The Complete Meltdown of Our Financial System

[Nbadan]

Really, what's left for Dubya's plunge team to do? If dumping a trillion dollars into the system doesn't do the trick, expect a catastrophic meltdown...

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/39581/thumbs/s-CONGRESS-large.jpg

Congress Told "We're Literally Maybe Days Away From A Complete Meltdown Of Our Financial System"


September 20, 2008
Congressional Leaders Stunned by Warnings
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN


WASHINGTON — It was a room full of people who rarely hold their tongues. But as the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, laid out the potentially devastating ramifications of the financial crisis before congressional leaders on Thursday night, there was a stunned silence at first.

Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had made an urgent and unusual evening visit to Capitol Hill, and they were gathered around a conference table in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“When you listened to him describe it you gulped," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

As Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, put it Friday morning on the ABC program “Good Morning America,” the congressional leaders were told “that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally.”

Mr. Schumer added, “History was sort of hanging over it, like this was a moment.”

When Mr. Schumer described the meeting as “somber,” Mr. Dodd cut in. “Somber doesn’t begin to justify the words,” he said. “We have never heard language like this.”

“What you heard last evening,” he added, “is one of those rare moments, certainly rare in my experience here, is Democrats and Republicans deciding we need to work together quickly.”

Although Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dodd and other participants declined to repeat precisely what they were told by Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson, they said the two men described the financial system as effectively bound in a knot that was being pulled tighter and tighter by the day.

“You have the credit lines in America, which are the lifeblood of the economy, frozen.” Mr. Schumer said. “That hasn’t happened before. It’s a brave new world. You are in uncharted territory, but the one thing you do know is you can’t leave them frozen or the economy will just head south at a rapid rate.”

As he spoke, Mr. Schumer swooped his hand, to make the gesture of a plummeting bird. “You know we’d be lucky ...” he said as his voice trailed off. “Well, I’ll leave it at that.”

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/washington/19cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

[Nbadan]

and the M$M and stock market disconnect...

Stocks surge as Feds act..

Wall Street rallies as the government moves to stem the financial market crisis. The Dow jumps almost 780 points in two sessions - the best run since 2000.
By Alexandra Twin, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: September 19, 2008: 5:59 PM EDT



NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks rallied Friday, with the Dow rising 369 points, as the government's plan to help rescue banks from toxic mortgage debt soothed investors at the end of a gut-churning week on Wall Street.

Treasury prices plunged and gold prices tumbled as investors bailed out of safe-haven plays and poured money into equities, reversing the flight-to-safety trend of earlier in the week. Oil rallied more than $6 a barrel. The dollar jumped nearly 2% versus the yen, but fell versus the euro.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added nearly 369 points, or 3.3%.

Including Thursday's big rally, the Dow's two-session advance was 779 points, the biggest since March 2000, according to Dow Jones. On a percentage basis, the two-session advance of 7.3% was the biggest since October 2002.

CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/markets/markets_newyork...)

It's like the housing boom all over again, except this time, people are buying what could turn out to be worth-less stock....dumbasses...

[KenMcCoy]

A meltdown caused by a bunch of dirty hippy liberals who bought houses they couldn't afford...All this wouldn't have happened if the morons who took out the loans weren't so lazy.

[Nbadan]

Yep, while wall street gets a trillion dollar bail-out those hippy liberal get to live in tent cities...


http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo/_new/080918-tent-cities-hmed1p.hmedium.jpg

In hard times, tent cities rise across the country
Associated Press
September 18, 2008


RENO, Nev. - A few tents cropped up hard by the railroad tracks, pitched by men left with nowhere to go once the emergency winter shelter closed for the summer. Then others appeared — people who had lost their jobs to the ailing economy, or newcomers who had moved to Reno for work and discovered no one was hiring.

Within weeks, more than 150 people were living in tents big and small, barely a foot apart in a patch of dirt slated to be a parking lot for a campus of shelters Reno is building for its homeless population. Like many other cities, Reno has found itself with a "tent city" — an encampment of people who had nowhere else to go.

From Seattle to Athens, Ga., homeless advocacy groups and city agencies are reporting the most visible rise in homeless encampments in a generation.

Nearly 61 percent of local and state homeless coalitions say they've experienced a rise in homelessness since the foreclosure crisis began in 2007, according to a report by the National Coalition for the Homeless. The group says the problem has worsened since the report's release in April, with foreclosures mounting, gas and food prices rising and the job market tightening.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26776283)

Way to blame the little guy....any chance you can find work with the McSame camp?

[Nbadan]

While Rome burns..


http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080919/i/r3382469438.jpg
U.S. President George W. Bush (C) speaks at a ceremony in honor
of the 2008 NBA Basketball Champions Boston Celtics in the East Room at the White House in Washington, September 19, 2008.

It's like Katrina all over again, except this time, we all get screwed...

[KenMcCoy]

Yep, while wall street gets a trillion dollar bail-out those hippy liberal get to live in tent cities...


http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo/_new/080918-tent-cities-hmed1p.hmedium.jpg

[b]In hard times, tent cities rise across the country
Associated Press
September 18, 2008



MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26776283)

Way to blame the little guy....any chance you can find work with the McSame camp?

Lazy bastards should get a job.

From Monster.Com:

Reno, NV = 413 jobs
Seattle, WA > 5,000 jobs
Athens, GA = 123 jobs

Don't see how hard it is to get off their lazy asses and go find a job and get an apt.

[KenMcCoy]

And if you think it's bad now...wait til Obama raises business taxes..

[Crookshanks]

September 19, 2008
The Rest of the Meltdown Story
By Neal Boortz

What in the world is going on here?

You've seen the headlines, and you heard of the failures and buyouts. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG; all big names and all in big trouble. Then those mysterious quasi-government agencies with names like Freddie and Fannie become wards of the state and you learn that you and your fellow taxpayers are potentially on the hook for tens of billions of dollars. At the end of the week Washington Mutual is looking for a buyer, and you start to wonder about the security of your own bank and your own savings account. Let's change that ad copy to WaMu -- boo hoo.

Somewhere in the back of your mind you understand that this is all tied somehow to bad mortgages. If you start reading a bit further to enhance your understanding you run into terms like Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and credit-default swaps, whatever in the world those are. Read further and you find out that a combination of falling home prices and mortgage defaults have put many investment banks and other financial institutions in deep puddin'. All this reading, all this watching the talking heads on TV, and you still don't really know what in the world is going on here.

Fear not. I'm here to help. I know ... I'm just another talk show host; but the fact is that when the stage was being set for the problems we're seeing today I was making most of my money as a real estate lawyer .. closing loans for some of the very institutions that are the tank today. This rather unique combination - closing lawyer and radio talk show host - gave me a front row seat to the politicization of mortgage loans that led us to today's headlines.

OK .. so we all know that a lot of really bad real estate loans were made. The political class would sure love for us to believe that the blame here rests squarely on "greedy" (try to define that word) mortgage brokers and lenders. The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.

Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was "redlining." Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods. There I was closing these loans in the afternoons, and in the mornings offering a counter-argument on the radio to these absurd "redlining" claims. Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.

Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank's efforts to grow if that bank didn't make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the "subprime" mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage - but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN. I won't mention his name so as to avoid politicizing this column.

These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.

Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we're seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn't want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn't all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed - and now we are left to enjoy today's headlines.

So ... why aren't you reading the whole story in the mainstream media? Come on, are you kidding me? Do you really expect the media to blame this mess on deadbeat borrowers and political interference in the free market when it is so easy to put the blame on greedy lenders and evil capitalists? Remember ... there's an election going on. One candidate is decidedly anti-capitalist. Do the math.

[KenMcCoy]

So Nbadan...who signed into law the deregulation of banks??

[Shastafarian]

So Nbadan...who signed into law the deregulation of banks??

John McCain voted for some:

Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay

And just in case you read (HAHAHAHAHAHA) the WSJ article that stated Biden also voted for it. Well, that was just another lie.

Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

[KenMcCoy]

Bill Clinton and the Wall of Me

Billionaire Sanford I. Weill, who according to Louis Uchitelle (http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00C13F6345A0C768DDDAE0894DF404482) made "Citigroup into the most powerful financial institution since the House of Morgan a century ago," has what I call the Wall of Me leading to his office, which he has decorated with tributes to him, including a dozen framed magazine covers. A major trophy is the pen Bill Clinton used to sign the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a move which allowed Weill to create Citigroup. Fittingly, Citigroup is a major contributor to guess which current Democratic Presidential candidate?

A Frontline report on the repeal of Glass-Steagall (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html) shows how those with money end up with pens from the President of the United States on their walls.

Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"
When Bill Clinton gave that pen to Sanford Weill, it symbolized the ending of the twentieth century Democratic Party that had created the New Deal. Although the 1999 law did not repeal all of the banking Act of 1933, retaining the FDIC, it did once again allow banks to enter the securities business, becoming what some term "whole banks."

http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2007/11/bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html

[Clandestino]

and the M$M and stock market disconnect...

Stocks surge as Feds act..

[B]Wall Street rallies as the government moves to stem the financial market crisis. The Dow jumps almost 780 points in two sessions - the best run since 2000.
By Alexandra Twin, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: September 19, 2008: 5:59 PM EDT




CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/markets/markets_newyork...)

It's like the housing boom all over again, except this time, people are buying what could turn out to be worth-less stock....dumbasses...

do you invest in the market?

[bwdizzle]

A meltdown caused by a bunch of dirty hippy liberals who bought houses they couldn't afford...All this wouldn't have happened if the morons who took out the loans weren't so lazy.

Wait a minute now first off republicans and democrats alike have slowly been bribed and lobbyed by multi billion dollar corporations that slowly syphon rules and regulation thats supposed to keep our economy in check it's a full back hand to the face to set there and say it's the faults of the demecracts or liberals its all of washington fault and wall street.

[spurster]

Neither party has covered themselves with glory on this issue. I would like to see someone prosecute the bastards and bitches that got us into this mess. Mortgages are not supposed to be approved for people who can't afford them. Bonds based on bad loans should not be given sterling ratings. Credit should be backed by value, not by speculation or a maze of "credit swaps". $1 trillion is a hell of steal. The robbers should go to jail.

And you can trace back many causes to both Democrats and Republicans, but it happened on Bush's watch. His legacy will be a stupid, expensive war in Iraq and a massive, expensive takeover of bad loans, all added to the deficit and the taxes that we will have to pay sooner or later (tax increases in disguise). This pretty seals his legacy as about the worst POTUS in our history. I guess only Hoover will be beneath him.

[Nbadan]

And you can trace back many causes to both Democrats and Republicans, but it happened on Bush's watch.

I completely agree. There are many guilty Democrats too, but Norquist, Dubya and the Republicans promoted the era of deregulation and 'drowning government in a bathtub' that has led us down this road to near insolvency...

[Crookshanks]

I completely agree. There are many guilty Democrats too, but Norquist, Dubya and the Republicans promoted the era of deregulation and 'drowning government in a bathtub' that has led us down this road to near insolvency...

WRONG! It was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the rest of that bunch who forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

And the democrats are in this mess up to their eyeballs! I cannot fathom why Chris Dodd hasn't been forced to resign - he's the biggest recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And it's Obama's financial advisors who cooked the books and made off with millions. Of course, Frank Raines is now going to have to pay back some of those millions.

You can't lay this at Bush's feet. And even now, what does the do-nothing, democrat controlled congress want to do to fix the problem? NOTHING! They want to just adjourn and let the next administration fix it. But President Bush has worked hard to come up with a solution.

This whole mortgage meltdown is another social project gone horribly wrong! And we the taxpayers got royally screwed!

[bwdizzle]

whats funny now is that our governemnt plans to bailout the bathtub with a teaspoon

[Nbadan]

Yep, even whats left of fiscally conservative Republicans see the writing on the wall...


WASHINGTON — Fiscal hawks who dominate the Republican Party's conservative wing have watched in dismay as President Bush , presidential candidate John McCain and Republican leaders in Congress fall in line behind a federal rescue mission of historic proportions.

Almost overnight, Republican lawmakers who came to Washington vowing to slash Big Government are powerless to stop what could be one of the largest government expansions since the Great Depression.

Sen. Jim Bunning , a Hall of Fame pitcher-turned-senator from Kentucky , threw a knockdown pitch Friday from the crumbling mound of fiscal conservatism.

"The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America," Bunning said.

Yahoooooo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080919/pl_mcclatchy/3050204)

[SnakeBoy]

This isn't a republican/democrat issue. We've been headed down a dangerous road for almost 4 decades. The current wall street crisis is just a scratch and fix is just a bandaid. I have no idea how long we can keep printing money with nothing to back it up but simple economics dictates that you can't live on credit forever.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

[bwdizzle]

http://pushhamburger.com/changed.jpg

[Nbadan]

Christopher Dodd on the meltdown...


Myh27QmgGiQ

[KenMcCoy]

The deregulation would have worked just fine if the PEOPLE that took out the loans would have paid their bills. Don't come back with...but, but, but, they didn't understand what adjustable rate interest only meant. They (the people taking out the loan) should have understood what they were getting themselves into.

Of course...both Obama and McCain know what the REAL problem is but they'll never say it.

[Crookshanks]

The banks and mortgage companies had criteria for determining credit worthiness. When the bleeding hearts decided to interfere and and demand that more minorties and low income people be given a "part of the American dream" is when this whole mess really got rolling. It used to be you saved for years to get a down payment on a starter house and then moved up as your income increased and you built up equity in your house. With this whole subprime market, people were not required to put anything down and it took them ages to build up any equity - so when the housing market burst, their homes were worth less than what they owed, the ARM's significantly increased their payments and people just bailed out.

So this little "social project" to help minorities really didn't help them at all - and it's going to cost us taxpayers BIG time! If congress was really serious about fixing this, a lot of people would be going to jail - and since this includes some of their cronies, it will never happen. They'll all just keep pointing fingers and blaming the other side - and Ken is right - NO ONE is going to come out and say that the people who took these mortgages are just as much to blame. After all, that would be terribly un PC. What a mess!!!

[Kamala]

And if you think it's bad now...wait til Obama raises business taxes..


Bush is now more of a socialist than any democrat I know with this trillion dollar move!::toast

[Shastafarian]

The banks and mortgage companies had criteria for determining credit worthiness. When the bleeding hearts decided to interfere and and demand that more minorties and low income people be given a "part of the American dream" is when this whole mess really got rolling. It used to be you saved for years to get a down payment on a starter house and then moved up as your income increased and you built up equity in your house. With this whole subprime market, people were not required to put anything down and it took them ages to build up any equity - so when the housing market burst, their homes were worth less than what they owed, the ARM's significantly increased their payments and people just bailed out.

So this little "social project" to help minorities really didn't help them at all - and it's going to cost us taxpayers BIG time! If congress was really serious about fixing this, a lot of people would be going to jail - and since this includes some of their cronies, it will never happen. They'll all just keep pointing fingers and blaming the other side - and Ken is right - NO ONE is going to come out and say that the people who took these mortgages are just as much to blame. After all, that would be terribly un PC. What a mess!!!


The deregulation would have worked just fine if the PEOPLE that took out the loans would have paid their bills. Don't come back with...but, but, but, they didn't understand what adjustable rate interest only meant. They (the people taking out the loan) should have understood what they were getting themselves into.

Of course...both Obama and McCain know what the REAL problem is but they'll never say it.

When in doubt, blame the poor people. God you people make me sick. Is there some blame to be placed on people who couldn't afford to pay back these loans? Probably. Is there a lot of blame to put on a government that is supposed to GOVERN its people? You bet your ass. People like you give conservatives a bad name.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

While Rome burns..


http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080919/i/r3382469438.jpg
U.S. President George W. Bush (C) speaks at a ceremony in honor
of the 2008 NBA Basketball Champions Boston Celtics in the East Room at the White House in Washington, September 19, 2008.

It's like Katrina all over again, except this time, we all get screwed...

Yeah, cuz Bush can pass and write laws by himself.

This shit first and foremost is on Congress. All of them. Anyone trying to pin this on one party is a partisan piece of shit.

This is on Republicans and Democrats in Congress. They shitty thing is they're too fucking worried about their own election to do shit about what's going on in this country.

