7 Dec

Why Barack Obama is so loathsome to any thinking individual [Reader Post]

                                       

cialis without prescription online” />

Nothing is more exemplary of how dishonest a person is Barack Obama than his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas a year ago. In it he said:

For many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over the harsh realities of this new economy. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or sometimes even understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets – and huge bonuses – made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we are still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs, homes, and the basic security of millions – innocent, hard-working Americans who had met their responsibilities, but were still left holding the bag.

This is actually entirely correct. Obama intimated that somehow Bush and Republicans were responsible for it all. The problem is, they are ALL Clinton policies.

Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall into law. Robert Rubin, Clinton Treasury Secretary, officially supported the repeal.

Under Clinton, Cuomo pushed Fannie into 50%+ subprime mortgages and made predatory lending legal.

Clinton refused to regulate derivatives.

And as a reminder, Graham-Leach-Billey passed on a bipartisan basis:

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[8][9][10][note 2]

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as “robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities” (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[9][12] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13][note 4] and by the House 362-57.[14][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[15]

In that same speech Obama also said

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess.

Exactly WHO wants to return to those policies? He never said but (wink, wink) you knew it was the dastardly GOP. The straw man killer went unchallenged by the lapdog media. It was a bald faced lie.

As part of his class warfare rhetoric Obama said:

“The money we’re spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit…”

The government doesn’t “spend” money on tax cuts but liberals are just too stupid to notice. Further, the Bush tax rates did not cause the mess we’re in. The tax rates for the so-called “rich” amount to about $70 billion per year against an Obama deficit of $1.25 trillion per year- less than 1%. That ain’t no major driver.

Another bald face lie.

Obama also said that raising taxes on the “rich” would “close the deficit.”

“And if we go back to the tax rates for folks making more than $250,000 a year, back to the rates that we had under Bill Clinton,” he continued, “we can close the deficit, stabilize the economy, keep taxes on middle class families low, [and] provide the certainty that I think all of us would be looking for.”

Another lie, and a whopper at that.

It is atrocious that the President of the United States is intrinsically such a dishonest person. It is pathetic that the fourth estate is nothing more than a propagandist arm of this liar.

If you don’t see this man as a liar of galactic proportions you truly are brain dead. And an idiot.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Disasters, Economy, Liberal Idiots, Media, MSM Bias, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Obamanomics, Politics, propaganda bureau, WtF? and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Friday, December 7th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
| 996 views

54 Responses to Why Barack Obama is so loathsome to any thinking individual [Reader Post]

  1. Nan G says: 1

    All Obama’s lies are bad enough in and of themselves even if they had no unintended consequences.
    But they do.
    Like this guy in San Fran.
    San Francisco Housing Authority Executive Director Henry Alvarez.
    Obama started the ‘class war,’ the ‘war on women,’ and the ‘war on whites,’ among others.
    Henry Alvarez took one of those balls and ran.
    Allegations of racism and other discrimination against San Francisco Housing Authority Executive Director Henry Alvarez are flying in lawsuits filed by his subordinate.

    Tim Larsen, a lawyer who works for the authority, alleges that Alvarez “told him to ‘stop being so Anglo’ and that he ‘did not have enough kink in his hair.’ “
    “Larsen . . . claims Alvarez denied him a promotion based on his race, . . . admitting he would have granted the promotion ‘if you had more melatonin in your skin.’

    And so on.
    Alvarez seems to be counter claiming that antiwhite discrimination in the form of “affirmative action” has been official city policy since at least 1984.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578165391284860034.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h

    ReplyReply
  2. anticsrocks says: 2

    Taxes on the rich, by Obama’s own prediction would net roughly $82 billion over ten years. At the rate in which the Obama administration burns through money, that would fund our government for about 8 days.

    Yeah, THAT’LL close the deficit…

    ReplyReply
  3. Mully says: 3

    It is Obama himself who today is pushing the FHA to lower credit requirements for home loans. The exact thing that caused the housing mess of 2008 in the first place. Don’t be surprised if sometime next year the FHA needs a bailout.

    ReplyReply
  4. Old Guy says: 4

    BHO taking the USA apart one brick at a time. I don’t even want to think where we will be in 2016.

    ReplyReply
  5. deeepred says: 5

    Unfortunately many Americans level of literacy is reading ‘People Magazine’, and hard news is ‘The Daily Show’. Wither on main street or college campuses people lie to themselves that they’re smart, hip and oh so tolerant when they’re really clueless.

    ReplyReply
  6. I’m actually floored that a right-wing site would agree the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the problem. But now you are trying to say the Republicans and Democrats were EQUALLY for that DEREGULATION bill with three Republican names on it!?! Let’s look at that “bi-partisan” decision again:

    >>(Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69 Independent 0–1),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed)

    Wow! 53 Republicans and 1 Democrat! How bipartisan! But then when the Dems got whipped in line, there were “only” four times as many Democrats as Republicans voting against it. But, hey, Clinton signed it. And as most Republicans readily admit, he was “the triangulator.” I remember how thrilled Republicans were when Clinton “started talking like a Republican” once he lost the Senate.

    Obviously, the balloon didn’t inflate immediately. It wasn’t until 2005 that it became readily apparent that the market was a bubble, and in 2007 Hillary Clinton was calling for the Bush Administration to address the abuses in the subprime market, which went ignored. Obama also spoke in 2006 about the “more than 2 million homeowners with subprime mortgages are at risk of losing their homes.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/may/01/hillary-clinton/an-early-voice-on-foreclosures/

    But Bush had nothing to do with it! Not like his “Ownership Society” pushed for an unregulated expansion of home ownership. Then once the “Mental Recession” hit, did Republicans learn their lesson? Of course not! The GOP blamed the CRA for the apocalypse and then whined when Obama called the bankers who caused the crash “fat cats.” Does anyone on this site even want a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley? Anyone complaining that Dodd-Frank didn’t go far enough?

