Sweet!.

 

There is plenty of difference. Bush would make them belly crawl, simply because he could.
I'm certainly not educated in the economics in that scope of things, but I do know I do the same thing now that I've done for years. But somehow the numbers just don't add up the same
I was always taught to keep you finances in the the positive. Mine still are, but I don't seem to have any money

 

The Boston Globe right wing? Surely you jest.

I really think the only reason you post here is so that you can acquire attention for yourself.

Thank you for proving, yet again, that you, like all liberals have a problem with the truth.

 

Uhhh YES, Jacoby IS a Right Wing Conservative writer for the Boston Globe.

??????????? Do you not even Know this???

Jeff Jacoby's column has been published on the op-ed page of the Boston Globe since 1994, when he was hired as a counterweight to the paper's liberal columnists From 1987 to 1994, he was chief editorial writer for the conservative Boston Herald. Within months of his debut at the Globe, he was described by the left-leaning Boston Phoenix as "the region's pre-eminent spokesman for Conservative Nation,"

 

So does that make Tom Brokaw more believeable knowing he is on the board of the left-leaning Council on Foreign Relations? Your reasoning is non-existent. He (Brokaw) portrayed himself as 'impartial' every night for years as the anchor for NBC news.

There are undisputable facts in the articles I posted. Like I said before, blind loyalty is dangerous.




'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

Discuss
COMMENTS (576)
That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

 

The last post was too long so I'll continue. No I was not aware of anyone that wrote those 3 articles. A simple google search yielded those 3 links I posted.

I have a friend named David who is very much like you hibbs. He only believes what he wants to believe. It has taken me years, but I have him reading a copy of a book I just bought, "Red Hot Lies." It's about how you've been lied to concerning the so-called facts about Climate Change/Global Warming.

You would be wise to open your mind to facts, just not the facts as you see them.

 

I must be the only one that thinks this current crises was brought about by speculators driving up energy cost.
I know I've said this over and over, but things were going pretty well until gas, and utilities went sky high based solely on people investing in them for a quick profit. I'm no mental giant, but these prices were driven artificially high. weren't they?
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but this is out of hand. In the end there will be a few that come out on top, and will own more of us than ever. This is a conspiracy brought to us by the super wealthy in order to cheat the rest of us out of the small amounts of assets we have. Hard work don't make people rich. The savvy to cheat others is basically the trick.

 

We've already discussed the CRA. It Is NOT the Root cause to this issue. Bernanke specifically said it himself. All of our, and the Worlds, Leading Economists have examined it and Stated that the CRA was not the cause.

The Banks slacked off on their lending standards and loaned out more than they should. People borrowed more money than they should. The Government didn't "force" this!


Those are the facts. Accept them.

How are you ever going to solve the problem if you don't know what ACTUALLY caused it?

I enjoy debating with folks like yourself Frank. You have these "Firm Belief's" about things. I like to throw hard Data. Un-deniable Facts, Studies, Evidence, that dispute these "beliefs".

The counter is always the same. A link to an "Editorial". A link to an "Opinion". Never a link to a Study, or a graph. Why? "because there is no real evidence out there because the Liberal Media hides it all."

Yet I'm the one who's blind....

 

Barney Frank in 2003:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''



All you have to do is open up a copy of "Foreign Affairs" (which I am a subscriber to) by the CFR and there is Tom Brokaw's name. And the liberal media wonders why their ratings go lower every year.

SOP for socialists/leftists is to attack the source, not the facts in the source. Your common tactic is to insult a poster and attack his sources until they tire of debating you. Then and only then can you *claim* victory in your own delusion.

Everyone on this board is aware of your tactics, that's why most of them do not bother with our "indefatigable shill" Hibbs.

I've said many times, but like a rebellious child you refuse to submit. Do some searches for yourself, and open your mind.

Like I said, I have a good friend I've known since high-school who is the same way so I understand your reluctance.

As far as the banks "slacking off", they had to because they forsee the future losses coming down the pike, as Hank Greenberg, former head of AIG said this morning.

 

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbas...admissions.asp
Some quotes by some in the media themselves.

What you refuse to understand is that mainstream America abandoned the MSM a long time ago. Only about 18-20 million people watch all three networks of the broadcast nightly news:
http://newsbusters.org/node/6369

Sometimes Hibbs I actually believe that you are a closet-conservative who is actually just trying to make me look good.

 

You continually say that "the worlds economists" won't say the CRA had anything to do with the current depression.

You forget to admit that NONE of them saw this coming. Including Greenspan or Bernanke or 'Turbo Tax' Tim Geithner. So to cite them is a huge mistake.

It would not be "P.C." for them to indict the CRA. Everyone knows this.

 

Why did the banks cut back on their Due Diligence 5+ years ago?

So let me get this straight then.

According to you:

The Banks were fine until the Government "forced" them to make Bad loans to Poor people through CRA.

Poor people Qualified for 250 thousand dollar houses and bought them, especially in suburbs of Florida, Ohio, Arizona, etc.

Otherwise, The Banks were carefully researching Every Lendee's Financials before loaning only an Appropriate amount of money that matched their Income level, therefore self Regulation was actually working.

So today, the Vast Majority of the loans in default are the Government "Forced", CRA loans.

Hense the cause of our Housing/Financial crisis.

But NOW the banks have actually Backed off on their Due Diligence, as they "have" to loan money because they see "losses" coming down the pike.

 

Not what I'm saying. You always go to the extreme...

What I'm saying is that the CRA is a 'contributing factor'. There is no denying that.

The inflationary monetary policies of the Fed is the root cause that enabled things like the CRA to happen. MBS's and CDS's had a huge role. Many players had a hand in it.

Having said that, no one can honestly say that the CRA WAS NOT a way for the Democratic party to buy the votes of people with credit scores of 500. People that have no business getting a home loan for 60-100K.

And now we all will pay.

The banks now are 'once bitten twice shy.' They still have to loan money because they are on the gov't teat. But judging by the velocity of money, they are afraid to. Just the facts.

Subprime was the start. Pay-options will be the end, sometime around 2012.

 

i hope this will the way the Gov works! but the reallity is all of us gonna pay 4 that money.. more taxas just around the corner!