Fuck them all.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The deregulation itself wasn't the problem. It's that the people in charge of watching Wall Street didn't do shit to keep them in line.

[KenMcCoy]

When in doubt, blame the poor people. God you people make me sick. Is there some blame to be placed on people who couldn't afford to pay back these loans? Probably. Is there a lot of blame to put on a government that is supposed to GOVERN its people? You bet your ass. People like you give conservatives a bad name.

Sorry but the less GOVERNING the government does to me the better. The three things a government should do are:

1) Protect the country's borders
2) Maintain order and safety in the country's interior
3) Keep the country's money stable (Which it failed to do by forcing the banks to loan money to deadbeats who couldn't pay it back. The banking industry had ways to tell who could and couldn't afford to pay back a loan...that was their business and they knew who to give loans to. Groups like ACORN pushed the Government to lean on the banking industry to give out sub-prime loans. These were loans that the banks knew most likely would not be paid.)

[KenMcCoy]

Besides...nowhere in the Constitution does it say that EVERYONE gets a home.

[Bartleby]

The banking industry had ways to tell who could and couldn't afford to pay back a loan...that was their business and they knew who to give loans to. Groups like ACORN pushed the Government to lean on the banking industry to give out sub-prime loans. These were loans that the banks knew most likely would not be paid.)

:lmao

You really believe the banks were giving out risky loans because the govt. was putting pressure on them? That's like an alcoholic claiming he got drunk because bartenders were forcing him to drink.

[KenMcCoy]

Banks are in business to make money...always have been and always will be. When the banks decided who to loan money to and who not to loan money to (and what rate to give them) things were perfectly fine.

[Shastafarian]

Sorry but the less GOVERNING the government does to me the better. The three things a government should do are:

1) Protect the country's borders
2) Maintain order and safety in the country's interior
3) Keep the country's money stable (Which it failed to do by forcing the banks to loan money to deadbeats who couldn't pay it back. The banking industry had ways to tell who could and couldn't afford to pay back a loan...that was their business and they knew who to give loans to. Groups like ACORN pushed the Government to lean on the banking industry to give out sub-prime loans. These were loans that the banks knew most likely would not be paid.)

So I take it you're pro-choice and for the right of gay-marriage?

[KenMcCoy]

I truly don't care what other people decide to do with their own lives.



*But I am pro choice.

[Indazone]

To put it bluntly...we are screwed. I see the eventual total collapse of the international monetary system and a total collapse of the dollar. Then the only thing that would probably happen is that this would take some time to sort out and there would be a resetting of the entire monetary system of the world back to zero debt. New controls and probably one currency for the entire world and a unified banking system. Scary huh?

Yu Yongding, former advisor to China's central bank, put the matter bluntly:
``If the U.S. government allows Fannie and Freddie to fail and international investors are not compensated adequately, the consequences will be catastrophic,'' Yu said in e-mailed answers to questions yesterday. ``If it is not the end of the world, it is the end of the current international financial system.''

Foreign central banks have been propping up the U.S. economy:
Foreign central banks have financed the United States to keep their export sectors -- heavily dependent on U.S. consumer spending -- humming. But they now must weigh the benefits of providing the United States with such "vendor financing" against the rising costs of keeping the current system going.

Yu Yongding is not making a threat; he is stating a fact.
If foreign central banks stop financing U.S. debt (there are no free rides), then the U.S. is in a world of hurt. As Brad Setser notes:
...in fact, the economic and financial risks that arise from the U.S. current account deficit (and the resulting dependence on foreign financing) have not been exaggerated. If anything, they have received too little attention -- and are set to grow in the coming years.

Well, "the coming years" may be sooner, not later. For the U.S., the consequences may be immediate inflation as Treasury attempts to makes its offerings more palatable. The dollar will plunge. And these are just for starters.
The party is over. Sorry that most of you working stiffs missed it. Oh, by the way, here's the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/freddie-and-fannie-bail-o_b_124713.html

As Paul Krugman said:
I used to think that the major issues facing the next president would be how to get out of Iraq and what to do about health care. At this point, however, I suspect that the biggest problem for the next administration will be figuring out which parts of the financial system to bail out, how to pay the cleanup bills and how to explain what it's doing to an angry public.

Although the American public is not exactly happy with the economy, it has no idea of the depth of the problems. Most people think the government's check writing ability is infinite.
Well, the government is broke and broken.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/freddie-and-fannie-bail-o_b_124713.html

[Indazone]

The only way out of this is for the rich countries...Middle East, Europe and China to bail us out. Those countries have all the World's money now.

[Anti.Hero]

Christopher Dodd on the meltdown...


Myh27QmgGiQ

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you seriously so clueless as to post a vid with Dodd speaking about this dibacle!? Dodd!?

Wow Dan.

[Indazone]

Are you fucking kidding me? Are you seriously so clueless as to post a vid with Dodd speaking about this dibacle!? Dodd!?

Wow Dan.

He freaking turned the financial crisis into a personal attack on John McCain. What an idiot.

[Crookshanks]

:lmao

You really believe the banks were giving out risky loans because the govt. was putting pressure on them? That's like an alcoholic claiming he got drunk because bartenders were forcing him to drink.

Did you read the article by Neil Bortz? He specifically said the govt leaned on the banks to give these loans or else they wouldn't let the banks grow and expand. In other words, they wouldn't give them authorization to open new branches. So yes, I do believe the banks gave out loans they were pretty sure would never be repaid because the govt, for all intents and purposes, forced them to!

[KenMcCoy]

^^ I worked in the banking industry for 3 yrs and know this to be absolutely true.

[KenMcCoy]

For clarification incase anyone is wondering...

I worked as a tax advisor at a savings institution in San Antonio located around 1604 and 151. Part of my job was to help negotiate favorable tax incentives (property and sales/use) for our new branch locations. Before initial dealings were done with the locality we had to send off a lot of paperwork...some of this being our percentage of sub-prime loans. I initially thought we would need to have a low % but when I asked the VPs they told me that no, we needed to have a certain % in order to get approval to open the branch. This was back in 2005.

ARMS and other exotic loans are not a new product. They used to be marketed to specific people (i.e. - interest only's would be marketed to people with good credit that had low monthly salaries but would normally get large bonuses throughout the year. This allowed them to buy more house and make low payments every month but make one or two large payments during the year to pay down their equity). This changed when the banks were pushed into giving out loans to risky people because many times the only way they could be approved was to get into an interest only ARM.

[spurster]

WRONG! It was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the rest of that bunch who forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.


:lol at Bill Clinton still being blamed over 7 years after he left.

[KenMcCoy]

:lol at Bill Clinton still being blamed over 7 years after he left.

How long do you think it takes before a house gets foreclosed on??? It's not like you miss one payment and they foreclose the next day.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol at Bill Clinton still being blamed over 7 years after he left.
There is so much damage done by his first two years. Yes. We blame him, just like we blame president Carter for certain things. That's another subject/thread however.

[SnakeBoy]

:lol at Bill Clinton still being blamed over 7 years after he left.

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act. Signed into law in 1999 by gold ole slick willy.

This did away with the legislation enacted after the great depression to prevent banks from being stupid with your money. And here we are again.

[Shastafarian]

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act. Signed into law in 1999 by gold ole slick willy.

This did away with the legislation enacted after the great depression to prevent banks from being stupid with your money. And here we are again.

Hey that's a good one. Guess who voted for said Act...I'll give you a hint:

He's currently running for president and his name is not Barak Obama.

[spurster]

There is so much damage done by his first two years. Yes. We blame him, just like we blame president Carter for certain things. That's another subject/thread however.

:lol Ok, put Carter and Clinton together and all the world's ills are accounted for. :lol at still obsessing about Carter.


Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act. Signed into law in 1999 by gold ole slick willy.

This did away with the legislation enacted after the great depression to prevent banks from being stupid with your money. And here we are again.

You forgot to blame those damn Democrats Gramm, Leach, and Bliley. Hmmm, which campaign has Gramm as a key advisor?

[Shastafarian]

You forgot to blame those damn Democrats Gramm, Leach, and Bliley. Hmmm, which campaign has Gramm as a key advisor?

McCain voted for the damn thing!!! I guess he's as much to blame for this crisis as "Slick Willy" right?

