Bank Bailout, Dumping Market, Next?

[eric (^__^)]

a fool's hope

[SpecM]

I read through this hoping to find something intelligent.

I replaced my own rear wheel bearings today

that took alotta smarts

[Maluco]

The Senate bailout vote



How the Senate voted Wednesday on the financial bailout bill (S. Amdt. 5685 to H.R. 1424):

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

[Jean]

Sigh

[s0urce]

Ok Shit is going down. There is no denying this:

[Schniddy]

Dear Friends,


I am sounding an alarm! For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this is not being discussed on the media or why conservatives are not making their case: IT IS SO IMPORTANT!!!!! The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor's Business Daily explaining "What Caused the Loan Crisis":


1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.


Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.


How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market? Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.


1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.


1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopoies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.


1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.


1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin's Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin's Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.


1997 - 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Developement, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.


With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often "no doc", "no income", requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990's Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.


Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.


1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie's excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place. "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.


2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the "special status". Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO's who knew how to reward and punish. "We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation's housing and mortgage markets" Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.


2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.


2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago". Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.


2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: "We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk". Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, "If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole". Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership" The bill went nowhere.


2007: By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market. The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors. As the housing market fell in '07, subprime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on, though it was 15 years in the making.


2008: McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times. Still the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats. That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!


If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words. They are condeming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related

Postscript: ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie's slush funds. They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states. Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.


Please share this with everyone you know. Send it. Print it. Talk about it. America needs to know!!!









Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?



Obama and Mcain tax cuts


Obama communist past - America's future is in your hands. Stop the spread of communism.

[Aptyp]

I really hate when people take that point of view. It's not all democrats fault, it's not all republicans fault. Clinton was a great president for the simple fact that if everything would fail, there was a surplus to recover. Democrats are bad at many things, but they know how to handle finances.

Senate and House get to vote bills on to president. If Congress can't get shit done, then there's very little for president to do. Unfortunately, congress is not only two people. There are disagreements among democrats and republicans, and disagreements withing those parties. No two people agree on everything, and we're talking about people from all different walks of life in the House trying to decide. Then you got millionaire senators, who protect their own interests. Face it, regular working class people don't get elected into senate.



About the bail out...
Maybe I misunderstand something, but I think it's working. Stock market is dropping to it's underinflated prices of when Bush took office. It's bringing economy back to earth. It would be safe to assume that house prices would soon start dropping too. Not sure if this is the way bailout was intended to work. And I know that Paulson already talked about changes to policy and that nothing could be done without it. That douche has received 100 billion and now he wants policies. It's confusing to me, but seems to be working whether bailout happened or not.

[rwh11385]

I really hate when people take that point of view. It's not all democrats fault, it's not all republicans fault. Clinton was a great president for the simple fact that if everything would fail, there was a surplus to recover. Democrats are bad at many things, but they know how to handle finances.

Senate and House get to vote bills on to president. If Congress can't get shit done, then there's very little for president to do. Unfortunately, congress is not only two people. There are disagreements among democrats and republicans, and disagreements withing those parties. No two people agree on everything, and we're talking about people from all different walks of life in the House trying to decide. Then you got millionaire senators, who protect their own interests. Face it, regular working class people don't get elected into senate.



About the bail out...
Maybe I misunderstand something, but I think it's working. Stock market is dropping to it's underinflated prices of when Bush took office. It's bringing economy back to earth. It would be safe to assume that house prices would soon start dropping too. Not sure if this is the way bailout was intended to work. And I know that Paulson already talked about changes to policy and that nothing could be done without it. That douche has received 100 billion and now he wants policies. It's confusing to me, but seems to be working whether bailout happened or not.

You're a idiot.

This whole shit was created by securities based on mortgages that were forced by Clinton and others to exist for increasing the home ownership of middle to low income people with questionable credit. Are you going to argue against that none of this would happen if people with bad credit didn't get loans? Sure, it may have happened in 2008 but started in 1999 with Fannie and Freddie being told to increase their share of questionable loans to people who ought not to have them.

UNDERINFLATED?

[ragged325]

Federal housing data reveal that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

You can search the White House Archives for "America's Home Ownership Challenge" to find some of Bush's press releases. You can also find Bush's "America's Homeowner Challenge" at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele.../20020617.html.

