Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not a Democrat, but my research turns up the GOP controlling both houses of Congress four years ago, and only in the current Congress that began in 2007 did the Dems have control over the House and Senate. And the count in the Senate is 49-49-2, with two independents usually voting with the Dems. That's hardly a commanding lead. The GOP doesn't like something, they filibuster. Nothing really gets accomplished without bipartisan support.
The excessive borrowing and spending and no accountability (including deregulation which allowed the subprime financing and securities legerdemain that brought this whole thing on) started with the Republicans who controlled Congress for the first six years of Bush's term. The chickens have come home to roost.
"In 2001, Democrats regained control of the Senate under Majority Leader Tom Daschle" The Democratic Party
"In 2001, Democrats regained control of the Senate under Majority Leader Tom Daschle" The Democratic Party
Dems lost control of the Senate in the 2002 elections, starting with the Congress that began in 2003. That would cover the time period of four years ago, namely 2004. It's 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCyank
These financial institutions were doing fine rejecting risky loans until they were FORCED by Washington to give bad mortgages. It wasn't deregulation, it was over regulation that caused this mess!! When it was clear the dream of home ownership for the 'poor' was really a house of cards it was the republicans who tried to reign it in
To be clear, I think both parties are at fault. I am an independent. I don't understand why anybody who calls somebody out for thinking the GOP is above this fiasco is automatically a Democrat.
That said, was it over-regulation that allowed investment banks to cut up the subprime mortgages into bits that ended up turning the whole credit market on its side? No, it was this legislation, spearheaded by one Phil Gramm (he who thinks this is a "mental recession"), who may well end up being the Treasury secretary if McCain wins. That's a scary thought in and of itself, but it's another discussion for another place. Bush bought into "everybody must own a house no matter what" thing. I was young and moving out on my own and being told I can "own cheaper than I can rent" and being given a bunch of cockamamie math in a spiel that only gave you the figures before the ARM rates resetted. Now, I was in my early 20s, but I didn't fall off the idiot wagon the week before. I know what the "A" in "ARM" stands for. I didn't bite. I stuck to renting. It was a good move. It's nice knowing you didn't help contribute directly to this mess by signing off on a loan I had no chance of paying off.
Sorry, you've got it wrong. These financial institutions were doing fine rejecting risky loans until they were FORCED by Washington to give bad mortgages. It wasn't deregulation, it was over regulation that caused this mess!! When it was clear the dream of home ownership for the 'poor' was really a house of cards it was the republicans who tried to reign it in and Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and other dems who would not agree that Freddie and Fannie were in a losing battle.
How about a little substantiation to these claims. They look more like partisan rhetoric than reality to me.
Quote:
they were FORCED by Washington to give bad mortgages
congratulations! I'm sure the guys on Wall St. with suits are laughing all the way to the bank about pulling the greatest con on the American people. Party in Newport Beach at the Bill Gross residence, you're not invited of course!
Dems lost control of the Senate in the 2002 elections, starting with the Congress that began in 2003. That would cover the time period of four years ago, namely 2004. It's 2008.
To be clear, I think both parties are at fault. I am an independent. I don't understand why anybody who calls somebody out for thinking the GOP is above this fiasco is automatically a Democrat.
That said, was it over-regulation that allowed investment banks to cut up the subprime mortgages into bits that ended up turning the whole credit market on its side? No, it was this legislation, spearheaded by one Phil Gramm (he who thinks this is a "mental recession"), who may well end up being the Treasury secretary if McCain wins. That's a scary thought in and of itself, but it's another discussion for another place. Bush bought into "everybody must own a house no matter what" thing. I was young and moving out on my own and being told I can "own cheaper than I can rent" and being given a bunch of cockamamie math in a spiel that only gave you the figures before the ARM rates resetted. Now, I was in my early 20s, but I didn't fall off the idiot wagon the week before. I know what the "A" in "ARM" stands for. I didn't bite. I stuck to renting. It was a good move. It's nice knowing you didn't help contribute directly to this mess by signing off on a loan I had no chance of paying off.
We can agree that there is plenty of blame to go around and I am not in the mood to give one side or the other any political credit at this point. Both Bush and Clinton bragged about high home ownership numbers and both parties backed it to some point.
Thanks for the link to the Gramm legislation, I will read up on the role it is playing in this mess.
Like you, we didn't want any part of a risky mortgage when we bought 5 years ago. We rented for a full year (after moving and previously owning) before finding the right house at the right price. We knew other people who bought on the bubble, with ARM's and told us this was a golden opportunity....acted like we were crazy to 'only' get a fixed mortgage with a payment at 20% of take home pay. Hmmm....guess what, that golden egg turned out rotten and they sold two years later for a $68,000 LOSS and barely missed foreclosure/bankrupty. I only wish we had the mortgage paid off now instead of in 4 years (still, 9 years on a 30 year mortgage isn't bad!!). It sounds like you made a wise choice too.
Wrong. Bush pushed Congress to get something done. Congress (both house and Senate) are majority Democrat rule. Nothing in the past 4 years that has gone through Congress hasn't been filled with Democrat pork spending and special interest crap. Just like this bailout that was almost submitted (but Bush said he would NOT sign it unless they re write out all the crap!) had that 20% payout to Acorn, which is a heavily Democrat backing company that is under investigation of voting fraud! Give me a break!
People just don't get it. Congress runs this county, the president is a figure head to act as a smoke screen from what is really going on and a person to blame, that is it. Congress is majority democrats. You want to blame someone? Blame the entire Democratic party, they have been running this country for the last 4 years and we are in a HUGE mess because of excessive spending and no accountability.
Don't believe me? Research it.
Thank you Mouse! That's why they have an approval rating lower than the unibomber. Hey, maybe he can replace Pelosi?!
How about a little substantiation to these claims. They look more like partisan rhetoric than reality to me.
Pretty wild exaggeration. Show me the proof.
Here, I'll help you with your homework. Start with the Community Reinvestment Act. There are better sources and info but I also have better things to do....
It's not hard to trace this economic mess back to Bill Clinton | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have historically bought loans from lenders in order to free up more money so that lenders can write more mortgages. As The New York Times reported in September 1999, Fannie Mae had "been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits." This was part of the Clinton administration's rewriting of the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act. Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures that were based on their level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. In order for these banks to expand or merge, they had to have a good CRA rating. As the Times ominously noted in 1999, "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."
I just want the market to pop up enough so I can get even and GET OUT and pay off most of my house. I've jealously guarded that money for years after being seriously hurt and receiving it.
Unfortunately I let some dumb %$# broker sell me on somethings that would "keep your principal safe" which turned out not so good after all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
