NY Times blames Bush for Mortgage Crisis...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ponycar17, Dec 23, 2008.

  1. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    Although I don't agree with Bush on every issue, the NY Times shows their true bias/ignorance in this story...

    From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/22/white-house-fires-times-housing-meltdown-story/

    Absolutely amazing that the NY Times, failing because of incompetence, would point the finger at Bush when their own glory goon Democrats are truly at the heart of this misguided philanthropic bull crap...

    Sad... :mad::mad::mad::mad:
  2. vytoland

    vytoland New Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    greed & stupidity = mortgage melt down, bail outs, high taxation, crooked politicians, lack of priorities:(

  3. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Central NJ
    I'm surprised it took them this long. We all know that for the next 4 years at least we will hear how everything is Bush's fault.
  4. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    Here's a pretty good assessment of what happened.


    Of course, the NY Times could never think so critically as to identify the root cause of a problem. News agencies like this identify the cause of problems in much the same way children do... By causality. If the child bumps his head on a rainy day he soon fears rainy days, instead of running outside in the rain. It's sad that these news agencies are so driven by their causes but I see no fix for them in sight until their income dries up due to reader backlash as reader refuse to buy the rag.

    Many say that the newspapers are failing due to the internet. The fact is that these news agencies also run websites that people obviously choose not to visit.
  5. stetson

    stetson New Member

    Sep 19, 2005
    I won't believe anything printed on this liberal rag!
  6. bountyh

    bountyh Former Guest

    Jun 10, 2008
    That is an overly simplistic analysis of the problem, but there is no question that not only Bush, but the republicans in general, base all of their reasoning on the belief that government is EVIl and that private business should be allowed to run without regulation.

    Ronald Reagan once said, to a mass of cheers from his faithful:

    "People think government can solve their problems....... but government IS THE PROBLEM."

    Ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of those spoken words from a man who spent millions to head the government first of California and then the USA, the point is that republicans seem bent on destroying the power of government regulators and unleashing the free will of mankind.

    And they have pushed deregulation and we have reaped the rewards...

    savings and loan collaps.

    energy deregulation led to Enron conspiring to starve power to the west coast gouging over $15 billion from us

    The economic crisis we now have is the inevitable outcome which will ALWAYS occur when the natural greed of the men who run this country is allowed to run unchecked. As to exactly whose fault it is? We can start with the men charged with monitoring them... and then move onto the people who either eliminated or reduced the people who provided such oversight.

    I hope to God we learn from this.
  7. bountyh

    bountyh Former Guest

    Jun 10, 2008
    But exactly what force on earth could put the fear of God into the crooks running wild over the last eight years when the watchword and marching orders was "DEREGULATE" and "Laissez Faire".

    Look at the big crook Madoff (as in "madeoff" with the money) who ran a pyramid scheme taking in $60 BILLION and nothing was done even though there were repeated complaints filed with the SEC. The head of the SEC is appontied by the president and serves at his pleasure.... and implements the party line.

    See no evil...... let them do whatever they want.

    Last edited: Dec 26, 2008
  8. Tom

    Tom Member

    Nov 18, 2004
    No regulation? Are you smoking something?

    Clinton tried to put bankers in jail for failing to provide loans to those who couldn't pay they back. That isn't regulation? Jamie Gorelick should go to jail for her part in this.
  9. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    Tom, that is essentially the problem. Banks would never have been so stupid as to provide loans to very risky consumers if not for the government intervention of 1995 which expanded the Community Reinvestment Act and required banks to lend to so-called 'red-lined' districts where resale value of homes was very low and typical residents were at a high risk to default. It also forced the banks to stop being as conservative with their lending requirements so the target group Clinton wanted to help could qualify for loans.

    Banks soon learned that lots of money could be made off of this government-introduced scheme. Banks bundled the small percentage of bad mortgages with a lot of good mortgages and resold those to domestic and foreign investors through mortgage-derived securities. As long as the net return on these securities was positive, investors were happy and banks could continue selling toxic debt in relatively safe large bundles. What happened though is that foreclosures started to creep up over the past 10 or so years to a point where home values could not continue to increase. Since home values are based on 'comparable values' and given that foreclosures sell for less on average (due to the banks' desire to sell the home quickly), the bottom fell out of the housing market. Home values had increased over the past 10+ years due to a steady increase in demand for homes and steadily decreasing lending requirements from the banks. Suddenly, consumers that had leveraged their whole home in mortgages and home equity lines were living in 'negative equity' land. They couldn't sell their homes and clear all of the mortgage debt if they needed to and consumers couldn't get homes appraised for the value needed to purchase them.