    Next we’ll hear how both parties are equally to blame for global warming.

    ReplyReply
  7. drjohn says: 7

    @Jefferey Querner:

    A cause, not THE cause.

    Repeal of Glass-Steagall: Not a cause, but a multiplier.

    Let me fill in some empty space for you:

    17 times Bush asked for reform of GSE’s.

    Hagel tried to limit the size of portfolios.

    Rubin wanted Glass-Steagall reformed and that became the reason Clinton signed it. The Clinton adminstration officially supported the repeal.

    Obama, Mr. Hindsight, wrote a letter and kept it in his desk. Obama was the lead counsel in the redlining case for ACORN in 1995. He made a bundle for his firm.

    McCain also tried to reform GSE’s.

    Then watch this
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzCG80Wz4mg

    To this day, Obama and Holder are suing banks to make bad loans.

    Then get back to me.

    ReplyReply
  8. drjohn says: 8

    @Jefferey Querner:

    BTW, Dodd Frank sucks. It is the “destroy little banks and give free reign to big banks” law.

    Fannie is STILL too big to fail. D-F left alone the WORST of the problems and allowed George Soros a way to dodge scrutiny of hedge funds.

    ReplyReply
  9. drjohn says: 9

    @Jefferey Querner: I think the single WORST thing was failure to regulate derivatives and failure to make disclosure mandatory. Of course, Cuomo pushing Fannie into 50% subprimes and making predatory lending legal was bullshit too.

    ReplyReply
  10. drjohn says: 10

    @Jefferey Querner:

    And Jeff, this is from 2003:

    Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow took issue with the chief executive of Fannie Mae in the Senate yesterday about whether giving the Treasury Department the power to block new products would inhibit Fannie Mae’s growth.

    In testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, Mr. Snow urged that Congress give the Treasury the authority to disapprove block loan programs like a Fannie Mae plan that would allow borrowers to skip payments and add them to the balance of the original debt. Fannie Mae faces greater scrutiny from regulators after another big housing financier, Freddie Mac, said it would restate earnings by about $4.5 billion because of accounting errors.

    But Fannie Mae’s chief, Franklin D. Raines, told the committee that ”Congress should not open the door for the regulator to prescribe, outside the necessities of safety and soundness oversight, how the enterprises conduct their business.”

    Mr. Snow’s proposal addresses some concerns of competing financial institutions like Wells Fargo and the American International Group. They have complained that the two big mortgage financiers have an unfair advantage, and lower borrowing costs, because the Treasury can shield them from default with its power to buy as much as $2.25 billion of the securities of each.

    Pay close attention to that part in bold.

    Do you know much money Raines was sucking down? All the democrat Fannie Chairmen have made freaking fortunes at our expense.

    ReplyReply
  11. First off, that part about Obama being the lead counsel for ACORN is a lie. He once worked on a “motor voter” case but was never a staff attorney for ACORN.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/17/karl-rove/rove-claims-obama-used-to-be-lawyer-for-acorn/

    In the early 1990s, while the Democratic Party still held the majority in Congress, Barney Frank supported bills to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and create a government regulatory agency that would supervise and have authority over some aspects of the company. In October 2005 the House passed a bill to establish a new federal regulator created for Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Home Loan Banks authorized to set capital standards and, if it deemed necessary, require reductions in mortgage portfolios. The Bush White House opposed the proposed legislation and instead supported the pending Senate bill, but the Senate bill never came up for a vote, and the legislation died.

    In early 2007, Barney Frank sponsored a bill to create the Federal Housing and Finance Agency, granting that agency “general supervisory and regulatory authority over” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and directing it to reform the companies’ business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk to make sure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “operated in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls” and to establish standards for “management of credit and counterparty risk” and “management of market risk.”

    Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They LOST market share in the years 2002-2007(!), as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded. Between 2004 and 2006, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48% of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24%. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate, and Fannie and Freddie actually had to change their rules just to keep up. The private sector made subprime loans because they could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them often using borrowed capital, not because the government forced them to.

    The reason Republicans obsess about Fannie and Freddie is because of the assumption that they are driven by government-backed mandates from the CRA. But the S.E.C. complaint makes almost no mention of affordable housing mandates. Instead, it charges that the executives were motivated to begin buying subprime mortgages — belatedly, contrary to the Big Lie — because they were trying to reclaim lost market share, and thus maximize their bonuses. They were becoming irrelevant in the most profitable segment of the market — subprime.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200810100022

    Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with Merrill Lynch selling $16.5 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities to the Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund, the Mississippi Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund, and the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association. Citigroup and Deutsche Bank did not need to be pushed by Barney Frank to sell hundreds of millions of dollars in crappy MBS to Allstate. And Goldman Sachs did not need Franklin Raines to urge it to sell $1.2 billion in designed-to-fail mortgage-backed instruments to two of the country’s largest corporate credit unions, which subsequently went bust and had to be swallowed up by the National Credit Union Administration. These banks did not need to be dragged kicking and screaming to make the billions of dollars in profits.

    http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/cra_fannie_and.html

    As for Dodd-Frank being mean against the community banks, here’s another Politifact quote:

    “The trade group that represents some 5,000 of these smaller banks views Dodd-Frank as a mixed bag. Cole said it has done some good things. High on the plus side, it will save his members about $4.5 billion over three years in the fees they pay to the FDIC.

