Rob Jones has been absolutely on the mark with his observations. I also have a real estate license. Anyone in the business who has been paying attention for the last several years could see this coming. The Dems were the strong influence on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The CEOs of both companies made millions off of this mess and they were protected through campaign contributions paid to the people who were on the boards that were supposed to be regulating them. I see that as a conflict of interest. Getting back on track, here is another interesting video that shows who was on the payroll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0 Bush didn't start this rolling. He was just a parrot reiterating what was already happening. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking on high risk loans for years before Bush made the speech that pizzaman cites as proof. The fact is that it is not proof of anything because neither Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac are government agencies, nor do they take direction from the President. They were converted to private agencies in 1968 that were not supposed to be a burden on taxpayers or the Federal budget. They became a pet project for Democrats who may have thought they were doing a good thing by pressuring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on the high risk loans that banks didn't want, but were forced to write due to threat of prosecution by the Clinton administration. The ball was already rolling before Bush took office. Without proper regulation, the ball rolled off a cliff. Banking was deregulated in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act .
Tech you are coming off as yet another 100% biased poster. It's well known you side with the Republicans in almost every circumstance, and here yet again you are not being fully honest. Real Estate and Investors a crossed the country appear to disagree with you, they do not put all blame on the Dems. Republicans are guilty of this mess as well, Bush also did not 'just reiterate'. Yet again http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020624_bushplan.htm Another article http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-heads/5944494-1.html
Rep. Barney Frank Bill O'Reilly, of FOX's O'Reilly Factor, has called for Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts to step down from his position as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee because of a now-clear failure of oversight of the nation's banking industry. Bill O'Reilly Rips Into Barney Frank On The Economy & Fannie Mae Mess- October 2, 2008 O'Reilly Factor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSze_Ad7GpE
What is your point exactly? I do not back up Frank at all, on the contrary I have stated he deserves blame here. O'Reilly, lol funny that he should call someone to step down from anything.
I'll add that the argument made to supposedly discredit me earlier... about the roll call vote that i posted... was misguided. That roll call vote was posted as a sample of various sources I've used, and was posted as one of a list to show i have NOT in fact been sourcing my arguments with things the right wing invented. That particular vote was not on the 2005 McCain cosponsored amendment. Somebody said I was using things trumped up by the right wing, and I was answering that specific allegation with as list of sample sources I'd used in various threads. Note that the attacker never posted a single example to support the allegation I'd been using sources "trumped up by the right wing". That attack was just flat wrong and posted out of a weird anger flare that had consumed the attacker. It's worthwhile to discuss this with people that actually make an attempt at rational discussion, but the fece throwing gets outta hand. Waste of energy answering personal attacks made by people that have so many going they cant keep up with which is being answered. Anyway, as DP let Grim back in despite the personal attacks he's posted (we had about 3 pages or so where all he did was call people liars)... I figure this is a waste of time discussing anything in this thread.
Rob the point was you brought up a vote to prove your sourcing on this situation, the vote did not prove anything remotely to your claim. Your argument smells identical to multiple right wing blogs I have read, that was the point. Yes 'rational discussion' such as not being BIASED. 'Personal attacks.' Rob you chose instead of saying 'hey you know what I fucked up' when you stated an incorrect 'fact' you decided to go on the offensive and attack me. That is what changed your statement from a simple slip to a lie as you obviously decided to attack instead of admit to the mistake. 'Personal attacks' Yes lets look at your post you decided to bring to WTF so you would not be banned here. http://www.webtalkforums.com/showpost.php?p=230261&postcount=103
Naah, much as I dont want to waste the time, cant let that go unanswered. What you said was... You didnt say my words sounded like what you read on right wing blogs, you said I had been posting links to articles the right wing themselves are trumping up. I hadnt posted ANY links in this thread prior to that point unless you count my sigline... so I gathered you meant in other threads, and posted samples from other threads to counter the accusation. As for the rest of my posts, they didnt come from right wing blogs, they came from personal experience. There wasnt a single post there I didnt write myself. Unlike you, I actually know something about the subject. I provided information based on 25 years of having to keep agents and the public abreast of changes in mortgage regs. Everyone has a right to an opinion grim, but you need to step back and quit just throwing out smears about lies and gays in hopes that anyone that disagrees will leave. It ruins the discussion.