MOBILIZING THE PRIVATE SECTOR: AMERICA’S HOMEOWNERSHIP CHALLENGE
Establish a national goal of at least 5.5 million new minority homeowners before the end of the decade.
Challenge the private sector real estate and mortgage finance industries to dramatically increase their efforts to reduce the barriers to homeownership faced by minority families and to work with the nonprofit sector in a concerted effort to achieve this goal through national and local partnerships.
Convene a White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership, to highlight the homeownership barriers faced by minorities and develop proposed
solutions.
The strength of our Nation lies in the diversity of our people and our communities. This diversity extends beyond heritage or ethnicity, however. It also encompasses a diversity of local markets. Factors affecting real estate and, more importantly, homeownership, are greatly affected by local conditions. The various barriers to homeownership differ by locality. Hispanics living in the Bronx face a different set of obstacles and require different solutions than those living in Miami, or in San Antonio.
While minority homeownership rates increased in the 1990s due to a variety of favorable circumstances (including record-low interest rates and a strong economy), these increases are cause for celebration, not complacency. The Administration is intent on fostering a climate conducive to homeownership growth, and dismantling and eliminating the barriers faced by minority families is an integral part of this effort. As long as these barriers exist, homeownership levels for minority families will not be where they should be. Yet because of the variety of needs and differences between our communities, a "one size fits all" approach or government program alone is unlikely to have a sufficiently widespread impact.
The Administration also hopes to expand homeownership opportunities by focusing the energy and creativity of the private sector real estate and mortgage-finance industries, as well as the nonprofit sector, on this important goal. A national campaign that mobilizes thousands of homebuilders, realtors, and lenders, as well as the nonprofit groups involved in community revitalization and financial education efforts, to tear down barriers to homeownership, will have a profound impact. Such an effort is more likely to give rise to approaches tailored to local conditions and driven by local action.
To that end, the Administration has issued "America’s Homeownership Challenge" to homebuilders, realtors, nonprofits, and government-sponsored enterprises that purchase the mortgages made by lenders, to unite in a concerted, multifaceted and collaborative effort to dismantle barriers to homeownership in each community and increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families by the end of this decade. This broad-based effort will (1) harness the capital and expertise of major private sector financial institutions, (2) involve minority advocacy groups in key roles to guide industry efforts, and (3) complement the legislative and regulatory initiatives put forth by the Administration to achieve this goal.
Although long-range projections of homeownership growth rates can prove unreliable, under almost any projection scenario, adding 5.5 million families to the number of minority homeowners by the end of this decade would be a substantial achievement that could be accomplished only with great effort.
As an initial response to President Bush’s challenge, a number of national organizations involved in homeownership have agreed to commit specific resources, devote organizational energy, and begin taking concrete actions to reduce barriers and achieve this goal. Some of the measures to be taken include:
A substantial increase of at least $440 billion in the financial commitment made by the government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;
Twenty-five different local initiatives to be undertaken across the nation, geared toward eliminating the specific homeownership barriers faced by minority families in those communities;
A commitment to raise $750 million in below-market-rate investments by 2007, which will work in collaboration with local homeownership initiatives and be targeted to heavily minority program areas;
Pursuing strategic partnerships in 20 top housing markets between homebuilders, lenders, local officials, and community leaders to develop approaches that address the local challenges to building homes for minority families living in urban centers;
Establishing of faith-based housing partnerships between the participants and at least 100 churches, mosques, synagogues, and other faith-based institutions;
Aggressively developing new mortgage products so that conventional market alternatives are available to combat the predatory loan products that are disproportionately targeted to minorities;
Creating new mortgage products to meet the unique needs of recent immigrants;
Dramatically expanding financial education efforts for minorities, providing financial counseling to at least 380,000 minority families, and taking measures at the local level to reduce predatory lending; and
Establishing multilingual, consumer-oriented internet Web sites designed to help minorities overcome barriers to homeownership, including creation of a central data bank of affordable housing programs made available to real estate agents when working with clients.
These are simply beginning efforts in what is meant to be an ongoing challenge to the private sector. To continue finding new strategies to expand opportunities, and in order to maintain a strong focus on this goal, the White House will convene a conference on increasing minority homeownership, both as a forum for continued discussion of how best to tear down the barriers to homeownership and to promote successful strategies that expand opportunities.
Accountability and results will be expected and measured. The entities will voluntarily report to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development annually on the progress of each of their initiatives. The Secretary will track the overall progress made in these areas and report annually to the President.
The Administration expects that this concerted national effort will result in greater production and rehabilitation of affordable homes where the existing supply is inadequate, increased innovation in mortgage products, more effective marketing and outreach to minority communities, and increased attention to financial education.

[rwh11385]

Federal housing data reveal that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

You can search the White House Archives for "America's Home Ownership Challenge" to find some of Bush's press releases. You can also find Bush's "America's Homeowner Challenge" at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ and https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele.../20020617.html.

How uneducated are you?

Fannie and Freddie don't originate the lending, they buy mortgages after they are. The government forced fannie and freddie to buy more shitty mortgages which in turned made them find a way to encourage private entities to.

" * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."

Are you that simple you cannot understand relationships that have more than one link?