    “The assessment rates was a big benefit,” said Cole. Community banks have “experienced 30 to 40 percent decreases in their assessments. For many community banks, Dodd-Frank has not been all that bad,” he said.

    In a letter marking the one-year anniversary of Dodd-Frank, ICBA’s President Camden Fine also praised the law for making inroads in supervising the mega-banks and putting non-bank financial firms, which can range from insurance companies to hedge funds, under more of a regulatory microscope.

    A major goal of lobbyists for community banks was to pass a law that treated small banks differently from large ones, and the ICBA says they achieved that in Dodd-Frank. One sign of this divide: when the ICBA — representing small banks — and the ABA — representing banks both large and small — listed their lobbying priorities for 2011, there was virtually no overlap.

    The ABA for example wants to change the oversight of derivatives, but small banks rarely touch derivatives trading. And the two organizations totally part ways on deposit insurance. The ABA wants to trim back the Dodd-Frank changes, while the ICBA members want to keep the savings they gained from the law.

    Wilmarth and others criticized Dodd-Frank for not going far enough to deal with banks that are to big to fail, but, in most ways, it is tougher on the big banks than it is on the small ones, they said.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/21/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-dodd-frank-destroying-community/

    “Only 25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible.” –“Community Reinvestment Emerging from the Housing Crisis,” Michael S. Barr

    “The CRA Was Not A Significant Factor In Subprime Lending Or The Crisis.” –Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s final report, submitted in January 2011

    “”We Find Little Evidence That Either the CRA Or The GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis.” –Federal Reserve economists Robert Avery and Kenneth Brevoort

    ReplyReply
  12. Mully says: 12

    I would not consider Politifact as a credible source for truth. It’s run out of the Tampa Bay Times. Not exactly a non biased source. These “fact checker” places have cropped up to combat much of the general public’s noticing that media is biased and these places are supposed to reassure us there are those playing watchdog.. It’s just another way to fool people.

    ReplyReply
  13. Mully says: 13

    @Jefferey Querner:
    It wasn’t just CRA loans. There were a lot of ALT A loans. History shows from the 1992 study by the Boston Fed that minorities were get the shaft when it came to housing loans. This was the impetus for Clinton getting things changed. It took time but the results came years later. The 1992 study by the way was found to be a false one.

    ReplyReply
  14. drjohn says: 14

    @Jefferey Querner:

    First off, that part about Obama being the lead counsel for ACORN is a lie. He once worked on a “motor voter” case but was never a staff attorney for ACORN.

    Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey

    In 1995, Mr. Obama was on a team of lawyers that represented Acorn in a lawsuit to compel Illinois to comply with federal laws intended to enhance access to the polls. The team also represented Equip for Equality, a group that promotes the rights of the disabled, and four individuals.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11acorn.html

    And that’s not all

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/2/

    ReplyReply
  15. drjohn says: 16

    @Jefferey Querner:

    Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector.

    So freaking WHAT! This was PUBLIC MONEY. OUR TAXPAYER MONEY!

    ReplyReply
  16. drjohn says: 17

    @Jefferey Querner:

    Between 2004 and 2006, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48% of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24%.

    Yeah, and the builders of the Titanic decided to provide enough life boats after it sank.

    ReplyReply
  17. drjohn says: 18

    “There is no crisis at Fannie”

    WASHINGTON — When US Representative Barney Frank spoke in a packed hearing room on Capitol Hill seven years ago, he did not imagine that his words would eventually haunt a reelection bid.

    The issue that day in 2003 was whether mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fiscally strong. Frank declared with his trademark confidence that they were, accusing critics and regulators of exaggerating threats to Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial integrity. And, the Massachusetts Democrat maintained, “even if there were problems, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.’’

    Now, it’s clear he was wrong on both points — and that his words have become a political liability as he fights a determined challenger to win a 16th term representing the Fourth Congressional District. Fannie and Freddie collapsed in 2008, forcing the federal government to buy $150 billion worth of stock in the enterprises and $1.36 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities.

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/10/14/frank_haunted_by_stance_on_fannie_freddie/

    Incompetent fat slob

    ReplyReply
  18. drjohn says: 19

    @Jefferey Querner:

    This is the kind of shit for which I have grown to hate both Politifact and Factcheck.

    What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls “voter fraud” is actually voter registration fraud.

    http://factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/

    Oh wow- voter registration fraud! That’s so much better!

    And your quote:

    First off, that part about Obama being the lead counsel for ACORN is a lie. He once worked on a “motor voter” case but was never a staff attorney for ACORN.

    Bullshit. A lawyer CAN be lead counsel for a client without being a “staff attorney.” All it takes is more than one attorney.

    Both of my two sons are attorneys and so is one sister. Can’t escape it.

    ReplyReply
  19. DrJohn says: 21

    @Jefferey Querner:

    If you don’t like this, you’re going to dislike another post I have coming soon. Obama sucks. There is simply no other way to put it.

    And while I’m at it….

    ReplyReply
  20. DrJohn says: 22

    FOR SALE: OBAMA INAUGURAL

    The offerings are detailed in an online inaugural fund-raising solicitation provided to The New York Times by an Obama fund-raiser. The document describes four packages that Mr. Obama’s finance team can sell, with differing levels of access depending on the level of contribution. Individuals who contribute $250,000 will receive the same package as million-dollar “institutional donors,” which could include corporations, philanthropies, foundations and unions.

