2003 NYT article shows Bush tried to regulate the lenders, Dems shot it down

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

:nope:

 

This is laughable at best. You failed to mention that it was 2003 when the Republicans had a majority, so that means some republicans had to vote against it as well. Way to leave out key facts.:thumb:

 

I mentioned that "Bush tried to regulate the lenders and Dems shot it down" which is what happened.

Trust me, MM....this was reported in a Lib fashion in 2003 as if the Bush administration was trying to "make it more difficult for lower-income families to obtain housing". See the Barney Frank and Melvin Watt quotes. Nobody wants to be the guy who votes against people obtaining housing.

"Make it more difficult for lower-income families to obtain housing" == Don't loan money to people who can't pay it back.

 

So what is the point? That the majority of democrats and some republicans are to blame for nothing being done? I don't have much confidence in congress regardless of affiliation but the reform bill came from republicans. Sure is a lot of blame being levied against Bush and McCain. I think there is plenty to go around, but considering the ties the Obama campaign has with Fannie/Freddie, it's going to look worse for them on the political trail.

I am at a loss how Enron execs get prosecuted, and Fannie/Freddi execs do not. Apparently there is evidence that they cooked their books. This whole sub prime thing is just pure insanity. We will make it out but it's going to be painful. The sad thing is most people think either presidential candidate can do anything about this. If they don't break the inertia in congress, nothing will change.

The only thing congress seems to react quickly to is pointing their fingers at everyone else except themselves. And they make the laws. It is truly disheartening.

 

Unlike Enron, there does not seem to be any overwhelming evidence and anyone broke the law. Approving bad loans is stupid, but it's not illegal.

 

Figured out why yet? Because these two companies gave so much $ directly or through lobbiests, that a good portion of congress would be tarred with the same feather. This wouldn't be a few companies going down, but many politicians, so don't hold your breath on prosecutions. These guys make the laws or unmake them, regulate or don't regulate, and then investigate themselves. Somehow they sell this idea to the American people. I suppose as long as we have our new ipods and don't interrupt american idol, then they get away with it. Bunch of zombies in my generation.

As to evidence of wrong doing, sure there is. There are plenty of sources out there, but it still went under the radar.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12923225/


As to how our esteemed lawmakers feign outrage and take no blame. This sums it up nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro

 

agreed. There were repubs in the homebuilders pockets who also voted against regulation of fannie/freddie. they all sucked on this.

the bill propsed would only havr addressed fannie and freddie, not the broader industry, so much of the carnage would still be here.

This bill would not have addressed Countrywide Financial, New Century, or the evaporation of wealth at Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, ubs, B of A, etc.

 

But it's all sub prime related. Had regulation gone through on the GSE side, many of these guys may have woke up and gotten out of the bad paper business. Fannie and Freddie are probably two of the biggest enabling culprits in this whole mess. Actually looking at the numbers and the $ given to congress is enough to make you sick. I can't even think about it anymore today.

I'm going to drink about $1000 worth of wine to celebrate the demise of capitalism. Hell, it's devalued anyway. Probably only worth about $10. :thumb:

 

As I said, there is no evidence that can be brought into a court of law of any wrongdoing. The primary guilt for the current crisis lies with stupid borrowers who obtained loans without collateral, and the stupid, greedy bankers who approved the loans because all they could see was $$$. Congress and the SEC also has to take significant blame for not properly overseeing the banking system. When Bush tried to deal with the situation, Congress shot his bill down because all they could see was poor people getting home loans so that they could become homeowners. Congress did not give any thought as to how they were doing it; frankly they did not care. Its intentions were good but its method was deplorable.

 

from 2006:

http://us1.institutionalriskanalytics.com/pub/WWSstory.asp?tag=99

pretty mixed bag if you ask me. both dems & repubs for and against reform.