a 30 point gain in the dow jones index
Printable View
a 30 point gain in the dow jones index
oops! make that a 10 point loss
This bail out had to pass through the President, Congress and Senate...seems that the dems control 2 out of 3. Nice job!:thumbsup:
Have a good one!:s4:
ACK! now it's down 160 points even though they just got a $700 billion wedding gift...congress should file for an annulment!!
damn those democrats for passing president bush's plan for saving the economy that he screwed up...dem dum dems have been enabling bush on almost every fuckup...the republican proposal to get private financing for the bailout made a lot more sense
the dow jones is now at the same level it was back in april 1999...if john mccain wins the next election, i am gonna dig my wide leg jeans and platform shoes out of the back of the closet
its not the republicans fault....The Dems are the ones that pushed these companies to make the bad loans... this has been going on since 95...
it is george bush's fault
january 2002: state of the union speech, george bush promises "broader home ownership, especially among minorities"
President Delivers State of the Union Address
june 2002: george bush announces plans to expand home ownership among low income families by 5.5 million, and "increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market" DESPITE the fact that "overall homeownership rate has reached an all time high of nearly 68 percent"
Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership
june 2002: credit unions respond positively to george bush's "America's Homeownership Challenge" to issue more mortgages to low income buyers
Dollar urges CUs to play a prominent role in Bush's "America's Homeownership Challenge" - Credit Union Times
october 2002; george bush hosts conference on minority home ownership with top financial institutions:
President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership
YouTube - economic crisis president bush mortgage speech
in 2004, george bush seeks to increase home ownership rates by eliminating downpayment requirements for mortgages, targetting "first-time buyers with somewhat impaired credit":
USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
september 2004: george bush announces plans to expand 'affordable' home ownership by 7 million with a series of policies targetting towards low income buyers:
Increasing Affordable Housing and Expanding Homeownership
april 2005, george bush's former neighbour and personal friend, HUD secretary alphonzo jackson, partners up with bush's treasury secretary to announce the bush administration's position that freddie and fannie need to catch up to the private sector in issuing mortgages to low income and minority customers:
HUD Testimony - Statement of HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, 4/13/05
february 2006: bush administration 2007 budget reforms FHA to support low income home buyers "The President's proposed budget is a real investment in building a society based on ownership"
HUD News Release 06-013
how the bush administration HUD mortgage policy fuelled the subprime crisis:
How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis - washingtonpost.com
the governor of new york explains how the bush administration stopped state governments from regulating predatory lending:
Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - washingtonpost.com
u can post all the links u want but ur dead wrong i cant wait for that moron obama to get in office and fvck things up even worse so you guys might finally see the light.. untill then just continue to overdose on Cnn and get all liberal ass the misinformation you want frankly i dont give a damn. People wont educate themselves on the real cause of all this and its impossible to sit here and debate with yall cause u are just so set in ur own beliefs ur so far left its ridiculous, u cant accept any other viewpoints... this is why i dont ever really post here, when i come here this is what comes to my mind YouTube - Emotional Hippies - Crying Over Dead Trees
Heres some links of my own
Democrats caused current financial crisis - notice ur boi Clinton signed a bill to promote low-income home ownership (those who dont qualify for those types of loans bc theyre poor but still live beyond their means)
How The Democrats Caused Our Current Financial Woes | Stuck On Stupid
Heres more on democrats philosophy of just wanting to hand out money to those who dont pursue a higher education and wont get off their asses to work 9/28/2008 - Democrats Caused This Fiscal Mess - And Response - Opinion - Chattanoogan.com
and just one more
Bloomberg News How the Democrats Caused Fred Mac & Fan Mae Crisis - Wellston Forum
see, we can both find all the links we want it takes five seconds....its up to the people to educate themselves.... i suppose ur one that doesnt want to drill her in our own country b/c the beaver might not be able to build its dam?