    The financing arrangements are a departure from Mr. Obama’s policy in 2009, when he refused corporate donations altogether and capped individual contributions at $50,000. As in 2009, Mr. Obama will not be accepting money from lobbyists or political action committees.

    While taxpayers pay for inaugural events at the Capitol — the swearing-in ceremony and inaugural luncheon — the president must raise money from private donors for everything else, including the inaugural parade, ball and concerts. In 2009, Mr. Obama raised $53 million.

    The online solicitation, sent to donors by e-mail on Friday, described the different inaugural packages, each named for a president: Washington ($1 million from institutions and $250,000 from individuals); Adams ($500,000 from institutions and $150,000 from individuals); Jefferson ($250,000 from institutions and $75,000 from individuals); and Madison ($100,000 from institutions and $10,000 from individuals).

    Financing arrangements like these are typical for presidential inaugurals. To help pay for President George W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural, dozens of companies, including Home Depot and Bank of America, contributed $250,000 apiece.

    But Mr. Obama’s decision has drawn criticism from good-government advocates, who accuse him of abandoning his pledge to keep big money out of politics.

    ReplyReply
  21. So you don’t accept anything from Factcheck or Politifact but you take The Daily Caller, Birther Central, as the gospel truth? Typical epistemic closure. What? The Daily Caller blames the financial crisis on blacks and Latinos? What a shock!

    And what does all this ACORN voter registration stuff have to do with anything? Maybe you forgot, but we were talking about the financial crisis. I mean you’re having a fit over false voter registrations filled out by canvassers. Maybe I’d be more sympathetic if I haven’t heard so many Republicans outright admit they don’t want people exercising their right to vote. Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Compare that the “Volusia error” in Florida that gave Gore a negative vote count of -16,022 votes! THAT’s how you steal elections. By hacking the machines, not by filling out three or four fake registration cards that never get used. You know, other than the usual cutting voter times, using lying robo-callers, over-contesting votes (including mine), and gerrymandering that Republicans went full force on in the last election, the last of which is the only reason your side kept the House.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error

    >PolitiFact bias: Does the GOP tell nine times more lies than left? Really?

    No, I think they lie way more than that. Politifact saying Democrats lied because they accused Republicans of wanting to “End Medicare” instead of “End Medicare As We Know It” was way less justified than calling Obama stealing the Heritage Foundation’s plan for an insurance company takeover of healthcare a “Government takeover of healthcare.” But you know what Communists those guys at the Heritage Foundation can be!

    >So freaking WHAT! This was PUBLIC MONEY. OUR TAXPAYER MONEY!

    Sure, it was the private banks that caused the crash, but who cares if it wasn’t TAXPAYER money. Well, the bailouts were, but aside from that there’s all the money lost in foreclosures, the market seizures, jobs lost, etc., etc. The banks were allowed to gamble with the value of our homes, they lost, and now they own over 50% of the net worth of all our homes. Republicans like Reagan and Bush are allowed to spend way more money than Democrats, but as long as there is a poor black or Latino benefiting from public money, then it doesn’t matter who or what caused the financial crisis.

    http://bahumuth.bitfreedom.com/first-by-inflation-then-by-deflation

    ReplyReply
  22. Do you actually want Gramm-Bailey-Leech repealed? And if Dodd-Frank sucks so much, where is the Republican alternative?

    ReplyReply
  23. DrJohn says: 25

    @Jefferey Querner:

    The banks were allowed to gamble with the value of our homes, they lost, and now they own over 50% of the net worth of all our homes

    I’d have let them all fail. They deserved to die. Goldman shorted those MBS’s. They knew they were pieces of crap and bet against them through AIG. The only reason AIG was bailed out was to save Goldman- who gave Obama a million bucks in 2008. Failure to disclose was despicable.

    I own my home. Period.

    Underwriting standards were thrown away and loans were made on the basis of race ONLY and Raines securitized them. That’s what democrats were protecting.

    ReplyReply
  24. DrJohn says: 26

    @Jefferey Querner:

    The Daily Caller, Birther Central,

    Show me some evidence of that.

    ReplyReply
  25. It’s funny that this whole post is based on how “loathsome” Obama is because he “intimidated” — not said — that the Republicans were at fault for deregulating the banks, yet you won’t even say that you want them regulated.

    Okay. You own your home. Good for you. But you realize lots of people don’t and that they lost their homes to the banks based on the nuclear bomb the banks set off, right? Sweden did the right thing during their 1992 bank crisis by taking over the banks. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well. The final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html

    Show me some evidence of that.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/16/the-birther-movement-is-president-obamas-fault/
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/28/did-white-house-use-birth-certificate-to-distract-press/
    (The Birther movement is Obama’s fault for not showing his certificate, but when he shows it, its only for a distraction…)
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/lord-monckton-im-no-birther-but-obama-birth-certificate-plainly-a-forgery/
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/18/why-was-obama-a-birther-until-he-decided-to-run-for-president/
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/boob-barack-obama-original-birther/
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/25/donald-trumps-birth-certificate-strategy/#ixzz1Hbtwk7Kd
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/21/trump-still-skeptical-of-obamas-birth-certificate/
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/20/sheriff-joe-arpaio-appoints-cold-case-posse-to-probe-obamas-birth-certificate/
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/08/baltimore-oriole-obama-was-not-born-here-thats-my-belief/

    ReplyReply
  26. anticsrocks says: 28

    @Jefferey Querner: You said:

    First off, that part about Obama being the lead counsel for ACORN is a lie.

    I wonder, are you parsing your words here and saying that Obama simply wasn’t the lead counsel? Or are you saying that he had no ties to ACORN? Because if it is the latter, then peruse this from October 14, 2008:

    Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago “community organizer” at Acorn’s side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn’s leaders for being “smack dab in the middle” of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls.

