The warnings were there......

[rocknK]

YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

This was not allowed in the USA!!

[Tiz]

Thanks, rnk.

[twofingers]

surly that must be propaganda, why senator blarney frank only has the best interest of the citizens at heart and surely would not have encouraged investment companies to grant loans to folks who could not afford them or were sure to default on them just for political gain. :money:

[4myquarter]

YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1)

This was not allowed in the USA!!


What do you mean by this? "not allowed"?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1)

This was not allowed in the USA!!

Funny... tragic really, that it it Canadian media that carries this sort of thing. Now, the people that are most responsible for making the mess are the same people that are in charge.

[shudder]

Buy Gold.

[Vacker Hast]

Yep, BO is taking all the credit on how to fix it but doesn't take any blame in how it's come to this point. Seems that's his Mode of Opperation and Americans are soaking it up as the truth ... if they only really knew!!!

[natisha]

Yes, this & many other warnings. People fell for the big chiclet smile & the promise of hope & change. We're getting the change & losing all hope.

Wait! If we all think happy thoughts.........

[elevenelevenxo]

The Republican Party kept control of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate until 2007.....why is this Obama's doing?

Maybe Bush warned against several important things, but why were steps never taken to do anything about them? The man had 8 years....guess too much time was spent around a bonfire at Camp David....

[Tiz]

Oh my goodness, eleven, that's just so rude.

[elevenelevenxo]

LMAO, what are you talking about Tiz?

And the majority of your posts aren't? Get over yourself.

[rocknK]

1111XO, I'll second the rude statement & raise you that I find your bonefire statement offensive. JMHO, don't you know!!:nono:

[elevenelevenxo]

There's plenty in this forum that I find offensive. But I don't go crying about it. Thought you guys were big tough Republicans who didn't let pithy little Dems get to ya!!!

:rolleyes:

It's spelled "bonfire," by the way. ;)

[natisha]

:grouphug:

[twofingers]

Some people can not discuss problems nor have viable solutions or compromising plans so throwing gas on the fire is all they can do.:innocent::grouphug:

[cheval]

Amen brother.

[JackieB]

To be fair, it would be easy to put together a news story like this to support either side. That was a big part of how Obama defeated McCain - by tying him to the "The fundamentals of the economy are sound" type comments.

And while things were deteriorating, the Bush Administration wasn't too eager to say more than "The rate of economic growth is slowing...."

I think the fair thing to say is that neither party really saw this coming. There were relevant comments from both sides of the aisle of course, but nobody consistently saying "Look, these subprime mortgages have the ability to devastate the economy if too many mortagees default. Not the Republicans or the Democrats.

[JackieB]

Oh, and Eleven's comments was pretty tame.

[mtnmollie]

Maybe we should all sing Kumbayah? :)

Rk keep 'em comming cowboy. :cowboy:

[mtnmollie]

There's plenty in this forum that I find offensive. But I don't go crying about it. Thought you guys were big tough Republicans ...


Good. You get a cookie. :)

But Rk is a democrate. :eek:

[Tiz]

Oh good grief, Jackie. Many people, with common sense, and nothing to gain from pretending all was cherry, saw it coming. My friend, Nancy, ordinary accountant, said 2 years ago that "Oh my God, when these foolish ARMs start to readjust,in about 2 years, the s#*+ is going to hit the fan!"

George Bush, Treasury Secretary Snow, many, many others, saw it coming.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

To be fair, it would be easy to put together a news story like this to support either side.

It sounds nice, and open-minded to say things like that. It is regrettably however, just not the case. This is a statist-created problem.


That was a big part of how Obama defeated McCain - by tying him to the "The fundamentals of the economy are sound" type comments.

And while things were deteriorating, the Bush Administration wasn't too eager to say more than "The rate of economic growth is slowing...."

Obama did it in order to drive the economy deeper down, because that is what serves his interest. That is what he needs to do, in order to get his agenda through. It wasn't obvious to everyone then, but it should be more than obvious by now.

Incidentally, the "rate of growth" of the economy was slowing, but according to EVEN the CBO numbers there was still growth happening through the third quarter, and into the fourth. Should he have lied and talked the economy down further like his opponent was doing?


I think the fair thing to say is that neither party really saw this coming. There were relevant comments from both sides of the aisle of course, but nobody consistently saying "Look, these subprime mortgages have the ability to devastate the economy if too many mortagees default. Not the Republicans or the Democrats.

That's simply not true. The ones who stopped reform of Freddie and Fannie no less than seven separate times from 2002 through 2008 were: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi. The republicans may have had a majority at the beginning, but they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority, which means that minority members of the Senate can stop things just as dead as majority members. That, and they are largely a bunch of spineless worms that keep trying to "play nice" and won't fight those who are trying their best to destroy this country.

:)

[JackieB]

That's simply not true. The ones who stopped reform of Freddie and Fannie no less than seven separate times from 2002 through 2008 were: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi.

It's just hard for me. Basically, what I have to accept is that The Bush White House, all of the Republicans in both the House and Senate, and all of the bankers as well, were not able to successfully stand up to Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi. Chris Dodd too I guess, but I hadn't heard his name much the AIG bonus flap.