Fact is both candidates suck ass.... its been twelve years of choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich (can we at least agree on that?). We need Ron Paul, hes our man... but then u got too many ultra conservatives and other morons that he just gets shot down right away....we gotta get rid of the two party system its a crock of shyt.... sorry if i come off demeaning or angry i just get sick of reading the same bs over and over again (not just here). K i can turn my rant off now :smokin:
heres a good video if u got 11 minutes its got a lame Mccain plug in the end but then again what did u expect
YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
Beef i agree with you 110% that Ron Paul should be pres,he is a well educated person who knows economics very well.Its just too bad that people dont take him seriously....
sorry beef, i don't accept allan keyes renew america, stuck on stupid.com, or officially chapped.org as objective sources of information...i searched bloomberg news for your fourth link but didn't find the article...the you tube propaganda video (which is picked apart in the comments) isn't an objective source of info either...the internet is clogged up with stuff blaming fannie-freddie, bill clinton, and the dems but their role is minor compared to the private financial institutions and george bush
between 1996 and 2004, subprime loans made up 9% of all mortgages (it was about 5% when george bush left office)...between 2004 and 2006 the subprime loans accounted for 21% of all mortgages:
Subprime woes could spill over into other sectors - USATODAY.com
"The companies (fannie and freddie) said they were urged to increase purchases of subprime debt by the Bush administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development said in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie should increase financing for low-income areas or moderate-income regions with high minority populations to 37 percent of new business from 34 percent in 2001 through 2004. That rose to 39 percent last year." :
Bloomberg.com: Exclusive
when the crap hit the fan, fannie and freddie only accounted for 18% of total mortgage loans:
Bloomberg.com: Exclusive
Glad we can agree on that lolQuote:
Originally Posted by fishman3811
of course caz u only want to accept the comments that agree with ur viewQuote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
Neither candidate is going to worth a shit for the economy. Obama is probably quite a bit smarter in that area. But it doesn't really matter. Big money wins every time.
ok beef that is a fair criticism
i could decontruct that video line by line, but it would take me hours...how about you put up a few facts from the youtube video that you support and we'll discuss those
in the meantime, do you dispute any of the facts i provided from the white house, HUD, washington post, and bloomberg?
Lets be fair about this. Going back to 1933, a socialist enactment known as the Glass-Steagall Act moved toward very tight regulation of the banking industry. This legislation had two very distinct provisions, one of which disallowed banks to merge with investment banks, or other types of financial institutions. Citibank Merged with Travelers group, to form Citigroup, yet Travelers group was an insurance underwriter. This was made possible by another piece of legislation, known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Get the idea? This is known as government intervention.
Robert B. Ekelund of the Mises institute writes,Quote:
"The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would make perfect sense in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance; but in the world as it is, this "deregulation" amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly.
More Awful Truths About Republicans - Robert B. Ekelund and Mark Thornton - Mises InstituteQuote:
That is one of the products of financial socialism under a fiat monetary system ?? a system that mainly benefits wealthy lenders. Heads you win, tails you do not lose.
You see, this is what happens when government is allowed to overly regulate the economy? It (Federal Reserve) automatically becomes daddy, and FDIC compliant failing banks become spoiled daughters.
BTW, a republican congress and democrat executive enacted this legislation.
i am confused:
are you saying the socialist government intervention in 1933 caused the subprime crisis?
or
the capitalist laissez faire government deregulation in 1999 caused the subprime crisis?
or
the federal reserve caused the subprime crisis?
We have a reaction to moral hazard, due to government interference into the markets. As a result, crisis prevention is necessary via government intervention; as they caused the mess in the first place. Throughout the 20th century, at least 5 economic crisis's have arisen that have been "solved", and as always another has followed with remnants of the past. Crisis is much different than recession.
What i am saying is, fault must be placed on many individuals throughout many administrations to effectively identify the culprits, starting with the federal reserve. Being as they have been and still are used as an economic bailout facility for over 80 years, investors are more inclined to make riskier moves due to a governmental floor in the form of various bailouts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Exactly....We can play the blame game all day...This article is pretty relavant
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
October 1, 2008
MoveOn.org blames McCain advisers. He blames Obama and Democrats in Congress. Both are wrong.
Summary
A MoveOn.org Political Action ad plays the partisan blame game with the economic crisis, charging that John McCain??s friend and former economic adviser Phil Gramm ??stripped safeguards that would have protected us.? The claim is bogus. Gramm??s legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists ?? not to mention President Clinton ?? praise it for having softened the crisis.
A McCain-Palin ad, in turn, blames Democrats for the mess. The ad says that the crisis ??didn??t have to happen,? because legislation McCain cosponsored would have tightened regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But, the ad says, Obama "was notably silent" while Democrats killed the bill. That??s oversimplified. Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, did not bring the bill forward for a vote. And it??s unclear how much the legislation would have helped, as McCain signed on just two months before the housing bubble popped.
In fact, there??s ample blame to go around. Experts have cited everyone from home buyers to Wall Street, mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan.
Analysis
As Congress wrestled with a $700 billion rescue for Wall Street's financial crisis, partisans on both sides got busy ?? pointing fingers. MoveOn.org Political Action on Sept. 25 released a 60-second TV ad called "My Friends?? Mess," blaming Sen. John McCain and Republican allies who supported banking deregulation. The McCain-Palin campaign released its own 30-second TV spot Sept. 30, saying "Obama was notably silent" while Democrats blocked reforms leaving taxpayers "on the hook for billions." Both ads were to run nationally.
And both ads are far wide of the mark.
Blame the Republicans!
The MoveOn.org Political Action ad blames a banking deregulation bill sponsored by former Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend and one-time adviser to McCain's campaign. It claims the bill "stripped safeguards that would have protected us."
That claim is bunk. When we contacted MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbons to ask just what "safeguards" the ad was talking about, he came up with not one single example. The only support offered for the ad's claim is one line in one newspaper article that reported the bill "is now being blamed" for the crisis, without saying who is doing the blaming or on what grounds.
The bill in question is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999 and repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a piece of legislation from the era of the Great Depression that imposed a number of regulations on financial institutions. It's true that Gramm authored the act, but what became law was a widely accepted bipartisan compromise. The measure passed the House 362 - 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 - 8. Among the Democrats voting for the bill: Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat. If this bill really had "stripped the safeguards that would have protected us," then both parties share the blame, not just "John McCain's friend."
The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.
Last year the liberal writer Robert Kuttner, in a piece in The American Prospect, argued that "this old-fashioned panic is a child of deregulation." But even he didn't lay the blame primarily on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Instead, he described "serial bouts of financial deregulation" going back to the 1970s. And he laid blame on policies of the Federal Reserve Board under Alan Greenspan, saying "the Fed has become the chief enabler of a dangerously speculative economy."
What Gramm-Leach-Bliley did was to allow commercial banks to get into investment banking. Commercial banks are the type that accept deposits and make loans such as mortgages; investment banks accept money for investment into stocks and commodities. In 1998, regulators had allowed Citicorp, a commercial bank, to acquire Traveler's Group, an insurance company that was partly involved in investment banking, to form Citigroup. That was seen as a signal that Glass-Steagall was a dead letter as a practical matter, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley made its repeal formal. But it had little to do with mortgages.
Actually, deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have weathered the financial crisis in reasonably good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. That idea is also endorsed by former President Clinton himself, who, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo published in the Sept. 24 issue of Business Week, said he had no regrets about signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall:
Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into.
No, Blame the Democrats!
The McCain-Palin campaign fired back with an ad laying blame on Democrats and Obama. Titled "Rein," it highlights McCain's 2006 attempt to "rein in Fannie and Freddie." The ad accurately quotes the Washington Post as saying "Washington failed to rein in" the two government-sponsored entities, the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), both of which ran into trouble by underwriting too many risky home mortgages to buyers who have been unable to repay them. The ad then blames Democrats for blocking McCain's reforms. As evidence, it even offers a snippet of an interview in which former President Clinton agrees that "the responsibility that the Democrats have" might lie in resisting his own efforts to "tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." We're then told that the crisis "didn't have to happen."
It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie ?? a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."
But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was notably silent" oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.
By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked. Standard & Poor's Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States, shows that housing prices began falling in July 2006, barely two months later.
The Real Deal
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
??by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson
Sources
Benston, George J. The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Glass-Steagall Act Revisited and Reconsidered. Oxford University Press, 1990.
Tabarrok, Alexander. "The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Morgans vs. The Rockefellers." The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1:1 (1998), pp. 1 - 18.
Kuttner, Robert. "The Bubble Economy." The American Prospect, 24 September 2007.
"The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999." U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Accessed 29 September 2008.
Bartiromo, Maria. "Bill Clinton on the Banking Crisis, McCain and Hillary." Business Week, 24 September 2008.
Standard and Poor's. "Case-Schiller Home Price History." Accessed 30 September 2008.
"Understanding the Tax Reform Debate: Background, Criteria and Questions." Government Accountability Office. September 2005.
Bianco, Katalina M. "The Subprime Lending Crisis: Causes and Effects of the Mortgage Meltdown." CCH. Accessed 29 September 2008.
The original link: FactCheck.org
i understand and accept the moral hazard theory, but i also believe the banks would have gambled with other people's money in the absence of government interference too, and we'd all be paying for it when they crashed the global financial system...they are the primary culprits in this mess
factcheck is an objective source of information, but i find it curious that they didn't mention any of george bush's legislation and policies in the years leading up to the crisis...instead, brooks jackson blamed bill clinton who "pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families."...what about george bush who literally legislated less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for low income homebuyers, and hosted conferences with mortgage giants, pushing them to issue more loans to low income families, and sent his HUD secretary to pressure fannie and freddie to issue $440 billion in mortgages to low income families? george bush had way more responsibility for this than clinton, but dubya only gets blamed for not having enough regulatory oversight, which according to allan greenspan, would not have prevented the subprime crisis anyway
"Investors of all stripes pressed securitizers for more MBS. Securitizers, in turn, pressed lenders for mortgage paper with little concern about its quality. As a consequence underwriting standards collapsed, and mortgage originations and securitizations rose to far greater heights than would have occurred without securitization. Even with full authority to intervene, it is not credible that regulators would have been able to prevent the subprime debacle."
- Allan Greenspan, 2008
It was not about raising the Dow... In all reality, the S&P is a more broad index, therefore gives you a better indication on the economy as a whole. The market will continue to slump until the correction has taken course. We just needed lending to continue because there are people who can make their payments. Default is in the neighbor hood of 5%-10% tops. Watch that number top off when home values begin increasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
it was all about the dow a few days ago when wall street brokers were blaming the rapid freefall of the dow jones index on the US gov't hesitancy on passing the bailout
i didn't watch the video, but i agree the dems are covering up their significant involvement in the economic crisis, and i think they will interfere with the investigation of the crisis...it will be the first bipartisan act of the obama administration
they are trying to cover it up because some of the same people to blame are the people coming up with this "solution."
Good damn, looks like its headed to another 700 point loss today. Looks like THATS what 850 billion will buy.....oh and even BEFORE the bailout, feds have pumped close to 2 trill into the system so far this year, before the bailout....
the truth is , there is no amount of money that can fix this. kinda scary.
the $900 billion listed below is auctioned without congressional oversight, and it doesn't include the $500+ billion bailout of fannie/freddie/AIG/bear stearns, or the $700 billion bailout package...those ingrates will be begging the next president for another handout if we don't lock them up first
Fed to double cash auctions to banks, up to $900 billion
Bloomberg News
Published: October 6, 2008
WASHINGTON: The Federal Reserve said Monday that it would double its auctions of cash to banks to as much as $900 billion and is considering further steps to unfreeze short-term lending markets as the credit crunch deepens.
"The Federal Reserve stands ready to take additional measures as necessary to foster liquid money-market conditions," the central bank said in a statement. Fed and Treasury officials are "consulting with market participants on ways to provide additional support for term unsecured funding markets," the statement said.
The steps follow a hoarding of cash by banks that sent the premium on the three-month London interbank offered rate over the Fed's benchmark interest rate to a record. Industrial companies are also finding it harder to raise cash after the market for commercial paper shrank to a three-year low as investors flee even borrowers with few links to mortgages.
"It is pretty much all out war," said Christopher Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, New York. "They are pulling out all the stops to try and get borrowers and lenders to meet and do transactions once again."
Implementing part of last week's emergency legislation to shore up the financial industry, the Fed said that it would begin paying interest on the cash reserves banks hold at the central bank. The step should give Fed officials greater power to inject cash into banks without interfering with their benchmark interest rate, which stands at 2 percent.
I bet we hit 2 trillion in bailouts this year. We're already over one and half trillion.
2,000,000,000,000
300,000,000 ÷
--------------------------
6,666.66666666666666 =
$6,666. for every man, woman and child in America. And thats just for this year. Anti up suckers.
I know it's considered bad form to quote oneself.
BUT !
I still think it's insane. :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
I think you've flawed everything you've said with such a dumb statement. Lets say the "Beaver" you're referring to isn't just a beaver, it represents the Alaskan ecology, and biology. In which, would all go to shit if we start drilling there. I don't support the dumb girl in her drilling ideas, simply because, we're still relying on drilling for oil. Alternative sources anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeefsMyFav
Doesn't take an emotional hippie to care about the future for our children, and their children. You're focused about what you're living in today, clearly. Quite selfish.