fo the housing and credit crisis, had they been enacted.
What was so especially damning was these proposals were all stripped from the final Administrative rules by the Bush White House. None required congressional approval or even the president’s signature:
• Before banks could purchase mortgages from brokers, they should verify the process to ensure buyers could afford their homes.
• Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.
• Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.
• Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn’t be crippling.
• Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.
• Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.
The banks that lobbied most aggressively against the rules reads like a who’s who of bankruptcy and FDIC conservatorship: IndyMac, Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, and Downey Savings.
The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: US diluted loan rules before crash
Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Re: I have come to realize...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks