Keating Economics

[frerottenextelway]

http://keatingeconomics.com/

Full 13-minute video to be released at noon ET.

[frerottenextelway]

The video:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IDofbll86dY&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IDofbll86dY&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TexanBob]

I've told people since last spring that the liberals would hold their water on the Keating 5 until October. Well, it's October and...here comes the Keating 5.

Stupid Republicans.

[Needa Pass Rush]

The Keating 5 was a Democrat mess.

[Rohirrim]

The Keating 5 was a Democrat mess.

LOL

[Needa Pass Rush]

LOL

Obviously you know something know one else knows. ^5

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL

These right-wing revisionists remind me of Faux News broadcasting that Mark Foley was a Democrat. :giggle:

[Needa Pass Rush]

These right-wing revisionists remind me of Faux News broadcasting that Mark Foley was a Democrat. :giggle:

Straight from your bible... the Washington Post. Pay close attention to the part from Bob Bennett, democrat and Clinton lawyer.




The McCain campaign pushed back hard against the new Obama attack over the Keating Five, arguing that the Arizona senator was treated unfairly by the Senate ethics investigation and asserting that John McCain had been much more open about his relationship with disgraced thrift executive Charles Keating than Obama has been about his connection with one-time radical William Ayers.

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, John Dowd, the Washington lawyer who represented McCain during the Senate investigation, called the inquiry a "classic political smear job" by the Democrats running the Senate at the time, saying that they only included McCain to make sure that a Republican was among the targets. "John had not done anything wrong," Dowd said.

Dowd's point of view was amplified by Robert Bennett, the Washington lawyer and Democrat who served as special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee during the Keating Five investigation, which focused on whether McCain and other senators exercised improper political influence over the regulation of Keating's failed Lincoln Savings & Loan.

In an interview, Bennett said McCain should never have been dragged into the ethics case to begin with. He said that after his own lengthy investigation, he came to the conclusion that the case against McCain and former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) "should have been dropped" because the evidence suggested that once McCain understood that the Justice Department was investigating Keating, he backed off any involvement. Dowd noted that McCain threw Keating,once a strong supporter, out of his office after Keating pressed him to intervene in his case.

Bennett said former Sen. Howell Hefflin (D-Ala.) insisted that the two be included in the formal public inquiry because otherwise there would have been a month of public hearings "with no Republicans in the dock." The other members of the Keating Five were Democrats.

"It was clear that McCain should not have been at the table nor should Glenn," Bennett said. "I felt it was unfair for McCain to be included as part of the Keating Five." Bennett stressed that he was not speaking as part of the campaign, though he noted he also represented McCain in his recent battles with the New York Times.

The sharp defense of McCain by Dowd was in contrast to McCain's previous contrition about his involvement in the matter. He told the New York Times in 1999 that going into the meetings with regulators was a mistake. "Going into that room gave a definite appearance of impropriety," he said.

McCain was ultimately exonerated by the Ethics Committee, which did fault him for exercising poor judgment in attending two meetings with federal regulators about their case against Keating, a once high-flying savings and loans owner who contributed $112,000 to McCain campaigns (as well as making gifts that were not found to be illegal). The collapse of Keating's thrift ultimately cost taxpayers billions, and Obama's campaign mounted a full-scale assault today on McCain's involvement, with an ad and short web documentary questioning his judgment.

In an e-mail to supporters, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe argued that the Keating Five affair highlighted McCain's support for a broad philosophy of deregulation that is eerily similiar to the crisis of today. "During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion," Plouffe wrote.

"In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain," Plouffe added.

Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman, said McCain has been "open and honest" about his relationship with Keating, in contrast with Obama's statements about Ayers, one of the founders of the Weather Underground. "We're seeing the opposite from Barack Obama," he said.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Straight from your bible... the Washington Post. Pay close attention to the part from Bob Bennett, democrat and Clinton lawyer.

Spare us the revisionist bullsh*t - some of us here are actually old enough to remember the S&L scandals and McSame's role.

[frerottenextelway]

Well, lets see John McCain's own thoughts on it:

I created the appearance of impropriety so it was my -- I was guilty, and therefore did not represent the people of my state in the manner which they expected of me. [CNN, Larry King, 10/12/02]

The biggest mistake that I made in my life was attending a meeting with four other senators and four regulators because of the appearance of impropriety, and it is something that will always be a mark on my record, and something that people will judge me for the rest of my life. [GOP Presidential Primary Debate, 1/7/00]

Despite my recovery, the Keating Five experience was not one that I have walked away from as easily as I have other bad times. Twelve years after its conclusion, I still wince thinking about it and find that if I do not repress the memory, its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important, something that was sacrificed in the pursuit of gratifying ambitions, my own and others', and that I might never possess again as assuredly as I once had. [McCain, Worth the Fighting For Page 204]

[Rigs11]

Fact Check: Did McCain intervene on behalf of Charles Keating?


The Statement: The campaign for Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama on Monday, Oct. 6, unveiled a Web site noting that Republican opponent Sen. John McCain played a key role in the Senate's "Keating Five" scandal of the 1980s. "McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating with federal regulators tasked with preventing banking fraud, and championed legislation to delay regulation of the savings and loan industry — actions that allowed Keating to continue his fraud at an incredible cost to taxpayers," the site says.

Get the facts!

The Facts: Keating was sentenced to prison and required to pay more than $1 billion in civil penalties after being convicted on fraud, racketeering and conspiracy charges centered around his running of Lincoln Savings and Loan, which he bought in 1984. On April 14, 1989, Lincoln was seized by the government at an eventual taxpayer cost of $3.4 billion, then the most expensive thrift bailout in history. Lincoln and Keating became national symbols of the savings-and-loans collapse of the '80s — much as lending firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have symbolized the current financial meltdown.

McCain had been friends with Keating since the early '80s — their families vacationed together several times, according to previous CNN reporting. Keating was an early financial supporter of McCain's political career and donated to his campaigns repeatedly over the years. Keating's first company, American Continental, was headquartered in Arizona, the state McCain represents. McCain became one of the so-called "Keating Five" — five U.S. senators investigated over accusations they tried to interfere in a federal investigation of Keating's role in the savings-and-loan's collapse.

In January 1985, while in the U.S. House, McCain co-sponsored a resolution that would have delayed the effective date of proposed government limits "on direct investment in real estate, service corporations, and equity securities by federally insured savings and loan associations." He was one of the early sponsors, although a majority of Congress eventually signed on to sponsor it. The legislation would have impacted Keating's business, but would have regulated the entire industry, not specifically Lincoln Savings and Loan.

McCain also wrote several letters to government regulators and other officials regarding the issue. One, dated Jan. 30, 1985, to White House chief of staff James Baker, called the proposed regulations "unwise," saying the effort "flys (sic) in the face of our recent efforts to remove the hand of government from the affairs of private enterprise."

On April 9, 1987, McCain and the other senators attended a meeting with federal regulators investigating Keating. McCain has since said he regrets doing so. "He asked me to help him," he said during an October 2002 interview with Chicago's WGN-AM radio station. "I said I wouldn't do certain things. He called me a wimp. I threw him out of my office, but I still went to a meeting with four other senators with a group of regulators."

McCain testified that he never asked for anything inappropriate during the meeting, and the Senate ethics committee found that, after regulators said the firm was being investigated not just for insolvency, but on criminal grounds, McCain took no further action on Keating's behalf. In the end, the committee recommended McCain and Sen. John Glenn be dropped from the probe — although McCain was rebuked by the Senate for using "poor judgment" in his relationship with the millionaire banker.

The Verdict: True. McCain did push to delay regulations that would have cracked down on savings-and-loans practices and intervened on Keating's behalf, although he was cleared of wrongdoing in the "Keating Five" case.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/06/fact-check-did-mccain-intervene-on-behalf-of-charles-keating/

[Needa Pass Rush]

Spare us the revisionist bullsh*t - some of us here are actually old enough to remember the S&L scandals and McSame's role.

Yeah? How old are you, BS? Why do you still post with a crayon?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah? How old are you, BS? Why do you still post with a crayon?

:stupid:

Dumbest comeback ever?

[Rohirrim]

Was Neal Bush a Democrat? ???

[Needa Pass Rush]

:stupid:

Dumbest comeback ever?


Come on, BF. How old are you? 45? 55?? ??? Educate us about the S&L mess. Tell us how the republicans that were a minority in the congress from 1954-1995 were really the ones responsible for the deregulation of S&L's. Don't you have a bumper sticker for that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Was Neal Bush a Democrat? ???

Sure - just like Mark Foley.

Don't you watch Fox? ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Come on, BF. How old are you? 45? 55?? ??? Educate us about the S&L mess. Tell us how the republicans that were a minority in the congress from 1954-1995 were really the ones responsible for the deregulation of S&L's. Don't you have a bumper sticker for that?

But according to your logic, the party that has been out of power for six of the last eight years is responsible for the Bush economy and the current crisis.

Which is it?

[Needa Pass Rush]

But according to your logic, the party that has been out of power for six of the last eight years is responsible for the Bush economy and the current crisis.

Which is it?

I think this sums it up the Keating 5 issue, old man.

The difference here is clear. John McCain has been open and honest about the Keating matter, and even the Democratic special counsel in charge recommended that Senator McCain be completely exonerated. By contrast, Barack Obama has been fundamentally dishonest about his friendship and work with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, whose radical group bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. Nor has Barack Obama come clean on his close friendship with Tony Rezko, a felon convicted on bribery charges who subsidized the purchase of Barack Obama’s home. It's obvious that Barack Obama is frantically attacking because he knows that most voters find these kinds of friendships, and the failed judgment they expose, to be unacceptable for our next president

[gunns]

In an interview, Bennett said McCain should never have been dragged into the ethics case to begin with. He said that after his own lengthy investigation, he came to the conclusion that the case against McCain and former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) "should have been dropped" because the evidence suggested that once McCain understood that the Justice Department was investigating Keating, he backed off any involvement. Dowd noted that McCain threw Keating,once a strong supporter, out of his office after Keating pressed him to intervene in his case

Of course he said that. If he hadn't he would have had to admit Glenn was guilty.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think this sums it up the Keating 5 issue, old man.

The difference here is clear. John McCain has been open and honest about the Keating matter, and even the Democratic special counsel in charge recommended that Senator McCain be completely exonerated. By contrast, Barack Obama has been fundamentally dishonest about his friendship and work with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, whose radical group bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. Nor has Barack Obama come clean on his close friendship with Tony Rezko, a felon convicted on bribery charges who subsidized the purchase of Barack Obama’s home. It's obvious that Barack Obama is frantically attacking because he knows that most voters find these kinds of friendships, and the failed judgment they expose, to be unacceptable for our next president

:rofl:

Can you see our solar system from your alternate universe?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"I see your Ayers, and raise you the Keating Five"
http://www.bartcop.com/obama-flush.jpg (http://fauxnewschannel.com/)

[Needa Pass Rush]

Of course he said that. If he hadn't he would have had to admit Glenn was guilty.

Whatever makes you sleep at night, Gunns. Bob Bennett investigated the Keating Five mess for well over a year. I believe he understands exactly what was going on. How closely have you looked into it?

[barryr]

Obama is for change and outraged at scandal. Oops.

Keating Five Member is Obama Surrogate

http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/10/06/keating_five_member_is_obama_surrogate

[Garcia Bronco]

The Senate ethics committee and investigtor point-blank-said that McCain should have been brought in at all.

[Old Dude]

As I recall, the bottom line was that McCain didn't do anything that was criminally negligent, but did use "bad judgment" in getting involved on the fringes of an investment fraud scandal - - mostly in terms of the potential conflict of interest.

So he wasn't found to be a crook or a swindler, but got a little too comfy with people who were.

That's pretty much parallel to the Ayers thing. No one is saying that Obama was a weatherman (he was eight) but he got a little too comfy with an ex-weatherman.

Both of these things are long-over and, as far as I'm concerned, it's a waste of time to dredge either one of them up while there are far more important issues to worry about.

[frerottenextelway]

I think this sums it up the Keating 5 issue, old man.

The difference here is clear. John McCain has been open and honest about the Keating matter, and even the Democratic special counsel in charge recommended that Senator McCain be completely exonerated. By contrast, Barack Obama has been fundamentally dishonest about his friendship and work with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, whose radical group bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. Nor has Barack Obama come clean on his close friendship with Tony Rezko, a felon convicted on bribery charges who subsidized the purchase of Barack Obama’s home. It's obvious that Barack Obama is frantically attacking because he knows that most voters find these kinds of friendships, and the failed judgment they expose, to be unacceptable for our next president

Isn't that word for word from a John McCain press release?

And holy irony copying a McCain press release while calling someone else an old man.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Isn't that word for word from a John McCain press release?

And holy irony copying a McCain press release while calling someone else an old man.

Ha!

He's proving that McCain/Palin supporters are just as hypocritical and out of touch with reality as their candidates.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Isn't that word for word from a John McCain press release?

And holy irony copying a McCain press release while calling someone else an old man.

:rofl:

[cutthemdown]

How can anyone watch this and come away blaming the Republicans.

[cutthemdown]

wow just wow

[Needa Pass Rush]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Garcia Bronco]

Wow. You just have to scratch your head at the individuals in that video. Either they are dumb or criminals. Take your pick.

[Rohirrim]

As I recall, the bottom line was that McCain didn't do anything that was criminally negligent, but did use "bad judgment" in getting involved on the fringes of an investment fraud scandal - - mostly in terms of the potential conflict of interest.

So he wasn't found to be a crook or a swindler, but got a little too comfy with people who were.

That's pretty much parallel to the Ayers thing. No one is saying that Obama was a weatherman (he was eight) but he got a little too comfy with an ex-weatherman.

Both of these things are long-over and, as far as I'm concerned, it's a waste of time to dredge either one of them up while there are far more important issues to worry about.

Didn't his wife make a bundle on the deal?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So he wasn't found to be a crook or a swindler, but got a little too comfy with people who were.



McCain took a lot of money from that crook/swindler, and Keating wined and dined McCain like Johnny was the President of the United States.

I believe this is what's known as "influence peddling."

[cutthemdown]

i notice labf has nothing to say about those videos.

[Spider]

So Republicans back in 2004 Knew deregulation doesnt work ....... Dems have been trying ot tell them that for years ...... So the Idiot Rush Limbaugh cant take his bullshít free market blah blah blah and shove it up his ass ......
See W*GS even your own party says deregulation is bullshít ...... What gets me though the reps had the majority in congress in 2004 ....... Oh well at least you ****ing republicans will quit spouting off Socialism bullshít at least

[watermock]

I showed those earlier to muted replies. It's pretty clear.
Maybe you just need to watch it again.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Spider]

I showed those earlier to muted replies.

I didnt see em .or I would have said the same thing I did here........Next ****ing republican at a truck stop that spouts off about Socialism , I will tell him about this ........ then politely tell him to shut the **** up and sell his bull**** somewhere else

[Spider]

For years Dems have been shouting Deregulation doesnt work , you ****s pull out the socialism card , now you bastards see that we was right ......... pit that **** in your pipe and smoke it .........Dems were right you guys were wrong ... Now that we got you righttards to see you was wrong , maybe now yo uwill start voting with some common sense ........

[Spider]

Democrat : we need to put some government regulations into play
Right tard : socialism , you are tampering with the free market , you Commie .....
so what say you right tards now ?

[watermock]

I don't know what to say. It's clear who the players were, even Clinton said it was a mistake.

Regardless, there was still time to correct this, but there was fierce opposition from the percieved MANDATE as opposed to safe lending practices, and cooking the books to within pennies to make bonuses.

I'm sorry you can't see. I can't make you.

[Spider]

I don't know what to say. It's clear who the players were, even Clinton said it was a mistake.

Regardless, there was still time to correct this, but there was fierce opposition from the percieved MANDATE as opposed to safe lending practices, and cooking the books to within pennies to make bonuses.

I'm sorry you can't see. I can't make you.you know why ? back in 2000 Dems came up with a bill to put tough regulation on Fannie and Freddy as well as a few others ...... Reps blocked it , saying the free market will work itself out , reps had all 3 branches back in 2004 , if they really wanted ot stop this they could have .Instead they paid lip service

[watermock]

Look, the WTOect is involved in this too...

This is 2004 in the clip. The fact is the democrats liked the cash cow that had enabled low income buyers to qualify, and ignored the risks.

There were MANDATES that forced the hands of banks, and frankly, they made hay while the sun shone...but still, as of 2004, there was still time.

Most of the outrageous sub prime was in 05 and 06. AFTER this commitee.

[Spider]

Look, the WTOect is involved in this too...

This is 2004 in the clip. The fact is the democrats liked the cash cow that had enabled low income buyers to qualify, and ignored the risks.

There were MANDATES that forced the hands of banks, and frankly, they made hay while the sun shone...but still, as of 2004, there was still time.

Most of the outrageous sub prime was in 05 and 06. AFTER this commitee.

Mock you should know by now , I wont be bull****ted .......http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2095341&postcount=2
and this is from the WSJ .......
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=22214&stc=1&d=1221958057

[Needa Pass Rush]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8O6iEoGgQFc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8O6iEoGgQFc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[watermock]

Well, being out of the loop...

I see the perfect storm.

Both greed and well intentions working in concert while the select few got very wealthy.

I read somewhere there is a glt of "overbuilt" homes. like 22%.


I've gotten it figured out I think, too bad I can barely type after my reaction.

This beast is like a tenacled monster. I'm having a zen moment.

There is evil afoot.

[Spider]

Well, being out of the loop...

I see the perfect storm.

Both greed and well intentions working in concert while the select few got very wealthy.

I read somewhere there is a glt of "overbuilt" homes. like 22%.


I've gotten it figured out I think, too bad I can barely type after my reaction.

This beast is like a tenacled monster. I'm having a zen moment.

There is evil afoot.
;D there is evil afoot , and it comes from Grahm, Pelosi , Reid , Bonner , etc ....
these people are out of touch with the struggles we face everyday, this is why I believe in Obama , he talks about the issues we face , we deal with , McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are strong , People are getting laid off bad Energy prices are sky high , Housing ......... I am glad you pulled out of this Mock .........

[watermock]

Clinton specifically on hedge funds...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XsynspIqAoE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XsynspIqAoE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[gunns]

The fact is the democrats liked the cash cow that had enabled low income buyers to qualify, and ignored the risks.


The fact is that the Republicans loved the cash cow also. The subprime loan surge was in 98 when the Republican Congress proposed the deregulation. They love the subprime loans as much as it not only allowed low income to buy but also illegals. They were easy to manipulate by these banks whose hands were "forced" (Hilarious!) and fudge their income to underwriters, as were the low income, and then the bankers sat back and laughed as people drowned as their adjusted rate mortgages went beyond their means. Republicans love the illegals as they take the low paying jobs, yet DO pay taxes that aren't as easily recouped as citizens can. To continue the stereotyping of Dem's and making them solely responsible is insane.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The fact is that the Republicans loved the cash cow also. The subprime loan surge was in 98 when the Republican Congress proposed the deregulation. They love the subprime loans as much as it not only allowed low income to buy but also illegals. They were easy to manipulate by these banks whose hands were "forced" (Hilarious!) and fudge their income to underwriters, as were the low income, and then the bankers sat back and laughed as people drowned as their adjusted rate mortgages went beyond their means. Republicans love the illegals as they take the low paying jobs, yet DO pay taxes that aren't as easily recouped as citizens can. To continue the stereotyping of Dem's and making them solely responsible is insane.

Exactly.

The subprime orgy took place on Bush's watch.

Bush and his rubber stamp GOP Congress did everything they could to assist the thieves - even going so far as to block states' attempts to enact laws to protect themselves from predatory lending practices.

FM & FM went from mandatory regulation to voluntary regulation under Bush in 2002.

[watermock]

No, the surge was 05-06.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=22214&stc=1&d=1221958057

[Spider]

No, the surge was 05-06.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=22214&stc=1&d=1221958057

then take it up with the Wall Street Journal , if they make a correction then I will live with it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Some of you may remember George Bush during the previous recession (the one stemming from the tech bubble) that he wanted to make it possible for "every American to own a home."

Here is a speech in which he discusses how his administration got Freddie Mac and Fannie May to extend more credit to homeowners:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkAtUq0OJ68&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkAtUq0OJ68&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I love the last couple lines in this clip:

"One of the programs [Bush created] is designed to help families with bad credit histories qualify for home ownership loans. You don't have to have a lousy home if you're a first time home buyer...if you put your mind to it, the first time home buyer can have just as nice a home as anybody else".

Here's the transcript from a radio address he gave in 2002:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020615.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020615.html)

From this radio address, we get this gem:

"The single greatest hurdle to first time homeownership is a high down payment requirement that can put a home out of reach. So my administration is proposing the American Dream Down Payment Fund. When a low-income family is qualified to buy a home, but comes up short on the down payment, the American Dream Down Payment Fund will help provide the needed funds. We estimate that this fund will open the door to homeownership for 40,000 low-income families annually."

[watermock]

Lowering down payments arent the problem.

It's the ARM's. For now, rates are still low. During Clinton, they were 22%. Thats why CC's can be over 21% now w/o breaking usury law.

[Spider]

Some of you may remember George Bush during the previous recession (the one stemming from the tech bubble) that he wanted to make it possible for "every American to own a home."

Here is a speech in which he discusses how his administration got Freddie Mac and Fannie May to extend more credit to homeowners:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkAtUq0OJ68&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GkAtUq0OJ68&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I love the last couple lines in this clip:

"One of the programs [Bush created] is designed to help families with bad credit histories qualify for home ownership loans. You don't have to have a lousy home if you're a first time home buyer...if you put your mind to it, the first time home buyer can have just as nice a home as anybody else".

Here's the transcript from a radio address he gave in 2002:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20020615.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020615.html)

From this radio address, we get this gem:

"The single greatest hurdle to first time homeownership is a high down payment requirement that can put a home out of reach. So my administration is proposing the American Dream Down Payment Fund. When a low-income family is qualified to buy a home, but comes up short on the down payment, the American Dream Down Payment Fund will help provide the needed funds. We estimate that this fund will open the door to homeownership for 40,000 low-income families annually."

well to be honest it does sound like a good plan , getting more people into homes .. there had to be a way to get it done without ****ing up ..... This one I wont fault Bush for , I believe his heart was in the right place .....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bottom line: Bush got Freddie Mac and Fannie May to extend more credit to homeowners.

[cutthemdown]

seems to me the whole govt was in on doing this. Funny how they only thing the Dems and Repubs are really afraid of is people figuring out they are both to blame.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

well to be honest it does sound like a good plan , getting more people into homes .. there had to be a way to get it done without ****ing up ..... This one I wont fault Bush for , I believe his heart was in the right place .....

It's the same thing the righties are criticizing the Dems for.

They can't have it both ways.

[Spider]

It's the same thing the righties are criticizing the Dems for.

They can't have it both ways.;D well we cant expect them to handle , the truth

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

;D well we cant expect them to handle , the truth

Yep.

What we can expect is for them to try to blame Clinton and the Dems for all of their frauds and felonies of the last eight years - just like 9/11, Iraq, and Katrina.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

seems to me the whole govt was in on doing this. Funny how they only thing the Dems and Repubs are really afraid of is people figuring out they are both to blame.

Wrong.

BroncoInferno summed it up quite well:

You see what the neocons are doing now, don't you? They know that their philosophy has been exposed as an utter failure. So, rather than championing their owns views, they just want to drag the other side down with them. They just hope they can make it tie. "The Democrats are just as bad as we are!" This is what their bankrupt philosophy has reduced them to Ha!

[cutthemdown]

Wasn't the 99 bill by Graham signed by Clinton? Why didn't he veto it? There is plenty of blame to go around but most falls on the people who are defaulting on their loans. Too many poor people got loans and that was just stupid.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wasn't the 99 bill by Graham signed by Clinton? Why didn't he veto it? There is plenty of blame to go around but most falls on the people who are defaulting on their loans. Too many poor people got loans and that was just stupid.

Thanks for proving Inferno's point. :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There is plenty of blame to go around...

President Katrina?

Is that you?

[Needa Pass Rush]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LPSDnGMzIdo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LPSDnGMzIdo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

WSJ: The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil <hr style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Suddenly Republicans are against market values?

By THOMAS FRANK

OK, let me get this straight: The central axiom of conservative Republicanism is that government is inherently corrupt and can't do anything right.

Over many years of ascendancy, conservative Republicans have filled government agencies with conservative Republicans and proceeded to enact the conservative Republican policy wish list -- tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, outsourcing federal work, and so on.

And as a consequence of these policies our conservative Republican government has bungled most of the big tasks that have fallen to it. The rescue and recovery of the Gulf Coast was a disaster. The reconstruction of Iraq was a disaster. The regulatory agencies became so dumb they didn't even see the disasters they were set up to prevent. And each disaster was attributable to the conservative philosophy of government.

Yet now we are supposed to vote for more conservative Republicans because we learned from the last bunch of conservative Republicans that government just doesn't work.

That is the advice of Sarah Palin, Republican vice-presidential nominee, in last week's debate with her Democratic counterpart, discussing the dread prospect of universal health care: "Unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."

Conservative misrule, prompted by conservative disdain for government, proves that government cannot be trusted -- and that the only answer is to elect another round of government-denouncing conservatives.

"Cynicism" seems too small a word for this circular kind of political fraud. One reaches instead for images of grosser malevolence. It's like suggesting that the best way to recover from pneumonia is to stand in the rain for three hours. It's like arguing that the way to solve nuclear proliferation is by handing out weapons-grade plutonium to everyone who asks for it.

Consider also the perverse incentives that such a logic would establish. If we validate Mrs. Palin's thoughts on federal bungling by electing her to the high office she seeks, we are encouraging her to bungle everything that comes her way. After all, by her thinking, such bungling will not discredit her doctrines but rather confirm them, demonstrate the need for more Sarah Palins down the road. We will be asking for it, and it's not much of a stretch to predict that we will get it.

In the three-ring circus of conservative blame-evasion, however, that's only one act. Over in the House of Representatives, a new breed of Republican idealists spent last week dazzling the faithful by taking a bold stand against the Wall Street bailout. The administration's plan was a "slippery slope to socialism," declared their leader, Jeb Hensarling of Texas.

One might have admired their pluck but for the breathtaking opportunism of their own counterproposal, the "Free Market Protection Act," which is described on the Web site of the Republican Study Committee. True, it is not a "slippery slope." It is a headlong stampede over a precipice, a running leap out a skyscraper window.

It starts by calling for "voluntary private capital" to solve the problem of bad mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Several sentences later it asks for a "mandatory" fee to be levied on all MBS, good or bad, and apparently without regard for whether it's held here or overseas, where American law doesn't apply. I asked William Black, the University of Missouri-Kansas City professor of economics and law whom I quoted last week, what he thought of this scheme. He replied, "This is significantly insane as a matter of finance -- and unconstitutional as a matter of law. This clause would cause a world-wide financial panic were it implemented."

Back at the study committee's Web site, I see conservatives call to "Suspend 'Mark to Market' Accounting." Suddenly our "free-market protection" gang has decided it's unfair to make companies value their MBSs at . . . the market price. Somehow the all-seeing market has gone irrational, and so companies must be allowed "to mark these assets to their true economic value," meaning, one might say, to mark them however they please, a practice that, to put it shortly, is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Space prevents me from discussing the plan's provisions to temporarily suspend capital gains taxes and repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act. But I will note that, in discussing the derring-do of Mr. Hensarling and his hard-core colleagues, the New York Times chose to refer to them as "populists" -- friends of the common people. As an indicator of the confused state of our political discourse, the signals don't flash any brighter than this.

Years ago, conservatives realized that to destroy the legitimacy of your adversary's concepts is to destroy your adversary. Today we are surrounded by the wreckage. Much depends on our success in rebuilding.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122342526024513543.html

[Needa Pass Rush]

<embed src="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/main.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoGUID={2599A309-DA3D-45CE-B0A7-2FC3B5AAEAE3}&playerid=1000&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false” base="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/" name="flashPlayer" width="512" height="363" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

GOP’s latest ugly fable

Gene Lyons

If the economic situation weren’t so grim, it’d be darkly amusing watching conservatives hunting for a scapegoat other than Bush administration True Believers. Hey, they’re all Brownies now. Heckuva job. For a generation, devotees of the very bad novelist Ayn Rand have assured us that greed is a virtue and government oversight of financial institutions an impediment to genius. In the “ownership society,” financial regulations were for pantywaists. In GOP-think, governments exist purely to drop bombs and monitor other people’s sex lives. Financial deregulation has been the Republican miracle elixir since Ronald Reagan. Back in March, Sen. John McCain reassured The Wall Street Journal that despite being “aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight” in debacles like the sub-prime lending crisis, “I am fundamentally a deregulator.” In between winks and shout-outs to “Joe Sixpack” during the vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin also wanted it both ways. She praised McCain for “pushing for even harder and tougher regulations.” Then she said patriotism means saying, “Government, you know, you’re not always the solution. In fact, too often you’re the problem, so government... get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper.” Meanwhile, naïve, otherworldly progressives argued that mortgage lenders needed regulators in the back room for the same reason they needed locks on the front door. You’d think that any adult who’d ever bought real estate, avoided losing his life savings to Nigerian e-mail scams or even spent rainy afternoons playing Monopoly as a child would understand this fundamental fact of human nature: If you make it easy for people to steal, they’ll steal everything, including the silverware and Grandma’s dentures.

Alas, too many heeded pie-in-the-sky GOP theology. The miracle-working market absolved us all from sin; hence, from the Reagan-created savings-and-loan crisis onward, corporate financial scandals have grown steadily larger and more dangerous. But abandon dogma ? Never.

Now come GOP apologists to identify the real perps of the Wall Street meltdown: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, feckless black folks, Mexican Americans and U. S. Rep. Barney Frank, who’s evidently been covertly running Wall Street all this time.