What I have heard repeatedly is that Barney Frank (and other Dems) pressured banks to make bad loans, and that plenty of Republicans and the White House did express concern, but for whatever reasons, they just weren't able to defend the economy from the Democrats, and especially these select few Dems.

If I was visiting from another planet and observing American politics, I think I'd have to assume that this Barney Frank guy is the most powerful politician of all because others warned of his misdeeds, but were powerless to stop him from wreaking havoc on the economy.

[Arrow]

Oh man, JackieB, you're rarely sarcastic, but when you do sarcastic...well, you're just brilliant.:)

[Tiz]

Jackie, you should look into how our government works. Important legislation doesn't get out of committee, and to the floor for consideration, all the time. Chances are, if you follow the money, you would understand why.
Barney Frank's boyfriend worked at Freddie. Rahm Emanuel got $320,000 for less then a years worth of doing something, I don't know what, over at Fannie or Freddie. That's just to name two. It was a significant piggy bank, it appears, for a number of our corrupt legislators.

[JackieB]

Oh man, JackieB, you're rarely sarcastic, but when you do sarcastic...well, you're just brilliant.:)

Thanks for the compliment, Arrow. I'm generally not fond of sarcasm. But I suppose it has its place and I'm growing a bit weary of this argument. I'm absolutely willing to accept that the financial mess is one that both parties are probably equally culpable in either helping create, or failing to recognize early enough to stem the damage. But this argument that it's mostly the fault of a few members of one party even though the other party apparently saw the problem coming and sounded alarms while it was in power is absurd.

[JackieB]

Jackie, you should look into how our government works. Important legislation doesn't get out of committee, and to the floor for consideration, all the time.

Do you really think I wouldn't know that as close as I follow politics, Tiz?

I know we can follow the money back to people like Rahm Emmanuel. We could follow the money on the other side of the aisle, too.

[HoustonFarrier]

We could follow the money on the other side of the aisle, too.

To whom??? What Republican made MORE than Rahm Emmanual ??? Just wondering, because I have not heard of one yet ?

While I do agree that the SOLE blame cannot just rest on one political party, there is no doubt in my mind that a few SELECT Dems were indeed major enablers in this mess. Had THEY chosen to stand up as John McCain did, perhaps we could have lessened the blow to our financial system ???? One has to remember that comittee chairman/women wield ALLOT of political power in our corrupt system.

Imagine if Maxine Waters had stood up and said......"something is very wrong with Fannie Mae" ...rather than saying what a fantastic job Franklin Raines was doing as he made $90M over 6 years...and was in charge while they went bankrupt (Why haven't they asked for HIS bonuses back ????)

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Had THEY chosen to stand up as John McCain almost did

Fixed your quote. I still think McCain blew it over almost, but not quite, doing something important on the "first" bailout/stimulus/pork bill. I think it cost him the election.

Personally, I think the entire system is corrupt and the only way to sort it out may be to get rid of ALL of them. I know I never want to support another Senator for president.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]
What I have heard repeatedly is that Barney Frank (and other Dems) pressured banks to make bad loans, and that plenty of Republicans and the White House did express concern, but for whatever reasons, they just weren't able to defend the economy from the Democrats, and especially these select few Dems.
[...]

Yes, that's basically true. Sure, there were republicans to blame as well. The Republican party has precious few conservatives in it. Many of them are also merely statists that have abandoned free markets, having drunk themselves senseless on the power of government.

This isn't always about Democrat v. Republican. It's about liberal (statism) v. conservative (liberty). Statists believe that there can be no economy without government control. Conservatives observe that freedom and free markets are the basis of a healthy economy. Statists don't need nor do they truly want a healthy economy. They need for the people to need them.

[JackieB]

This isn't always about Democrat v. Republican.

That's all the recognition I've been looking for all along. Interestingly, even in the "Warnings were there..." clips, what I was hearing was Republicans calling for more government oversight and regulation, not the true privatization of Freddie and Fannie where they don't have the federal government to prop them up and then allowing market conditions to work themselves out.

But I can't accept this attitude of "We tried. We warned them. We're all victims just like you are, American public." Sure, politicians will say that. Accepting responsiblity would end a political career in an instant. But as citizens, we can sure hold them to it.

[WashingtonBay]

You're right Jackie... The problem comes when we start defending and promoting people (or groups of people) instead of ideals. Because people will always fail, and will try to protect their own ass when they do.

[mtnmollie]

Accepting responsiblity would end a political career in an instant.


Why?


But as citizens, we can sure hold them to it.

How? :)

[Tiz]

"Basically, what I have to accept is that The Bush White House, all of the Republicans in both the House and Senate, and all of the bankers as well, were not able to successfully stand up to Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi." Jackie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiz http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/images/styles/beige/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?p=130630#post130630)
Jackie, you should look into how our government works. Important legislation doesn't get out of committee, and to the floor for consideration, all the time.