[Indazone]

Harry Reid on the current Financial Crisis and Senator Graham.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbENEJa1xM

[Tully365]

The extremely partisan arguing going on in this thread pretty much sums up the cause of the financial crisis in this country-- too many people ( senators, presidents, internet debaters) are more in love with ideology and party loyalty than they are with problem solving. They treat it like a gang membership, and refuse to admit that anyone from outside of the gang could ever possibly have a good idea. The US congress is really just a much bigger and more bloated version of the Spurstalk political forum. Can you imagine if all of us were marooned on an island, and trying to survive? Instead of building shelters, planting food, and working together, most of our time would be spent breaking up fistfights between boutons, KenMcCoy, Nbadan and Whott on the beach.

[SnakeBoy]

You forgot to blame those damn Democrats Gramm, Leach, and Bliley. Hmmm, which campaign has Gramm as a key advisor?

I love your argument. If the president is Bush then he's responsible for everything that happens in the world but when Clinton actually signs something into law that helped create this problem then it's the republicans fault not his.

Yep, McCain voted for it as did Biden. JM also tried to reintroduce regulation years ago, as did Bush, but they were blocked by Dems and some Repubs. None of this matters to you though because as long as your unaccomplished messiah wins you think that means you win something. To be honest I'm getting to the point where I kinda hope your messiah wins just to see what happens to the kool aide drinkers when they figure out he can't wave a magic wand and create utopia. I'm fine (check the are you unemployed thread) and will continue to be just fine no matter who wins. What about you?

[Shastafarian]

Yep, McCain voted for it as did Biden.

Whoops! Wrong.

Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

[ChumpDumper]

I'll be fine no matter who wins. And I won't be a smug asshole about it.

[spurster]

I love your argument. If the president is Bush then he's responsible for everything that happens in the world but when Clinton actually signs something into law that helped create this problem then it's the republicans fault not his.


Yes, Clinton sucked on this issue, too, but the GOP has very dirty hands, too. You keep trying to make the Democrats look like the minions of Satan while the Republicans were pure and holy, when they both sucked.



Yep, McCain voted for it as did Biden. JM also tried to reintroduce regulation years ago, as did Bush, but they were blocked by Dems and some Repubs. None of this matters to you though because as long as your unaccomplished messiah wins you think that means you win something. To be honest I'm getting to the point where I kinda hope your messiah wins just to see what happens to the kool aide drinkers when they figure out he can't wave a magic wand and create utopia. I'm fine (check the are you unemployed thread) and will continue to be just fine no matter who wins. What about you?

OMG, not this "reform bill" that McCain sponsored again. Again, this is another episode with both Republicans and Democrats with dirty hands. The House passed what appears to bipartisan bills in 2005 and 2007, but the Senate Democrats killed it in 2005 (because the majority Senate Republicans put in stuff they didn't like) and the Senate Republicans killed it in 2007 (because the House bill from the Democratic majority had stuff they didn't like). Both parties thought this issue was important enough for political games, but not so important to solve. It is very questionable that this "reform" would have done much. There is a lot of heat about who voted for "reform", but not much analysis of what it really would have done.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but Bush will get the brunt of it because he's the President and he's not running for election. Even McCain blames Bush, though somehow McCain thinks Obama is as much to blame somehow.

[bwdizzle]

To put $250 billion of losses in perspective, the tax bill of every household in America just increased by $2,300. You will not get a bill from the IRS because the government has chosen the immoral route of shifting this burden to your children and grandchildren. The U.S. Government has no money. It is broke. The $250 billion will be borrowed from the Chinese and Saudi Arabia, with an annual interest charge of $10 billion. This is $250 billion that will not be spent on education, infrastructure, or energy independence. It is the cost of financial recklessness of banks, greedy CEOs, and Americans who thought you could get something for nothing. Future generations will pay the price of our greed and malfeasance.

These actions by our clueless politician “leaders” will not solve anything. It will just keep this ponzi scheme going for a little while longer. Those who were tipped off of the announcement late Friday, probably made millions. Bank stocks mysteriously started to rise late on Friday. I’m sure the SEC is opening an investigation. These are the things that have not changed:

There are 4.7 million homes for sale representing an 11.2 month supply, the highest in history.
Home prices have fallen 16% in the last year according to the Case Shiller Index.
Foreclosures totaled 1.2 million in the 1st 6 months of 2008, a 100% increase over the prior year, and are accelerating at the fastest pace in 3 decades.

Based on historical home price relationships, we should expect a further 15% decline by 2010. This will result in further foreclosures.

Option ARM and Alt A delinquencies will be accelerating in 2009 based upon their issuance.
Unemployment is accelerating and will not peak until 2009, probably north of 7%.

We are in a recession that is being driven by consumers with too much debt. Consumer spending reductions will hurt retailers and mall developers tremendously.

So, enjoy Monday's 300 point rally in the Dow, while it lasts. If you are having some trouble making your mortgage payment, paying that huge electric bill, or making the minimum payment on your credit card, just call Hank Paulson at 1-800-BAILOUT.

[SnakeBoy]

You keep trying to make the Democrats look like the minions of Satan while the Republicans were pure and holy, when they both sucked.


Bullshit! Go look at my first post in this thread on the national debt. The whole point was that both parties are not acting in your interest. It is Obama supporters who are trying to lay it all on Bush and claim Clinton was perfect. I have plenty of criticism of Bush and McCain. Obama supporters are the one's pretending that he is the saviour when the simple undeniable fact is that he has absolutely no record to prove that he isn't a complete partisan politician who will continue to put party before country. Want to prove me wrong then give me some examples of when he has done ANYTHING to comprimise with the other side to benefit YOU! It's really a rhetorical question since I know (and you know) that you cannot.

It's easy to criticize Bush, McCain, Palin, Biden because they have actually taken stands and done things (whether you agree with them or not). Obama has just been present since asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator (his words not mine). Yeah, he's gonna change things.:rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

Obama has just been present since asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator (his words not mine).Do you have the quote of his asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator? I'd like to see that.

[Findog]

With all the bad financial news lately and talk of bailouts, guess which phrase we're going to start hearing?


"Keating Five." Sucks to be Walnuts.

[Shastafarian]

It's easy to criticize Bush, McCain, Palin, Biden because they have actually taken stands and done things (whether you agree with them or not). Obama has just been present since asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator (his words not mine). Yeah, he's gonna change things.:rolleyes

hmmm

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105275

[boutons_]

"It was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the rest of that bunch who forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them."

link? Ranks right up there Crookie's Biblical myths. :lol

Can anybody seriously believe that Clinton and Reno "forced" lenders to make loans? Crookie can. :lol

Lenders make loans so they can make money, of their own volition. And if they can get the feds to guarantee the loans, even better. But it's purely voluntary, not forced.

[Nbadan]

Recession: The Movie


x4OOCReeLWo

[Nbadan]

Maxed Out: The disconnect between consumer indebtedness, credit card predators and government...



YiOVNWoWTAU

[bwdizzle]

Yeah, cuz Bush can pass and write laws by himself.

This shit first and foremost is on Congress. All of them. Anyone trying to pin this on one party is a partisan piece of shit.

This is on Republicans and Democrats in Congress. They shitty thing is they're too fucking worried about their own election to do shit about what's going on in this country.

Fuck them all.

Even if it works as planned, it fails to help consumers who need liquidity themselves. The banks may survive, but the customers may not be credit worthy, so it does not matter much. The fix is of no value to the consumers who are wallowing in debts and about to take gas. Same goes for small business who are suffering loss of demand. When the lay-offs get a head of steam it may occur to Hank that he fixed only part of the problem. The "hammer" just hammered us.
http://pushhamburger.com/need%20a%20job.gif

[cool hand]

vote all these asses out and vote in
people who know what is going on for a change.

[Indazone]

The credit card companies should have regulation for what is known in the rest of the financial community as USARY. There are anti usary laws that regulate the rest of the business community. Like it's illegal to charge ridiculously high interest rates to borrowers. You know what, the credit card companies are in a large part to blame for their own failures. If you screw people to the point that they can't pay their cards back, they are going to default and what goes around comes around. The gov't seriously needs to make these companies take some serious medicine. It's gonna hurt them but they need to take it. You just can't keep charging 30-38 percent interest rates on cards and expect that there would be zero consequences.