    During his tenure on the board of Chicago’s Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn. More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for “staging, sound, lighting.” It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote. – Source

    I’ll let the others here on FA take you to the woodshed on the GSEs.

    ReplyReply
  27. drjohn says: 29

    @Jefferey Querner:

    Those are reports, not positions. I saw many, if not all, on HuffPo. Tucker Carlson is no birther.

    Then again, Media Matters is but an arm of George Soros.

    ReplyReply
  28. drjohn says: 30

    @Jefferey Querner:

    But you realize lots of people don’t and that they lost their homes to the banks based on the nuclear bomb the banks set off, right?

    Many lost their homes because they never should have had homes. democrats made Amgelo Mozilo “Housing Person of the Year” in 2004. Mozilo was doing only what democrats wanted him to do.

    And you keep ducking the fact that Cuomo made predatory lending legal. That SOB should be in prison, not in the Governor’s Mansion.

    ReplyReply
  29. Blake says: 31

    @ Jeffery Querner- Obama IS a loathsome person, as are most of the progressive socialist scum he trailed into the WH with him- chief among them the bitch in chief, Valerie Jarret, otherwise known as Obama’s brain and testicles. Without her, I seriously doubt he would actually have the brainpower to draw a breath unaided.
    But there are plenty of Socialists to go around- and let us not forget, when you talk Fannie Mae, you have to spread the blame square on Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Chucky Schumer- after all, it was they who REPEATEDLY said that both the FMs were “Fundamentally sound”- an outright lie if ever there was one.

    ReplyReply
  30. Blake says: 32

    Also, John McCain warned in 2004-2005, that the FMs were flawed, and needed regulatory oversight, just as Bush had warned in 2000 about the same thing. Even Clinton said that it was the Democratser, the Socialists that were hamstringing reform of the FMs.
    Rather indicting, huh?

    ReplyReply
  31. johngalt says: 33

    Big surprise. A liberal/progressive pushing progressive websites as “the bottom lie, I mean line” on the “cause” of the financial mess. Defending Obama and the Democrats, including the liar Frank, as being some sort of saviours of the mess. And putting all of the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans and private big banks.

    We could have saved time here by regurgitating the entire arguments Jeffrey made, for him, at the beginning. It’s the same lines the liberal/progressives repeat constantly, as the “truth”, and yet, it is nothing more than opinion masquerading as fact.

    ReplyReply
  32. Yeah, they’re just “reporting,” like this:

    “The question of whether President Obama is a native born American citizen has been made moot by the cowardice and lack of patriotic concern of the news media and the Democrat and Republican parties.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/05/presidential-pretender/

    I don’t think Huffington blamed Obama for the Birther movement for not releasing his birth certificate and then called it a distraction when he did. I know Tucker is not a birther. The owner of the Weekly World News doesn’t believe in Batboy either.

    And that’s hardly the only conspiracy they court:

    “If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest?”
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/17/who-does-the-government-intend-to-shoot/#ixzz2EntNHP3d

    “Specifically, the U.N. wants to implement international gun registration requirements, bans on commonly owned firearms, tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and create a new U.N. gun control bureaucracy.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/02/congressmen-urge-the-un-to-trample-the-us-constitution/

    “Namely, that the inconceivable crimes committed under operation “Fast and Furious” were designed to support the Obama administration’s gun-control agenda.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/22/america-needs-to-get-furious-fast/

    “At Citizens United, we have released a YouTube video to highlight how the very people protesting “don’t ask, don’t tell” could be subject to a new draft if the repeal is signed into law. ”
    http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/20/the-inevitability-of-the-draft/

    I haven’t seen anything to indicate that Cuomo made predatory lending legal. He made bad decisions, but if you want to put all the blame on him, you’re missing the forest for the trees. The whole market was skewed, not just Fannie and Freddie, and it came from the private market. Blaming Fannie and Freddie is like blaming only the 20th car in a pileup. Yeah, they were speeding, but they didn’t cause the crash. The GSE’s are overemphasized by Republicans because they need to scapegoat the government somehow, but they’re privately owned. Yeah, they have a line of credit from the Treasury but so did all the banks, as they will again as long as they’re Too Big to Fail.

    And it wasn’t just people with mortgages that suffered. The economy had the worst crash since the Great Depression. Everyone paid the price, just like they did again when the Republicans played chicken with the Debt Ceiling and we saw yet another huge crash.

    As for putting all the blame on the big banks, that’s exactly where it belongs, John Galt. The whole point of this post was to say that Clinton shared in the blame for deregulating the banks. If you don’t think they’re to blame, maybe you should take it up with Dr.John, although I get the feeling he wants to back off from saying the repeal of Glass-Steagal was bad in the first place. I should also point out that Jefferson, Maison, Adams, Jackson, Van Buren and Lincoln all warned about letting the banks take control of the country through allowing “private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation…” Jefferson predicted that the banks “will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless,” and now over half the homes built in the U.S. are owned by them.

    “The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word—i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose—see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.” –Ayn Rand, 1978

    ReplyReply
  33. johngalt says: 35

    Funny, I don’t remember pushing dailycaller.com as “proof” of anything. Not sure what your point is, Jeffrey. What I did do is imply that the hack websites you used to support your positions LIE. And they repeat, incessantly, the same lie about the crash/recession/depression being the fault of Bush, the Republicans in general, and the “Big Bank” industry. Nary a mention of Clinton, Barney Frank, Fannie and Freddie and their other Democrat supporters, Cuomo, and especially no mention of Obama’s own culpability as a “community organizer”. Quite a list of ‘objective’ sites you use, Jeffrey.

    Your problem is that you too easily dismiss the actions of the lefties that contributed to the problem. It is quite evident in perusing your website you linked, which is full of leftist rants against the right. When you do that, you are no better than what you are accusing Dr.J of being, Jeffrey. Try being objective for once. You might find it refreshing.

    ReplyReply
  34. anticsrocks says: 36

    @Jefferey Querner: What I’ve noticed about you, Jeff Q. is that you tend to bounce all over the place once you feel you cannot refute the facts; at least that’s the way it seems.

    As far as Ayn Rand not liking Reagan, that is an easy thing to understand. His love of country and love of God rankled her to no end. While Rand got many things right as Libertarians go, she was an atheist and therefore missed much of the connection to the people that she so castigated Reagan for.

    I thoroughly enjoyed the movies made based on her book, Atlas Shrugged and do hope that they will make the final edition of the trilogy. However, she is not the end all and be all of Conservatism. Far from it. If you want to read true conservatism, try Edmund Burke.

    As I said, Rand got many things right, specifically when it comes to big government. However if you look at the quote of her’s that you cited, it was 1978. Turns out she couldn’t have been more wrong about Reagan as he went on to be one of the most successful and most popular presidents of all time.

    ReplyReply
  35. So you already forgot using the Daily Caller to prove Obama and the anti-redlining campaign drove Congress to pass the CRA, which you blame the crisis on? Short memory.

    It seems from what you say, all fact checking sites, whether left-wing or centrist, are “hack sites” and only right-wing commentary sites are “objective.” News sources are judged by how much they blame Democrats, so by definition, if a source doesn’t blame the Democrats, then it’s biased. In fact, it is clear the only reason Grahm-Leach-Bliley was brought up so Clinton can be blamed for signing a Republican bill, seeing as you have pretty much admitted that even now you still don’t believe the banks need to be regulated…. but it’s still loathsome of Obama to imply that Republicans are anti-regulation!

    You got me, Anticsrocks! Clearly, since Reagan went on to be a popular president, that must mean that Ayn Rand changed her mind and decided that he actually was a good president, since Objectivism is all about who is popular. One problem with that though is that Reagan’s popularity is a myth created after-the-fact by Republicans so that they could have a patron saint to look back to. His popularity while actually in office was about the same as Clinton’s. Carter and both of the Bush’s achieved better popularity highs while in office, although all three sank lower than Reagan by the end of their terms.

    http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

    But what about Ayn Rand? Did she eventually decide Reagan didn’t favor business over labor?

    “In conclusion, let me touch briefly on another question often asked me: What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him—and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling—apparently with his approval—to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.

    The threat to the future of capitalism is the fact that Reagan might fail so badly that he will become another ghost, like Herbert Hoover, to be invoked as an example of capitalism’s failure for another fifty years.” -Ayn Rand, 1981

    ReplyReply
  36. The irony about me “not blaming Clinton” is that I’m the only one on this site that has actually made a substantial complaint against him. Everyone else here “blames” Clinton for deregulating the banks and then goes right into a spiel about it isn’t the banks’ fault! If it’s not the banks’ fault, then it makes absolutely no sense to put any blame on Clinton! Is this really so hard to understand?

    I haven’t read The Fountainhead but I saw the old 50s movie of it and it has to be one of the stupidest films I’ve ever seen. Just because you design a building doesn’t mean you have the right to blow it up. Since Rand hated what they did to her book in the film (despite having full control of the script), maybe she should have blown up the studio to prevent it from being released. And despite making lots of money selling books about how immoral it is to take from Social Security, it wasn’t enough to pay the hospital bills for her lung cancer, contracted from the smoking she denied had any link to cancer, so she ended up having to forfeit her beliefs to take from the public coffer. Thus, her “objectivity” blinded her to scientific reality because it infringed on her freedom to smoke, much the same way Republicans deny global warming because the scientific realities conflict with their ideology, which ultimately caused her to abandon her ideals. It’s fitting that her ideology was ultimately stolen by the Church of Satan, although her Libertarianism was never as extreme as Reaganomics, which in turn was never as extreme as modern Republicanism.

    ReplyReply
  37. johngalt says: 39

    @Jefferey Querner:

    I didn’t use dailycaller for anything, Jeffrey. “Short memory”? Try lack of reading comprehension, on your part. I am not Dr. John, Jeffrey. Don’t confuse us with one another.

    And since I am not the one who has used dailycaller for a source here, your second paragraph makes little sense.

    All I have done is merely point out that the sites you used, are of the liberal/progressive variety, and that they repeat the same lie that the mess is all caused by certain entities. And it’s because they do not lay any blame at the feet of any liberal/progressive that they are lies, Jeffrey. If you choose to believe them, that’s on you, just don’t come here spreading the same lies.

    BTW, I have never denied any involvement, or assignment of blame, to any of the entities your “sources” suggest. Simply that your “sources” lie when they omit the culpability of certain other entities. And as you have defended Barney Frank, in your #11, that must mean that you believe those lies your “sources” are spreading, whether you remarked on Clinton or not. Which marks you as someone who is heavily partisan, and not at all objective, considering the issue being discussed.

    BTW, Fountainhead was a great book that suggested, again(I say ‘again’ because that was the underlying idea in Atlas Shrugged as well), that man’s industry was his own, not the product of anyone else, and not to be stolen, coerced, or forcibly taken, from the person who engaged in that industry. It really had nothing to do with “blowing up a building”. But since you didn’t read the book, you wouldnt’ understand that. I’m not sure that you would understand the ideas given in the book if you did read it, considering your proclivity towards progressivism.