AIG went down because it was selling derivatives like hotcakes. They forgot they were in a risk business and started writing pieces of paper in exchange for real money. Even selling these "insurance policies" to people who didn't even have skin in the game. What they were doing was the equivalent of selling Jim, John, Bill, Susan and Harry house insurance on Steve's house. Bear Stearns failed also, largely because of its willy nilly use of derivatives. I believe LEH also got into trouble in no small part because of derivatives. They probably wouldn't have gotten in trouble but for two reasons: 1. fannie/freddie putting mortgage-backed securities into the market 2. being idiots and believing there's no risk and that money is free Even though it probably wouldn't have happened if 1 wouldn't have happened, doesn't mean that they don't share a large part of the responsibility for 2. In other words, just because 1 happened, doesn't mean 2 was inevitable or should have happened.
You have posted links on the subject, including McCain's cosponsorship. The same links I have viewed on right wing blogs. I have posted links showing where Bush himself had policy into Fannie and Freddie to increase minority loans that could have helped cause this, you bypassed every time I brought up anything that was not against the Dems. Ahh yes, they however have pretty much the identical reasoning behind them. Yes 25 years of local real estate make one an expert on national real estate, the crisis were are having now, investments, the banking industry. Especially when that someone is totally biased. Yet again, practice what you preach. I put a 'smear' about gays, really? Being totally biased creates no discussion, FYI...
Logicflux - I cant disagree with your point... the entire economic mess is not *solely* caused by the Fannie/Freddie situation, the companies themselves engaged in some seriously risky other stuff. I do think your suggestion that 2 wouldnt have probably happened without 1 is a very pertinent point though. grim - 1 - i hadnt posted ANY links in this thread when you said that... and a link to a 1999 or 2003 or whatever yr article written in the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal posted in another thread or this one does not become less of a contemporary source because you saw it on a right wing blog somewhere (yes, how dare the right wing displace revisionist history by pointing to news articles that documented events when they happened... lol). Regardless, my posts in here prior to your statement included no such links. 2- RE: GRIM SAID: "Yes 25 years of local real estate make one an expert on national real estate, the crisis were are having now, investments, the banking industry". Grim - I have a degree in Finance, have had to TEACH changes in national mortgage regs (which experts pretty much agree are the root of the crisis), and my experience isnt just "local"... I mentioned corporate experience... I handled over 100 million in transactions in 32 states + puerto rico on behalf of a Fortune 500 Company (PHH). Yes... I DO know the subject matter, despite slurs to the contrary. Just forget I exist and I'll put you on ignore.
Actually, your not being truthful here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487 http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080919/OPINION03/809190316/1322/OPINION0301 From "http://ofheo.gov" "Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae"
If that's the case it's truly sad that someone as biased as yourself would be in the position that you are in Many agents handle transactions in other areas from time to time, it doesn't by any means make them an expert in those areas. If you'd at least look into the facts of Republicans, including Bush having blame here 'you never do respond to those' if you didnt' show such bias one could take you seriously. I don't dispute items you brought up having to do with this crisis, I dispute that it's the only reason.
I am very impressed with your skills in the forum. If the democrats would use there skill we would not have had the economic breakdown.
GRIM, I'm not claiming to be unbiased. No one in this forum is unbiased. If you think that both parties should be equally blamed, that ignores the facts and in itself is biased. You can call it Bush's plan, but the plan was already in motion before he took office. He very foolishly jumped on the bandwagon because the real estate industry was keeping the economy moving. Both parties and the mortgage industry have been typical "pigs at the trough" throughout this mess. Once the honey pot was opened, everyone scrambled for as much as they could get. It worked for a while, but every bubble eventually bursts. I'm also an industry insider who was invested in Freddie Mac, but I bailed a few years ago when I saw what was coming. While a lot of people on both sides of the fence are involved, the Dems set the stage when they started threatening the mortgage and banking industry in the 1990s. I distinctly remember when that happened and wondered, "Are these guys completely nuts to put the financial backbone of the country at risk?" From a business perspective, it made no sense at all. From a social perspective, I think they thought they were helping people who should never have received mortgages in the first place, but that is just another case of unintended consequences. I have also seen the Dems vehemently fight to prevent further regulation. It was obvious that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were on a slippery slope in 2005. Further regulation would have revealed how poorly managed they were. Large contributions to Dems is highly suspect when the contributions were paid to the people on the regulating committees. The bottom line is that none of this probably would have happened if the mortgage and banking industry was allowed to screen loans as they traditionally had done, and if regulators had been allowed to do a proper job policing the industry. It is kind of like saying, "We are no longer going to post armed guard or security in banks and we will no longer prosecute bank robbers." What happens is what you would expect to happen. It is not rocket science. Unbiased does not necessarily mean balanced. While both sides are to blame for allowing this to happen, the blame based upon the actions of guilty parties is not evenly distributed along party lines.
So the plan that Bush set forth above and beyond what was the current standard, the plan the takes credit for is 'not his'. Sure it's not.