Bush's "Ownership" was a response to what was started by Clinton and no PC way to end it. You be president and try to tell middle class people with bad credit they are not good enough to buy a house. Hell, it sounds reasonable, but any social program or effort is unpopular. But hell , you know creating them in the first place is insanely popular, with the uneducated.

[ragged325]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.6kKtOoO72k

While it and the larger Fannie Mae bought the safest classes of the mortgage-loan pools, Freddie's purchases totaled $158 billion, or 13 percent, of all the securities created in 2006 and 2007, according to data from its regulator and Inside MBS & ABS, a Bethesda, Maryland-based newsletter used by Federal Reserve researchers. Fannie, which was also seized by the U.S. on Sept. 7, bought an additional 5 percent.

The companies said they were urged to increase purchases of subprime debt by the Bush administration. The Department of Housing and Urban Development said in 2005 that Fannie and Freddie should increase financing for low-income areas or moderate-income regions with high minority populations to 37 percent of new business from 34 percent in 2001 through 2004. That rose to 39 percent last year.

The updated goals ``were significant enough to force them to go down the credit curve to meet them, which meant participating in some way or form in the higher-risk areas of the mortgage market,'' said David Stevens, a former head of Freddie's single- family mortgage business who now runs lenders affiliated with Long & Foster Real Estate Inc. in Fairfax, Virginia. That included ``the subprime business.''

So, you're saying that when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought 18% of the subprime loans, private lenders were forced to buy the other 82%?

The loans Fannie and Freddie bought had a default rate of 1.2%, but the ones the other institutions bought had a default rate of 5%. I'm not sure how you're arguing that Fannie and Freddie are responsible for all of this. I'm not saying that F & F are not to blame for some of the problem, but how can you say the private banks didn't cause a large part of this credit problem?

Bush's "Ownership" was a response to what was started by Clinton and no PC way to end it. You be president and try to tell middle class people with bad credit they are not good enough to buy a house. Hell, it sounds reasonable, but any social program or effort is unpopular. But fuck, you know creating them in the first place is insanely popular, with the uneducated.

So Clinton put Bush in a position where he was forced to expand this program? I thought you were all about personal and corporate responsibility. Doesn't it seem that when your side fucks up it's always someone else's fault? Bush realized that the housing market was the best thing about the economy during his presidency and there was no way that he was going to put the brakes on it.

I think the answer is that even though the Republicans controlled the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court from 2002-2006, Barney Frank prevented them from reigning-in F & F which caused all of the banks to go bankrupt (after they were forced to buy up crappy loans)?

Again, I think the Democrats have a hand in the mess as well, but this conspiracy theory idea that the whole thing is the Democrats fault is not correct.

[808BMW]

I don't consider myself white and I have damn good credit, with proof of income to boot. Where's my damn house?


All in all theres way too much shit to read here, I just don't want to be paying for all of this down the road. My money better be worth a damn in 10, 20, or 30 years.

[rwh11385]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a.6kKtOoO72k





So, you're saying that when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought 18% of the subprime loans, private lenders were forced to buy the other 82%?

The loans Fannie and Freddie bought had a default rate of 1.2%, but the ones the other institutions bought had a default rate of 5%. I'm not sure how you're arguing that Fannie and Freddie are responsible for all of this. I'm not saying that F & F are not to blame for some of the problem, but how can you say the private banks didn't cause a large part of this credit problem?



So Clinton put Bush in a position where he was forced to expand this program? I thought you were all about personal and corporate responsibility. Doesn't it seem that when your side fucks up it's always someone else's fault? Bush realized that the housing market was the best thing about the economy during his presidency and there was no way that he was going to put the brakes on it.

I think the answer is that even though the Republicans controlled the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court from 2002-2006, Barney Frank prevented them from reigning-in F & F which caused all of the banks to go bankrupt (after they were forced to buy up crappy loans)?

Again, I think the Democrats have a hand in the mess as well, but this conspiracy theory idea that the whole thing is the Democrats fault is not correct.

In July [1999], the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

Bush realized that the housing market was the best thing about the economy during his presidency and there was no way that he was going to put the brakes on it.

Housing market caused by government interaction and produced the housing bubble. Of course Bush didn't want to sink the ship that was riding high but that bad call created a bigger capsize later.

If Bush was responsible, and didn't care about pissing people off, he would have told the subprime borrowers to fly off and get better credit, but he didn't. Sure, builders and all would be pissed as fuck... but they don't care how royally screwed they would be in the future [of 2008]. Constituents are stupid.

[uofom3]

Just wait until people start defaulting on credit cards - will make the housing/lending debacle look like a small blip in the action.

[LEANE30]

...gas dropped at the pump to 2.99 where i'm at this morning. i'm sure it's goin lower too. the lower it goes the greater the upswing of the economy... as long as everyone adjusts their prices as readily as tehy eagerly did as gas was climbing. - longshot? maybe.