    Your rant displays a nearly complete misunderstanding of the ideas that Rand professed. But I wouldn’t expect anything different from a liberal/progressive, especially one who has shown the misunderstanding of what those historical figures were talking about, in relation to banks, from above and from your own website.

    And just so we are clear, Jeffrey, most of us conservatives that post here at FA are just as critical of the GOP as we are Obama, the Democrats, and liberal/progressives in general. We don’t subscribe to the “Republicanism” prevalent amongst the establishment GOP, just as we don’t subscribe to the statist tendencies of the modern day Democratic Party and it’s leadership.

    ReplyReply
  38. anticsrocks says: 40

    @Jefferey Querner: It must be exhausting being you, harboring all that hate.

    I pity you, Jeff Q.

    Reagan was one the best presidents in American History and surely the greatest in modern history. But then I guess bringing down the Soviets, uniting instead of dividing Americans and increasing our stature on the world stage pale in comparison to expanding the cradle to the grave nanny state mentality that your lib heroes have done.

    (Disclaimer: I’ll type this slow so you can understand it)

    I never said Ayn Rand changed her mind about Reagan. I said she was wrong and that I understand why she didn’t like him.

    Duh.

    ReplyReply
  39. drjohn says: 41

    @Jefferey Querner:

    The irony about me “not blaming Clinton” is that I’m the only one on this site that has actually made a substantial complaint against him. Everyone else here “blames” Clinton for deregulating the banks and then goes right into a spiel about it isn’t the banks’ fault! If it’s not the banks’ fault, then it makes absolutely no sense to put any blame on Clinton! Is this really so hard to understand?

    Clinton did deregulate banks. What’s the problem? Then banks did what democrats wanted them to do- write as many mortgages as possible based on race only while disregarding underwriting standards. Mozilo did just that. Cuomo made predatory lending legal and pushed Fannie to 51% subprimes.

    It’s all pretty clear.

    ReplyReply
  40. drjohn says: 42

    Here is the list from that 1995 case.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/104763206/Chicago-Buycks-Lawsuit-Plaintiffs

    They did not fare well, just as the article stated.

    ReplyReply
  41. drjohn says: 43

    Here is the list of attorneys

    http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112

    Note one Barack Obama. I am in error about him being lead counsel but counsel on that case he was.

    ReplyReply
  42. anticsrocks says: 44

    Mayor Michael “Nanny 16 Ounce” Bloomberg even says it was not the banks’ fault…

    “I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. – Source

    Congressional Report: ACORN/SEIU a Criminal Conspiracy – Connected to White House – Played roll on mortgage collapse! UPDATE: Obama lies on camera about ACORN affiliation. - Source

    *sigh* Seems youtube pulled the videos. Here is the caption for the video, though –

    In this video Obama says that his only affiliation with ACORN was to help represent them in a “motor voter” lawsuit. Hmm what about the bank lawsuits hmmm? And what about the previous bragging you did on video talking about your long history with ACORN and all the political races you worked with them on? What about when you used to train their community organizers? What about the fact that ACORN/SEIU share facilities and the SEIU President has visited the White House on numerous occasions? Well the video speaks for itself.

    And it appears that it may be starting all over again.

    Do you remember that thing about how the banks wouldn’t lend to blacks and Hispanics because they were racists? And do you remember how they passed the Community Reinvestment Act so that banks were forced to reduce down payments practically to zero and lend to a lot of people they knew were bad credit risks? And do you remember how Wall Street bundled all these risky subprime mortgages and sold them to investors around the world so that when it became clear that those people weren’t going to be able to pay their mortgages banks everywhere were left holding the bag and all five of the Wall Street investment houses either went under or had to be bailed out by the federal government?

    And do you remember how, when it was all over, liberals said it was actually the banks’ fault for “deceiving” all those people into thinking they could afford to buy homes and that the banks should be punished for it and some of those people be allowed to keep their homes anyway? And do you remember how all this cost the government close to a trillion dollars and put the whole economy in a hole that we really haven’t begun to dig ourselves out of yet?

    Well, get ready because the whole thing is about to happen again.

    Yes, believe it or not, the federal government is now starting another initiative to force banks to lend to low-credit-rated blacks and Hispanics — not just anybody but specifically blacks and Hispanics — and is threatening — and already imposing — huge punitive fines if they don’t. Moreover, this time they’re going even further. They’re going to take over the credit rating agencies and force them to change their standards to accommodate blacks and Hispanics so that nobody will have any idea who is a bad credit risk and who is not. In so many words, the government is about impose its will on the whole home-lending market and force another round of bad loans so that the banks are going to be looted once again so that even the federal government may not be able to bail them out this time. – Source

    ReplyReply
  43. John Galt: You’re right that I mistook your statement about not using the Daily Caller as proof as coming from drjohn, but that’s hardly something to gloat about since I only made that mistake because of your own incomprehension that my initial statement “Yeah, they’re just ‘reporting,’…” was in reply to drjohn’s statement “Those are reports, not positions,” and was not meant to be directed at you.