"Do you really think I wouldn't know that as close as I follow politics, Tiz?" Jackie


Do you contradict yourself here? You can't have it both ways, Jackie.

[JackieB]

Do you contradict yourself here?

No, but I can see where it would appear to be a contradiction. I know that powerful representatives and senators, especially those who are committee chairs, can yield great influence on legislation. And one of the ways that they can exert their power is by refusing to allow a bill to be taken up by their committees. However, those who want to have an issue considered in spite of a committee chair's resistance have many ways to go about that (within the established political process).

What I can't buy is the idea that "Well, we (meaning the White House and Republican Party) knew this was coming, in fact, we even predicted it. But there just wasn't anything we could really do because Barney, Nancy, and Chris wouldn't let us move forward with protecting the economy." That's essentially what the FoxNews report says. If these politicians called it and knew the extent of the risk, but didn't howl to all of America that this was going to happen, then the only conclusion one can reach as to why they didn't act is that they felt powerless to stop it.

Again, I'm not defending Barney, Nancy, and Chris. What I'm looking for is an acknowledgement that the economic disaster was probably a fairly equally bipartisan calamity.

The real root of this problem is probably about as interwoven into both parties as one can imagine. And my opinion is that the reasons it came about include


Bad loans that were extremely profitable to issue for awhile (tons of money to be made).
A lack of understanding of those financial instruments that came from the loans.
Low priority placed on possible problems related to subprime loans while the problem was incubating.

[HoustonFarrier]

.... What I'm looking for is an acknowledgement that the economic disaster was probably a fairly equally bipartisan calamity. ...

I would agree to a point, in saying, that had just ONE of the Dems, be it Reid, Pelosi or Fwank, stood up and said "Whoa"...we'd NOT be in as bad a mess as we are.

Remember...it was Rahm Emmanual who said something about not wasting a crisis.......

Steve

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]
The real root of this problem is probably about as interwoven into both parties as one can imagine. And my opinion is that the reasons it came about include


Bad loans that were extremely profitable to issue for awhile (tons of money to be made).
A lack of understanding of those financial instruments that came from the loans.
Low priority placed on possible problems related to subprime loans while the problem was incubating.


I don't know about these loans being particularly profitable. It's like 'investing' in your neighbor's losing blackjack habit. Many of these loans were done at a loss or a push for the lender, as simply the price of being allowed to stay in business. If they had been profitable then nobody would be needing a bailout. You don't make much money by selling things to people who can't afford them. There's a lot more money to be made by selling things to people who can.

But beyond that I completely agree with your other two points. There wasn't enough attention given to this, and when there was a light shined on the ugly underparts... nobody took it seriously. Partly I'm sure because nobody really understood the vagueries of complex derivative securities, and partly because it just wasn't a clear and present crisis. So it gets pushed aside for the crisis of the day. But: it is the people that pushed it aside that are now claiming to have been "blindsided", and that's just a flat lie.

On another note: There was something else that Bush was beating the drums on, day after day, and got zero traction with the media or Congress. It too is a looming catastrophe that'll one day make this economy look like a walk in the park. Yet nobody paid attention then and they're sweeping it under the rug still: Social Security. It is the thing that will take this country down.

Every attempt to fix it has been shot down. Unfortunately it is probably too late now. The baby boomers are about to start retiring in just a few years. Then the demographics turn completely upside-down and there isn't enough tax money in the whole economy to pay for it.

[twofingers]

I believe that it was greed and the entitlement mentality that led to this. After all it was not fair that not everyone owned a home. The liberal supported non-profits threw a lot of **it at the fan and made many threats and demands. granted a financial wizard invented this scam and cleverly wrapped inside legitimate loans and investments. I was reading about a bank in Massachusetts , a very small bank, which made a profit of 8 or so million dollars last year. they were given a poor rating by accorn - why because they did not loan give out any of these crap loans. hummm

[John Boy]

I'll only comment on the video and a couple brief joking comments if people can not be so serious and appreciate subtle humor .....
Camp David doesn't have camp fires - only camp fires occurred during the short stays Bush had at the Crawford ranch .....

Alan Greenspan had the finger on EVERYTHING.
he was revered as the go to guy.
Alan personally has stated - "I never saw it coming" (That's just precious)

OK - Any and all presidents and goverments would prefer seeing all families in their own homes. This gives any family a sense of well being.
American's believe this is not only important , but a way of life. When reference to lending agencies were quib'ed about in the early 2000's I do not believe that the goverment was politically thinking that these lending agencies were running a huge amount of loans that were short term interest rates and then nailing the comsumers to huge increase interest rates forcing new homeowners into foreclosures so that they can cash in on delinquent loans. (Banks are interested in making money , not owning homes) I might be missing the point , but the point is neither the republician nor the democrat's new the monstrative impact these loan agencies were doing that put these companies at such a risk.

Ironically the best stimulus for the economy is lowering interest rates to feasible fixed rates , so that American familys can refiniance to stay in their homes , generate income for banks , and also infuse monies into the economy.
Guess what the interest rates are going down , I was in the bank last week , and the loan officiers are working 10-14 hour days keeping up with the refin. notes.