See, while you fretted over Bush screwups in Iraq, Afghanistan and New Orleans, a sinister, dusky cabal built a speculative bubble in ghetto real estate. Overpriced luxury condos were constructed with borrowed money in fashionable Harlem, Watts and the south side of Chicago; also, downtown Atlanta, Newark, St. Louis, Detroit, Memphis and Philadelphia. In Monopoly terms, the entire U. S. economy drained into a black hole of defaulted loans on Baltic and Mediterranean.

So how come you haven’t heard this before ? Maybe because you don’t spend enough time watching FOX News or listening to GOP talk radio. In those precincts, the real cause of the national (and world ) financial debacle turns out to be an obscure 1977 law known as the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA.

Intended to end the practice of “redlining,” i. e., refusing to make creditworthy loans in “bad” neighborhoods, the CRA was enacted under President Carter. To conservative pundits such as Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby and Laura Ingraham, that’s where all the trouble started.

Supposedly, left-wing activists intimidated bankers into making risky loans to improvident minorities, which caused the whole debacle. Supposedly, too, President Clinton made things worse by revising the rules back in 1995.

Leave it to Ann Coulter to spell things out most clearly. Thanks to Democratic interference with free markets, see, sound methods of appraising mortgage applicants’ ability to repay loans were replaced by “nontraditional measures of creditworthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named ‘Caylee.’” As a result, she recently wrote, “Middleclass taxpayers are going to be forced to bail out the Democrats’ two most important constituent groups: rich Wall Street bankers and welfare recipients.” The brutality of this argument is matched only by its stupidity. An alert child would wonder why a 31-year-old law suddenly started causing trouble in 2008. Wouldn’t a lot of those loans already be paid off ? Wouldn’t the same apply to actions that Clinton supposedly took 13 years ago ? Besides, with Republicans controlling the government for the past eight years, how come they didn’t fix it ?

Mainly because it’s utter nonsense. CRA regulations apply only to FDIC insured banks, not the mortgage companies and investment banks, which made 83. 4 percent of sub-prime loans responsible for the crisis. The 1977 law also has nothing whatsoever to do with fraudulent packages of “securitized” mortgage debt taking down investors worldwide. Those are a Bush-era innovation.

Rick Pearlstein, author of the brilliant history “Nixonland,” calls this ugly fable “a modern-day equivalent of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ a Big Lie narrative that blames a despised, outcast social group for problems they had nothing to do with.” A naïve person might imagine that these people would have some shame.

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Editorial/239622

[Garcia Bronco]

Wow. Just wow at our government. Had they not gotten invoplved in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Spider]

Wow. Just wow at our government. Had they not gotten invoplved in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess.

Do you understand the extent of the involvement ? When it started ? did you know that back in 1939 , the government put a freeze on lowering prices on fuel ?

[Garcia Bronco]

Do you understand the extent of the involvement ? When it started ? did you know that back in 1939 , the government put a freeze on lowering prices on fuel ?

Fuel prices don't have much to do with the Economic mess created by the Democrats, Republicans, and Franklin Raines in the housing market..

[Spider]

Fuel prices don't have much to do with the Economic mess created by the Democrats, Republicans, and Franklin Raines in the housing market..

Oh bull**** , pull your head out of your ass for a second will you ?
My point is Government has been meddling in the market and stocks since before the 30's .......
you know what Garcia , Iam going ot buy you a gift . the gift will be a leather belt with your name on it , that way will you do pull your head out of your ass , you will be able to see who you are

[Garcia Bronco]

Oh bull**** , pull your head out of your ass for a second will you ?
My point is Government has been meddling in the market and stocks since before the 30's .......
you know what Garcia , Iam going ot buy you a gift . the gift will be a leather belt with your name on it , that way will you do pull your head out of your ass , you will be able to see who you are

I don't think I ever been spoken to so rudely before on this website. :P

[Spider]

I don't think I ever been spoken to so rudely before on this website. :P

LOL , I thought the belt was a nice touch . but seriously , our government has been interfering for decades now , and alot of it was for our protection .... Deregulation doesnt work bro , never has never will ......I lost all faith during Hurricane Hugo Coors Brewery out in Golden , loaded up truck after truck out of colorado with bottled water nd other supplies , we got down to North Carolina and these assholes were geting back in line cause they already sold the water and supplies they was given , told the Coors rep down there , he said , no big deal this is a great tax write off and the publicity is off the charts .... Coors didnt do it to help out fellow Americans , they did it for profit .....