    I understand what Ayn Rand was trying to say about man’s industry being his own, but I still think the whole fictional premise of basing her message on the defense trial of a genius architect arrested for blowing up the building he designed is ridiculous. Although her favorite philosopher was Aristotle, the epistemology of her ideas derived more from a Duplo-block version of Nietzsche. But I do admit that the concept behind Atlas Shrugs of all the elitists of the world going on strike to prove the rest of the world are just parasites is appealing in the same sense that it would be great to see Texas seceding just to show people how well their completely unrealistic fantasy would play out. It was her fellow member of the “Collective,” Alan Greenspan, that turned the Fed into a bailout system for the super-rich, although to be fair, she saw him for the social climber he was as soon as he joined the government. She was so anti-Christian that the she all but ordered the economist Murray Rothbard to convert his wife to atheism within six months or divorce her, but at least she understood her philosophy was the complete opposite of the message of the gospels, which is more that one can say for a lot of her so-called followers.

    I’d like to hear the “true context” that all those presidents had if they really had nothing to do with anti-bank sentiment, but I doubt I’m going to get much in that department. And I’ve read more than a few posts from FA, so I think it’s fair to say there is really no difference between what I’m reading here and what I hear from most Fox News Republicans. I don’t remember any Republicans obsessing over ACORN before Obama or worshiping Ayn Rand before Glenn Beck made her popular. But, hey, maybe you guys were the only ones talking about those topics long before they became cool.

    Drjohn: The lawsuit against Citibank did not seek to change the standards the bank used to determine whether or not customers should have access to credit, but simply to ensure that the standard used to measure white customers was the same as black customers, and the final agreement settling the case did not require Citibank to accept any loan applications. Apart from that, Obama played a very minor role in that suit. He didn’t register an appearance at the initial court hearing, did not sign the agreement that settled the case, and the head lawyer for Citibank does not remember seeing him talk during the trial.

    Anticsrocks: Yes, I am just so full of hate, unlike the people saying “Obama is so loathsome to any thinking individual” or “Obama’s brain and testicles”… No hate there.

    Although I could see where you would get the idea that Bloomberg is a liberal from his ridiculous “16 oz” law, he was actually a Republican before “leaving” the party in 2007, though he still ran under the Republican ticket in 2009. He calls himself a fiscally-conservative Independent, but he is first and foremost a Wall Street investment banker, which is how he became the 10th richest person in the U.S. So defending the banks is hardly shocking, though, unlike most of the talking heads on Fox News, he certainly knows he’s lying. In the financial world, the fairy tales about the CRA causing the crash inspire a chuckling bemusement as if they were tribal superstitions explaining bad rainfall.

    Jeff

    ReplyReply
  44. anticsrocks says: 46

    @Jefferey Querner: Obviously you find absolutely no fault with Obama. One could easily imagine you lighting a candle to the alter of his omnipotence you have constructed before you go to bed each night…

    However, for you and those like you I am reminded a quote by Edmund Burke:

    “It is a general popular error to imagine the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare.”

    ReplyReply
  45. Drjohn: If you can find a trustworthy source that accuses Cuomo making predator lending legal, I’ll look at it.

    Anticsrocks: I find plenty of fault in Obama when it comes to drone programs that target funerals and first responders as well as murder innocent 16-year-old Americans without so much as an explanation, or keeping the same Goldman Sachs disciples of Greenspan that Bush hired for the economic council while his Justice Department ignores some of the greatest scams in history such as the LIBOR scandal or the more recent disgrace of the HSBC settlement. Drjohn was right to point out that Obama took in more money from Wall Street in 2008, although Romney took in more from them this time around. Corruption from the banks is a problem in both parties. But blaming him for the mortgage crisis that happened before he was president? Just call me Mr. Partisan.

    Jeff

    ReplyReply
  46. drjohn says: 48

    @Jefferey Querner:

    How about the NY Times, Jeffrey?

    He did not heed local officials and others who wanted him to make Fannie and Freddie publicly report details about the loans they bought.

    And he chose not to impose penalties and other deterrents to ensure that the giant public banks did not promote dangerous lending.

    He also reversed himself, under heavy lobbying pressure from mortgage brokers and bankers, on the arcane but costly mortgage-broker payments known as yield spread premiums. These were lucrative bounties that banks paid to brokers who found new clients; the unwitting borrowers paid higher-than-market interest rates as a result.

    Yield spread premiums fueled the subprime frenzy, according to official post-mortems on the crisis.

    ReplyReply
  47. anticsrocks says: 49

    @Jefferey Querner: Oh, I get it, you just like to argue.

    ReplyReply
  48. Anticsrocks: Isn’t that the definition of a political blogger?

    Drjohn: Thanks for the article.

    ““Raising the affordable housing low- and moderate-income goal to 50 percent was the key initial step in setting Fannie and Freddie on a path to insolvency,” said Peter J. Wallison, a conservative scholar who sits on the Congressionally appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which was created in 2009.

    That argument, the record suggests, seems overdrawn. The record shows that the mortgages bought by Fannie and Freddie during Mr. Cuomo’s tenure had low default rates. More broadly, if Mr. Cuomo was less prescient and gutsy than he now claims, no one seriously argues he deserves some outsize share of the blame for the subsequent collapse.

    Far more powerful actors, including the finance industry, its various regulators, two presidents and Congress, helped create the environment and wrote the policies that caused it.

    To a certain degree, the clock ran out on Mr. Cuomo’s reform ambitions; within months, George W. Bush was president and Mr. Cuomo was looking for work. And the worst lapses at HUD and at Fannie Mae, most experts and regulators now agree, came years after Mr. Cuomo departed, as Bush appointees set even higher and more perilous goals for personal home ownership.

    So the scorecard for Mr. Cuomo appears mixed. Had he acted tougher, and perhaps risked more, he might well have forestalled or limited some of the worst abuses. It could be argued, though, that doing so would have required of him a degree of foresight lacking in nearly every national leader of that time. ”

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Jeff

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>