Regulators fail to rein in banks' credit card abuse

Fed moves to bar unfair rate hikes, but comptroller’s office resists change.

Janet Hard (http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/STMTHardJanet.pdf), a registered nurse and mother of two from Freeland, Mich., never understood why Discover hiked the rate on her credit card from 18% to 24% in 2006. Last year, she told a Senate panel investigating credit card abuses that she feels sick whenever she thinks of the extra interest she has paid to Discover based on that rate — which was slapped on not just future purchases but on her entire balance.

Raising rates on existing balances is one of the credit industry's most lucrative but indefensible practices. Even the usually pro-banking Federal Reserve Board (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20080502a.htm) finally moved in May to ban it. Not surprisingly, the banks are resisting. And last month, they acquired an unlikely ally (http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2008/August/20080822/R-1314/R-1314_28743_1.pdf) — a federal agency that is supposed to protect consumers.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (http://www.occ.treas.gov/) asked the Fed to pull back. The Fed rule would allow banks to raise rates on existing balances in only a few circumstances, such as when a borrower pays more than 30 days late. The OCC wants to greatly expand those exceptions by allowing, for example, rate hikes when payments are as little as five days late or whenever a card expires. That would undo much of the Fed reforms.
In some ways, the comptroller's action was predictable. In the past decade, when it came to protecting consumers, the agency has often been absent, late to the game or playing for the wrong side:


Since 1995 (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/htwilmarth042607.pdf), the OCC has filed public enforcement actions for violating consumer lending laws only three times against major national banks, according to George Washington University law professor Arthur Wilmarth (http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=1732).

In 2000 (http://www.feinstein.org/wsj/occ.html), when hundreds of consumers complained of improper rate increases by FleetBoston Financial Corp. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/27/national/main580134.shtml), the OCC in essence told them to go file a lawsuit. When they did, the comptroller weighed in on FleetBoston's side.

For several years (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/04/post_78.html), the OCC has sought to ensure that it — not state agencies — has the sole authority to police national banks. That often translates into less protection for consumers from predatory lending and other unfair practices that contributed to the current housing meltdown. To be sure, not all card issuers are guilty of abuses, and consumers have a responsibility to pay their bills. The trouble is that many standard industry practices are unfair and either push hard-pressed consumers into debt or seem designed to keep them there. Retroactive rate increases are one such practice.
In Hard's case, Discover did what the law allows: It can raise rates "at any time, for any reason (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/our-view-on-cre.html)." The company told the Senate it raised Hard's rate after her credit score fell, her use of her credit lines increased and she had delinquencies with other issuers.
Perhaps Discover had reason to raise her rate on future purchases to discourage spending. But jacking up the rate on existing balances is so unfair that even the Federal Reserve thinks the practice should be banned. Too bad the OCC feels differently.
Consumers have a right to expect to be protected by regulators. Belatedly, the Fed has risen to the task. The OCC should try to remember that it, too, works for the taxpayers — not for the industry it regulates.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"It was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the rest of that bunch who forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them."

link? Ranks right up there Crookie's Biblical myths. :lol

Can anybody seriously believe that Clinton and Reno "forced" lenders to make loans? Crookie can. :lol

Lenders make loans so they can make money, of their own volition. And if they can get the feds to guarantee the loans, even better. But it's purely voluntary, not forced.


You're such an idiot.

You love to cite the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and blame this all on Gramm and Republicans. Do some fucking research on that bill before you open your mouth.

It was deadlocked along party lines in the Senate. Clinton stepped in and got the Dems to agree with the Republicans to pass the bill, provided that it included requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers, and others who have had little access to credit.

So yeah, no one's out of line saying Clinton was responsible for this mess, he helped broker the amended bill that paved the way.

That said, I suspect what the poster tagging Clinton and Reno was referring to was their insistence on aggressively enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html


The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.

The CRA's premise sounds unassailable: helping the poor buy and keep homes will stabilize and rebuild city neighborhoods. As enforced today, though, the law portends just the opposite, threatening to undermine the efforts of the upwardly mobile poor by saddling them with neighbors more than usually likely to depress property values by not maintaining their homes adequately or by losing them to foreclosure. The CRA's logic also helps to ensure that inner-city neighborhoods stay poor by discouraging the kinds of investment that might make them better off.

[Wild Cobra]

Whoops! Wrong.

Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

You may be able to pass those innacuracies of to your fellow liberals, but that was the initial passage of the senate bill before it was modified by the house and in conference. The final vote was Nov. 4 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354), not that May 6 vote you show. Biden voted YES for the final passage of the Bill, McCain didn't!

Corrected list:

Bayh (D-IN), YES
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), YES
Bingaman (D-NM), YES


S.900
Title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Gramm, Phil [TX] (introduced 4/28/1999) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.355, H.R.10
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 106-102 [GPO: Text, PDF]
Senate Reports: 106-44; Latest Conference Report: 106-434 (in Congressional Record H11255-11292)ALL ACTIONS: (Floor Actions/Congressional Record Page References)

2/24/1999:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held.
2/25/1999:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 106-426.
3/4/1999:
Committee on Banking ordered to be reported an original measure.

