Democrats or Republicans - who is most to blame in the financial crisis? - Page 2

Yayasmom · 09-28-08, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Let's see, the Repbublicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the executive for 6 years, from 2000-06.

But its the Dems fault.

Of course.

Good point. Do you know why the reps didn't make the necessary changes?

John1234 · 09-28-08, 01:42 PM

(My simplistic viewpoint, knowing nothing about economics or how the economy works)

I think it is clearly BOTH.
I mean just look at our situation.

Our Government is in debt.
Our banks are in debt.
Our companies are in debt.
Our people are in debt.

Just who is it that has the money?

And what is the underlying message we are currently hearing from the Government?

This is what i get from it, "If we do not create another 700 billion in debt, our citizens and companies will not be able to go even further into debt".

It really bothers me that the problem is "We wont be able to go further into debt"

Just how in debt can we go?

It seems to me more as though some little detail that burst the bubble or who pushed the final straw is not so significant.
It is more significant to me that everyone and everything is in debt and we are panicing because we can't borrow even more.

sazerac · 09-28-08, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yayasmom

Good point. Do you know why the reps didn't make the necessary changes?

If the the democrats are all dead set against something you're never going to get a bill past the senate because it takes 60 votes.

NoMoreDems-Reps · 09-28-08, 02:10 PM

It's both parties fault !

Corporate Welfare compounded with political corruption and spending like
drunken sailors. Bam! here we are, say bye bye to $700,000,000,000
And by all means, try to blame this all on one party while supporting the other!
That will absolutely keep us on this same downward spiral !

REPS&DEMS = DEATH TO AMERICA.....

Gabby · 09-28-08, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John1234

(My simplistic viewpoint, knowing nothing about economics or how the economy works)

I think it is clearly BOTH.
I mean just look at our situation.

Our Government is in debt.
Our banks are in debt.
Our companies are in debt.
Our people are in debt.

Just who is it that has the money?

And what is the underlying message we are currently hearing from the Government?

This is what i get from it, "If we do not create another 700 billion in debt, our citizens and companies will not be able to go even further into debt".

It really bothers me that the problem is "We wont be able to go further into debt"

Just how in debt can we go?

It seems to me more as though some little detail that burst the bubble or who pushed the final straw is not so significant.
It is more significant to me that everyone and everything is in debt and we are panicing because we can't borrow even more.

What's more important is what caused the bubble in the first place. Our government did it. While we weren't paying attention, we effectively let the fox in the hen house and now we're going to pay. Problem is, we aren't willing to dig deep enough into the issue to find out who the foxes are, so they're about to be re-elected in November. We simply don't care - as a group, I mean.

What you're saying about dumping money in so that they can go further in debt sort of misses the mark. I mean, on a basic level it doesn't, but it's too late to be disgusted with how capitalism works. The bottom line is, if you want a paycheck, your company probably still needs to rely on credit. If you want to sell your house, you need credit available out there for the buyer. If you need a new car, you need credit. It's no surprise businesses are operating the same way the American individual is. But a huge part of the problem right now is these major banks and companies mis-reporting their assets. The real bubble popped. The bubble still exists on their paper. Housing values that are not true to market.

Monk-Eye · 09-28-08, 02:57 PM

"Malfeasance And Avarice"

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

The present financial crisis, on the surface, appears to be greatly due to poor decisions by greedy lending institutions. However, many of these institutions were coerced by US government policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and the beefing up of the CRA during the Clinton presidency.

As long as banks were directly responsible for their own solvency while lending, it did not matter what the government may have directed them to do in the way of sub-prime interest loans.

The poster child piece of crap is Philip Gramm, he along with the bipartisan cooperation of the 1999 congress that repealed the Glass Steagall Act (ln) are the principle reason for this situation.

Quote:

Two separate United States laws are known as the Glass-Steagall Act. The Acts (Glass & Steagall) were both reactions of the U.S. government to cope with the collapse of a large portion of the American commercial banking system in early 1933.

The second Glass-Steagall Act, passed on 16 June 1933, and officially named the Banking Act of 1933, introduced the separation of bank types according to their business (commercial and investment banking), and it founded the Federal Deposit Insurance Company for insuring bank deposits.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[7] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[8]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. [11] Citigroup played a major part in the repeal.

As soon as Glass Steagall was repealed, banks were given free reign to create and invest indirectly in leveraged mortgage debt, which they were given permission to oversell, while ignoring high risk.
Responsible banking was turned over to the varacities of the stock market with its inherent deceptions and caveat emptor earnings margins.

Now, Philip Gramm (ln) is a terrorist!!
This Phd in economics, premeditating, criminal bastard, spearheaded his name not only into the sub-prime mortgage crisis, he conspired and fostered the "Enron Loophole" legislation (ln) by introducing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 or CFMA (H.R. 5660 and S.3283) (ln).

Quote:

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 repealed the Shad-Johnson jurisdictional accord, which had banned single stock futures in 1982. The legislation also provided certainty that products offered by banking institutions would not be regulated as futures contracts.
....
The act specifically banned regulation of credit default swaps. These unregulated instruments, insurance policies against default on risky investments like mortgage backed securities, necessitated the government bailout of insurer A.I.G.

Doc Howl · 09-28-08, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebelbuc

I'm sorry, Aps, that you took it personally that I used the term "bedwetting liberal".

How the **** did you THINK he was going to take it, you jabbering old fool?

And you first heard it on talk radio. What a shock.

Doc Howl · 09-28-08, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabby

This whole thing makes me insanely angry. And I'm so tired of those who cannot think past their noses, trying to say this is Bush's failed economy.

Boo hoo hoo. I thought I heard, back in 2000, that "the adults were in charge". It seems, though, that "adult" means whining and crying and absolutely refusing to take accountability for the utter failure of your president and each and every one of his policies.

Life is tough. Wear a hat.

John1234 · 09-28-08, 03:54 PM

I was just listening to the TV from the other room.

And some guy was saying that for 700 billion dollars we could supply free gas to every American for an entire year.

I wonder what else we could do with 700 billion?

obvious Child · 09-28-08, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yayasmom

Good point. Do you know why the reps didn't make the necessary changes?

Actually they did make changes.

They just created some of the origins of the current mess.

Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership
President Reiterates Goal on Homeownership

And yes, those are directly off the White House's webpage.