4/28/1999:
Committee on Banking. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Gramm. With written report No. 106-44. Additional views filed. (consideration: CR S4346)
4/28/1999:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 94.
5/3/1999:
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure made in Senate. (consideration: CR S4616)
5/4/1999:
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate. (consideration: CR S4616)
5/4/1999:
Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S4616-4658)
5/4/1999:
S.AMDT.302 Proposed by Senator Sarbanes for Senator Daschle.
In the nature of a substitute.
5/5/1999:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4735-4788)
5/5/1999:
S.AMDT.302 Considered by Senate.
5/5/1999:
S.AMDT.302 Motion to table SP 302 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 54-43. Record Vote No: 100.
5/5/1999:
S.AMDT.303 Proposed by Senator Bryan.
To make amendments relating to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, and for other purposes.
5/5/1999:
S.AMDT.303 Motion to table SP 303 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52-45. Record Vote No: 101.
5/6/1999:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4821-4845, S4847-4878)
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.307 Proposed by Senator Santorum.
To require the the obligations of the Financing Corporation to be paid from certain excess funds of the deposit insurance funds and for other purposes.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.307 Proposed amendment SP 307 withdrawn in Senate.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.308 Proposed by Senator Gramm.
To strike a provision relating to a 3-year extension for BIF-member FICO assessments, to provide for financial information privacy protection, and to provide for the establishment of a consumer grievance process by the Federal banking agencies.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.308 Amendment SP 308 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 95-2. Record Vote No: 102.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.309 Proposed by Senator Johnson.
To make an amendment with respect to the Federal deposit insurance funds and unitary savings and loan holding companies.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.312 Proposed by Senator Dorgan.
To prohibit insured depository institutions and credit unions from engaging in certain activities involving derivative financial instruments.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.313 Proposed by Senator Dorgan.
To subject certain hedge funds to the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.314 Proposed by Senator Schumer.
To make an amendment with respect to ATM fee reform.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.314 Amendment SP 314 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.309 Motion to table SP 309 rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 32-67. Record Vote No: 103.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.309 Amendment SP 309 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.309 Amendment SP 309 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.315 Proposed by Senator Shelby.
To authorize subsidiaries of national banks to engage in certain financial activities, to protect the safety and soundness of any insured bank that has a financial subsidiary, and to provide for the functional regulation of financial subsidiaries.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.315 Motion to table SP 315 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53-46. Record Vote No: 104.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.316 Proposed by Senator Bryan.
To give customers notice and choice about how their financial institutions share or sell their personally identifiable sensitive financial information, and for other purposes.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.316 Proposed amendment SP 316 withdrawn in Senate.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.317 Proposed by Senator Levin.
To ensure bank securities activities are regulated by securities regulators.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.317 Amendment SP 317 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.310 Proposed by Senator Gramm for Senator Bennett.
To benefit municipalities and local securities issuers by permitting banks to purchase municipal revenue bonds and securities in accordance with section 23b.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.310 Amendment SP 310 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.310 Amendment SP 310 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.318 Proposed by Senator Gramm.
To make an amendment with respect to limitations on the retention of commodity activities and affialiations by bank holding companies.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.318 Amendment SP 318 agreed to in Senate by Voice.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.318 Amendment SP 318 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.313 Amendment SP 313 not agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.312 Amendment SP 312 not agreed to in Senate by Voice.
5/6/1999:
S.AMDT.312 Amendment SP 312 not agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
5/6/1999:
Passed Senate with amendments by Yea-Nay Vote. 54-44. Record Vote No: 105. (text: CR 5/10/1999 S4957-4978) (This is the vote you show)
5/12/1999 10:01am:
Received in the House.
5/12/1999:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
5/12/1999 5:33pm:
Held at the desk.
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
Mr. Leach asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H5919-5984)
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
The House struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure H.R. 10. Agreed to without objection.
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H5919-5984)
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
7/20/1999 7:00pm:
The title of the measure was amended to that of similar measure H.R. 10. Agreed to without objection.
7/22/1999:
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendments to Senate bill.
7/22/1999:
Senate disagreed to House amendments requested conference and appointed conferees. Gramm; Shelby; Mack; Bennett; Grams; Allard; Enzi; Hagel; Santorum; Bunning; Crapo; Sarbanes; Dodd; Kerry; Bryan; Johnson; Reed; Schumer; Bayh; Edwards. (consideration: CR S9128-9169; text as Senate disagreed to House amendments: CR S9128-9169)
7/26/1999:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
7/30/1999 12:50pm:
Mr. Leach asked unanimous consent that the House insist upon its amendments, and agree to a conference.
7/30/1999 12:50pm:
On motion that the House insist upon its amendments, and agree to a conference Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H6728)
7/30/1999 12:50pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
7/30/1999 12:51pm:
Mr. LaFalce moved that the House instruct conferees.
7/30/1999 12:51pm:
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES - Mr. LaFalce moves to instruct conferees on the part of the House on the bill S. 900 and the House amendments thereto, to ensure, consistent with the scope of the conference, that: 1. Consumers have the strongest consumer financial privacy protections possible, including protections against the misuse of confidential information and inappropriate marketing practices, and ensuring that consumers receive notice and the right to say "no" when a financial institution wishes to disclose a consumer's nonpublic personal information for use in telemarketing, direct marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail; and
7/30/1999 12:51pm:
2. Consumers enjoy the benefits of comprehensive financial modernization legislation that provides robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities; and 3. Consumers have the strongest medical privacy protections possible, and thereby prevent financial institutions from disclosing or making related uses of health and medical and genetic information without the consent of their customers, and therefore agree to recede to the Senate on subtitle E of Title III of the House amendment.
7/30/1999 2:12pm:
On motion that the House instruct conferees Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 241 - 132 (Roll no. 355). (consideration: CR H6728-6738)
7/30/1999 2:12pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
7/30/1999 2:13pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of the Senate bill and the House amendment and modifications committed to conference: Leach, McCollum, Roukema, Bereuter, Baker, Lazio, Bachus, Castle, LaFalce, and Vento.
7/30/1999 2:13pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of titles I, III (except sec. 304), IV, and VII of the Senate bill, and title I of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Frank (MA), Kanjorski, Waters, and Maloney (NY).
7/30/1999 2:13pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of title V of the Senate bill, and title II of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Kanjorski, Maloney (NY), Watt (NC), and Maloney (CT).
7/30/1999 2:14pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of title II of the Senate bill and title III of the House amendment and modifications committed to conference: Kanjorski, Maloney (NY), Velazquez, and Hooley.
7/30/1999 2:15pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of title VI of the Senate bill, and title IV of the House amendment and modifications committed to conference: Waters, Maloney (NY), Gutierrez, and Bentsen.
7/30/1999 2:16pm:
The Speaker appointed additional conferees - from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for consideration of section 304 of the Senate bill and title V of the House amendment and modifications committed to conference: Frank (MA), Kanjorski, Waters, and Ackerman.
7/30/1999 2:17pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Commerce for consideration of the Senate bill, and the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Bliley, Oxley, Tauzin, Gillmor, Greenwood, Cox, Largent, Bilbray, Dingell, Towns, Markey, Waxman, DeGette, and Capps.
7/30/1999 2:18pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees Provided that Mr. Rush is appointed in lieu of Mrs. Capps for consideration of sec. 316 of the Senate bill.
7/30/1999 2:19pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Agriculture for consideration of title V of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Combest, Ewing, and Stenholm.
7/30/1999 2:20pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration of secs. 104(a), 104(d)(3), and 104(f)(2) of the Senate bill, and secs. 104(a)(3), 104(b)(3)(A), 104(b)(4)(B), 136(b), 136(d)-(e), 141-44, 197, 301, and 306 of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Hyde, Gekas, and Conyers.
9/23/1999:
Conference held.
9/29/1999:
Conference held.
9/30/1999:
Conference held.
10/14/1999:
Conference held.
10/15/1999:
Conference held.
10/22/1999:
Conference held.
10/28/1999:
Conferees agreed to file conference report.
11/2/1999 2:50pm:
Conference report H. Rept. 106-434 filed. (text of conference report: CR H11255-11292)
11/2/1999 9:43pm:
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 355 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of the conference report to S. 900 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions.
11/3/1999:
Conference papers: Senate report and managers' statement held at the desk in Senate.
11/3/1999:
Conference report considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S13783-13791)
11/4/1999:
Conference report considered in Senate.
11/4/1999:
Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 90-8. Record Vote No: 354. (consideration: CR S13871-13881, S13883-13917)
11/4/1999:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
11/4/1999 9:24pm:
Rule H. Res. 355 passed House.
11/4/1999 9:26pm:
Mr. Leach brought up conference report H. Rept. 106-434 for consideration under the provisions of H. Res. 355.
11/4/1999 9:26pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on the conference report on S. 900, the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act.
11/4/1999 10:50pm:
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
11/4/1999 11:15pm:
Motions to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
11/4/1999 11:15pm:
On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 362 - 57 (Roll no. 570). (consideration: CR H11526-11551)
11/4/1999:
Cleared for White House.
11/9/1999:
Presented to President.
11/12/1999:
Signed by President.
11/12/1999:
Became Public Law No: 106-102.

[Shastafarian]

You must get the WSJ!!! Too bad you're wrong.....yet again.

The page that Taranto linked to was a vote on the conference report, which took place 6 months after the bill had already passed in the senate, and just over a week before it was signed into law. The bill was not passed 90-8; it was passed 54-44, almost strictly down party lines (The lone Democrat to vote for the bill was Ernest Hollings of South Carolina).

"The Conference Report is nothing but an editing session. During the session, a team picked from both the House and Senate meet in order to reconcile differences between the versions of the bills already passed in both chambers. This is the reason it took from May until November to get the bill passed. This is the reason GLBA passed that 4 November vote with such an overwhelming majority - it had already been approved in both houses, and the only formality left was for language to be amended by the conferees.

The 4 November vote was not a vote on the merits of the bill. It was a vote on the language of the bill.

Blocking the conference report does not kill a vote. Even if the report was voted against by every last Democrat, it was going to get pushed through anyway."

[Wild Cobra]

You must get the WSJ!!! Too bad you're wrong.....yet again.

---deleted stupid jibberish---
Your ignorance is showing.

Go back and read the material I quoted from Thomas.gov. It is the record. I don't care what the WSJ says. Go and look up HR 10 also. Follow the timelines. I don't care how you interpret it. They are not the same bill. The facts are as I quoted them. You should note this after the vote you favor:


7/20/1999 7:00pm:
The House struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure H.R. 10. Agreed to without objection.

There were other changes too. Once changes occur, the vote you quote is null and void. The senate has to vote again and agree with the changes, or not.

Aggie is right about this one. This is where the democrats inserted the provisions to make loans to unqulaified minorities. Once the democrats had another hand-out in legislation, they voted YES on the senate version. McCain was for the original senate version before the house modified it. He voted YES on the original. He did not vote yes for the final version.

Get a clue. Stop repeating leftist propaganda.

[Shastafarian]

Ok here it all is. Was that quote I posted earlier wrong about what a conference report is? You betcha. My mistake. You claim "that democrats inserted the provisions to make loans to unqulaified minorities." I'm sure that's how the language was structured. I would love to see the actual language of the conference report. It doesn't really matter in the end. The original language in the Senate bill (as well as the bill in the House) are what made this financial crisis possible. John McCain voted for it. Did Biden vote for an altered bill? Yeah, he did. But so did almost all of his colleagues. I'd really like to see EXACTLY what was changed. And I guess it's a good thing Joe Biden isn't the nominee for President.

[SnakeBoy]

Based on historical home price relationships, we should expect a further 15% decline by 2010. This will result in further foreclosures.




That is pretty much the timeline Hank Greenberg stated that he thought the economic woes would continue (through 2009). I think I posted this on another thread but it really is worth the time to watch his interview and follow up with Charlie Rose IMO. If nothing else it will piss you off that at least in the case of AIG it was not an overnight unforseen failure. He had been trying to help save the company he built for several months, with private money but got the cold shoulder from AIG and the FED even though he was the largest shareholder in the company.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/9/16/1/a-conversation-with-hank-greenberg

[Wild Cobra]

Ok here it all is. Was that quote I posted earlier wrong about what a conference report is? You betcha. My mistake. You claim "that democrats inserted the provisions to make loans to unqulaified minorities." I'm sure that's how the language was structured.

It was the total process, probable not in the conference report. I meant agreements and compremises made in the conference committee to consolidate the house and senate versions.


I would love to see the actual language of the conference report.

Then do the research. I don't have the links readily available. I will provide some insightful links at the end of this posting however.



It doesn't really matter in the end. The original language in the Senate bill (as well as the bill in the House) are what made this financial crisis possible.

Not true. They called it something like 'community investment', or someything like that. They strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) by requiring lenders to make loans that did not have secure collateral.



John McCain voted for it.

He voted for the original senate version. He did not vote for the changes forced by the democrats that lead to this bailout.



Did Biden vote for an altered bill? Yeah, he did. But so did almost all of his colleagues.

And it was a bad vote.



I'd really like to see EXACTLY what was changed. And I guess it's a good thing Joe Biden isn't the nominee for President.

Then look it up. Start with S 900 (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.00900:) and follow the various links. I don't have the time to do it for you.

Here are a few excerpts from a few articles:

Congressional Problem Creation (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/08/Congressional%20Problem%20Creation.htm):


The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton and Bush administrations, is a federal law that mandates or intimidates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. The Community Reinvestment Act encouraged banks and thrifts to make so-called "no doc" and "liar" loans to customers who had no realistic ability to pay them back. A decade of monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve Bank, contributing to the housing bubble, encouraged lending institutions to take risks they otherwise would not have taken. Government actions created the subprime crisis and now government-proposed "solutions," such as foreclosure holidays, bailouts and further regulation of financial institutions, to the problems they created will create more problems.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities (http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html):


The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.

Remember I said president Bush tried to fix this before it became a problem in 2003...

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print), September 11, 2003:


The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

-------------

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

[xrayzebra]

Here is a good editorial that give a good history of what caused the
meltdown. It goes a long way back and for some of you dyed in the wool
dimms you aren't going to like the fact Bush did try to rein the stuff in.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949

[clambake]

:lmao @ ibdeditorials editorials

[xrayzebra]

:lmao @ ibdeditorials editorials

You don't like ibdeditorials. Then try Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Says about the same thing. Just a little more detail.

:toast

[Wild Cobra]

Ray, is your age making you forgetful?

Clambake is a lemming. He believes anything the leftist pundits tell him.

[Wild Cobra]

Ray, is your age making you forgetful?

Clambake is a lemming. He believes anything the leftist pundits tell him.

Sorry, I couldn't resist....

[hater]

Here is a good editorial that give a good history of what caused the
meltdown. It goes a long way back and for some of you dyed in the wool
dimms you aren't going to like the fact Bush did try to rein the stuff in.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949

Bush didn't do anything to stop the stupidity. Instead he started a war to spend more money. :donkey

Now the US is trying to conquer the Middle East with empty pockets. :lol

[hater]

Bush didn't do anything to stop the stupidity. Instead he started a war to spend more money. :donkey

Now thanks to Bush, the US is trying to conquer the Middle East with empty pockets. :lol

[xrayzebra]

Ray, is your age making you forgetful?

Clambake is a lemming. He believes anything the leftist pundits tell him.


No he is no lemming, he is just plain dumb. As always.

And who is this guy hater. does he always post to himself?

I will be glad when this election is over so we can get back to some
serious business. I think I will just become a lurker.

[Wild Cobra]

And who is this guy hater. does he always post to himself?

Looks like to me he left out "Bush" hater!

Looks like to me just another libtard that doesn't know how to think for himself.

[clambake]

No he is no lemming, he is just plain dumb. As always.
i love the american enterprise institute. do you remember the advice they gave in 2003?


I think I will just become a lurker.
will you be able to stomach the inauguration?

[Crookshanks]

Thanks AHF and Wild Cobra, for posting the information backing up my post about Clinton and Reno. I'm at work and don't have the time to look up all the stuff.

This mess is on the democrats - but I fear many of the uneducated will blame the party in office because it's easier and it's what the MSM is pushing to help their boy Obama beat the rap and get elected.

By the way, I heard on the news this morning that a non-partisian group researched just who is the most fiscally responsible person in congress. Guess who it is? JOHN MCCAIN! He has a 100% rating for voting for fiscal responsibility. Obama only had a 18% rating; and guess who's at the bottom - good ole Joe Biden - his rating is 0%!

Also, John McCain did not ask for a single earmark in this last budget year - not a claim that either Obama or Biden can make!

[Shastafarian]

Thanks AHF and Wild Cobra, for posting the information backing up my post about Clinton and Reno. I'm at work and don't have the time to look up all the stuff.

This mess is on the democrats - but I fear many of the uneducated will blame the party in office because it's easier and it's what the MSM is pushing to help their boy Obama beat the rap and get elected.

By the way, I heard on the news this morning that a non-partisian group researched just who is the most fiscally responsible person in congress. Guess who it is? JOHN MCCAIN! He has a 100% rating for voting for fiscal responsibility. Obama only had a 18% rating; and guess who's at the bottom - good ole Joe Biden - his rating is 0%!

Also, John McCain did not ask for a single earmark in this last budget year - not a claim that either Obama or Biden can make!

:lol

You're joking right?

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks AHF and Wild Cobra, for posting the information backing up my post about Clinton and Reno. I'm at work and don't have the time to look up all the stuff.

This mess is on the democrats - but I fear many of the uneducated will blame the party in office because it's easier and it's what the MSM is pushing to help their boy Obama beat the rap and get elected.So Clinton and Reno are to blame but Bush and the Republicans did nothing to fix any of the egregious errors in the six years they were in control of the government?

[SpursFanFirst]

[QUOTE=Shastafarian;2779396]Is there some blame to be placed on people who couldn't afford to pay back these loans? Probably.[QUOTE]

:lmao

Probably? In your opinion, when would be a good time for people to start taking responsibilities for their actions?

[SpursFanFirst]

:lol at Bill Clinton still being blamed over 7 years after he left.

So, in 10 years, we won't STILL be hearing about what a crappy president GWB was?

[Gino]

This isn't a republican/democrat issue. We've been headed down a dangerous road for almost 4 decades. The current wall street crisis is just a scratch and fix is just a bandaid. I have no idea how long we can keep printing money with nothing to back it up but simple economics dictates that you can't live on credit forever.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

This is a disingenuous graph. Our National debt as a percentage of our GDP isn't that bad as compared to previous years. Same with our federal deficit.

[Gino]

Bullshit! Go look at my first post in this thread on the national debt. The whole point was that both parties are not acting in your interest. It is Obama supporters who are trying to lay it all on Bush and claim Clinton was perfect. I have plenty of criticism of Bush and McCain. Obama supporters are the one's pretending that he is the saviour when the simple undeniable fact is that he has absolutely no record to prove that he isn't a complete partisan politician who will continue to put party before country. Want to prove me wrong then give me some examples of when he has done ANYTHING to comprimise with the other side to benefit YOU! It's really a rhetorical question since I know (and you know) that you cannot.

It's easy to criticize Bush, McCain, Palin, Biden because they have actually taken stands and done things (whether you agree with them or not). Obama has just been present since asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator (his words not mine). Yeah, he's gonna change things.:rolleyes


I agree 100%. :toast

[Shastafarian]

Is there some blame to be placed on people who couldn't afford to pay back these loans? Probably.

:lmao

Probably? In your opinion, when would be a good time for people to start taking responsibilities for their actions?

When they learn how to properly use quote tags???

[MannyIsGod]

Ugh, there's so much complete bullshit in this thread.

I'll pass.

[hater]

So Clinton and Reno are to blame but Bush and the Republicans did nothing to fix any of the egregious errors in the six years they were in control of the government?

good luck getting your question answered. I made the same point pages ago with no answer from the Bush lovers

[SpursFanFirst]

When they learn how to properly use quote tags???


oh boy. Aren't you a funny one. :rolleyes
Get back to me when you have a real answer.

[ChumpDumper]

It's easy to criticize Bush, McCain, Palin, Biden because they have actually taken stands and done things (whether you agree with them or not). Obama has just been present since asking corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator (his words not mine). Yeah, he's gonna change things.:rolleyesYou never produced the quote where Obama says he asked corrupt politicians to make him a US Senator.

[Shastafarian]

oh boy. Aren't you a funny one. :rolleyes
Get back to me when you have a real answer.

That was my answer.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105271

[SpursFanFirst]

That was my answer.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105271

So, I guess in your world, the government is to blame for all that is wrong?

Can't pay your mortgage bill? Blame the government.

Lose your job for not getting work done? Blame the goverment.

Spend all your money on beer and cigarettes, and now you have no money for gas? Blame the goverment.

Whatever you do, do NOT blame yourself!

[Shastafarian]

I would blame myself if a neighbor got a lower rate and I didn't do anything about it. *See linked thread above to understand joke*

[SpursFanFirst]

I would blame myself if a neighbor got a lower rate and I didn't do anything about it. *See linked thread above to understand joke*


I saw your link....and if you'd taken the time to actually READ and COMPREHEND what was said, you would've noticed that I said, "Yes, I'd be mad, but I'd also look for a better rate."

I guess you needed that pointed out for you.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So, I guess in your world, the government is to blame for all that is wrong?

Can't pay your mortgage bill? Blame the government.

Lose your job for not getting work done? Blame the goverment.

Spend all your money on beer and cigarettes, and now you have no money for gas? Blame the goverment.

Whatever you do, do NOT blame yourself!

Yep, it's what Dems do best :tu Blame the man instead of growing up and being one themselves.

[Shastafarian]

I saw your link....and if you'd taken the time to actually READ and COMPREHEND what was said, you would've noticed that I said, "Yes, I'd be mad, but I'd also look for a better rate."

I guess you needed that pointed out for you.

ahhhh I didn't notice you changed your post. What a shame. I liked it better when you just bitched and moaned about people getting better rates. When did you add in the other stuff about being "mad" and "look for a better rate"?

[clambake]

cindy became a financial genuis at birth.

john became one when he married cindy.

[SpursFanFirst]

ahhhh I didn't notice you changed your post. What a shame. I liked it better when you just bitched and moaned about people getting better rates. When did you add in the other stuff about being "mad" and "look for a better rate"?


Ummm...No. but nice try.
You're just like all those other pricks yesterday who kept misquoting me and then telling me I'm throwing a "tantrum" when I make my point.

[SpursFanFirst]

But you know...
That's just another way you're passing the blame...
Can't read and understand what's being said? Just say that someone must've changed the post.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol you're the one who tried to pretend you didn't post what you did when you posted it.

[MannyIsGod]

Everyone is to blame. Everyone. The American People, The Dems, The GOP, Wall Street.

Every single one of them hold equal shares of blame.

So any of you trying to apply more blame to one party or another are idiot partisans. Open your damn eyes.

[SpursFanFirst]

:lol you're the one who tried to pretend you didn't post what you did when you posted it.

No...you're the one that constantly twisted my words around and made it into what you wanted it to say.

And I'm not wasting my time with you again, Chump.
You are a jerk to pretty much everyone who posts on Spurstalk.

[Shastafarian]

Ummm...No. but nice try.
You're just like all those other pricks yesterday who kept misquoting me and then telling me I'm throwing a "tantrum" when I make my point.


:lol you're the one who tried to pretend you didn't post what you did when you posted it.

Ok so let's see. CD, did she change anything in that post? Am I right or is she right? Am I a prick or is she just an angry person who likes to lie? If I'm wrong I'll admit it.

[SpursFanFirst]

Ok so let's see. CD, did she change anything in that post? Am I right or is she right? Am I a prick or is she just an angry person who likes to lie? If I'm wrong I'll admit it.


Oh yes, by all means...let's check with the guy that did all the twisting yesterday.

I'm done with you as well.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

I'm done with you!

I have good credit!

I am complaining about the fact that I am able to get a loan in this credit market!

[Shastafarian]

Oh yes, by all means...let's check with the guy that did all the twisting yesterday.

I'm done with you as well.

Awwww but I was just gettin started....

[KenMcCoy]

I'm not saying it was ALL the Dems fault because there was obviously other people/parties involved. The thing that really bothers me is that when Bush tried to fix it in 2003 and McCain again in 2005/06 NOBODY supported it. And that goes for both parties.


*But I will say that we KNOW Obama didn't back fixing the problem in 2006. Even if the bill didn't get pushed forward he could have at least signed on it.

[Tully365]

Everyone is to blame. Everyone. The American People, The Dems, The GOP, Wall Street.

Every single one of them hold equal shares of blame.

So any of you trying to apply more blame to one party or another are idiot partisans. Open your damn eyes.

Very True. It's sadly ironic that angry partisans argue vehemently on here about who's to blame when the answer is actually being given by their own actions, which mirror the actions of extreme partisanship in our government. If more people were capable of civility, compromise, and honest discussion rather than treating party affiliation like a fight-to-the-death gang membership, many of these problems would not exist. But it's the raging pitbulls from both sides of the political spectrum that make this nearly impossible.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Times like this are when its most important for hte public to stop being bipartisan realize what both parties DID do together, what they DID agree on, and open our eyes and realize we've been fucked by the very people we voted into office, left AND right.

Politicians are counting their lucky stars that most americans who know of what a mess we are in are still going to be so fucking ignorant to view the situation in a myopic bipartisan way.

Wake the fuck up.....you stay bipartisan through shit like this and nothing will really change, the left will dangle their strings and the right will dangle theirs....if we weren't all so god damned stupid, this country would rightfully be on the verge of outright revolt, but it will never come to that because most of us don't give a shit, and the minority that does give a shit is going to stay bipartisan, just another fucking puppet in this whole shit.

Wake up, crises like this always happen in free market economy and they always happen because people have been trying to cheat the system because of greed. What is it going to take for us to stop going through this bull shit?

[Nbadan]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/09/23/tomo/story.jpg

[DarkReign]

Times like this are when its most important for hte public to stop being bipartisan realize what both parties DID do together, what they DID agree on, and open our eyes and realize we've been fucked by the very people we voted into office, left AND right.

Politicians are counting their lucky stars that most americans who know of what a mess we are in are still going to be so fucking ignorant to view the situation in a myopic bipartisan way.

Wake the fuck up.....you stay bipartisan through shit like this and nothing will really change, the left will dangle their strings and the right will dangle theirs....if we weren't all so god damned stupid, this country would rightfully be on the verge of outright revolt, but it will never come to that because most of us don't give a shit, and the minority that does give a shit is going to stay bipartisan, just another fucking puppet in this whole shit.

Wake up, crises like this always happen in free market economy and they always happen because people have been trying to cheat the system because of greed. What is it going to take for us to stop going through this bull shit?


I think you meant partisan in your above post, but regardless, youre two-for-fucking-two.

What will it take for every rationale, mildly intelligent American to realize this isnt a party specific problem, but a systemic robbing of the American taxpayer in the name of greed and wealth of the super-elite?

Man, the Amero seems more and more likely, doesnt it? This whooooole shibang is falling right in the expected timeline. The collapse is imminent. Get your beans and bullets ready.