    You could also say that the situation got progressively worse as home values continued to disproportionately rise while income didn't keep up... In my opinion that compounded the problem much more as banks were still willing to give more and more expensive loans to people who definitely could not afford them now.

    Again I'll restate, banks would never have done this if not forced in 1995 to do so... It's the old saying, 'if you're given a lemon, start a lemonade stand...' Well, the banks were given road kill by the government and started a fine fur dealership.

    Republican leaders such as Bush and even John McCain tried to do something about this problem from 2000 'til the bottom fell out but were met with opposition. After all, when the action is perceived to be 'helping minorities', you better not buck the system and question it's validity lest you be labeled racist. :(
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2008
  10. Millwright

    Millwright Well-Known Member

    Jun 30, 2005
    My problem with having the government "mind the store" is who watches them ?

    The "mortage crisis" resulted from the "government doing good" - just as did the "black family crisis", the "welfare crisis", the "gas crisis of '73" - and a long, long list of others occurring in my lifetime. What it comes down to, eventually, is the only protection from shysters and con games we have is our own intelligence and suspicion. "Government Protection" ain't never, ever, gonna be a worthwhile substitute for intelligence and caution.

    Trusted all your dough to one individual because his track record's so much better than other's ? You ought to be asking "why ?", instead of planning how you'll spend the excess...... >MW
  11. dge479

    dge479 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Haskell NJ
    I love how whenever something goes bad, it was Bush's fault, No blam at all to those in charge of Ethics commitees,banking commitees,finance commitees etc.
    Gonna get alot worse with this crap
  12. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    That is EXACTLY right MW!!! That's a concept I can't get through to a liberal coworker of mine. He thinks in terms of Utopian ideals. He often says, "well if I were King of the world," and then elaborates on some well-meaning ideal he'd try to instate. The problem is that he's thinking about what SHOULD happen versus what WILL happen. This guy and those like him couldn't survive a semester of basic Micro or Macro Economics because he can't accept basic assumptions that have to be made to solve larger problems. Everything is in terms of what should be... It's sad. :(

    Often times, legislating good deeds just does more harm to the group we're trying to protect. Look at raising the minimum wage as a good example. When we raise the minimum wage, we drive up the cost of all goods as retailers have to pay their cashiers and stockers more, and then the wage increase ripples throughout other similar businesses and often results in higher pay for those just slightly above the new minimum wage just to keep the businesses' job marketing competitive. In the end, the people we intended to help are only ahead of the curve for maybe a year until price and wage points stabilize and then they're back where they started as far as buying power is concerned. Meanwhile, we've devastated the homeless, disabled, those on Social Security and the Retired as they are not seeing a step increase in income but are still forced to purchase products at a higher price than before the 'help' came along. :rolleyes:

    This is where your comment about intelligence comes in... The simple problem (as my simple mind sees it) is that there is no longer public education taught about basic economics and finances (if there ever really was?). To get that knowledge, one has to seek it out through college or personal studies. No one knows enough to think critically about these issues and so we're at the mercy of vote-buying politicians who could care less if their constituency is really helped. Heck, it's easier for the politician if the public is poor and relatively ignorant of policy impacts. It's a sad state we're in now...

    This is another reason I say that Democrats aren't really as supportive of education as they'd have voters believe. If we were on average more educated, we'd vote the whole lot out... :D;)

  13. We've sunk so low, I'm afraid your last statement may be "Utopian"...:(
  14. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    Probably so Bruce...
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Discussion Doctors Visit Waiting Times,Hey My Time Is Valuable To! Mar 12, 2016
General Discussion A Sign Of The Times? Dec 23, 2015
General Discussion Wow, sometimes I'm in the right place at the right time... Aug 30, 2015
General Discussion Sometimes you gotta wonder if FAQs are real questions or not Jun 25, 2015
General Discussion The Greatest Movie of All Times Mar 24, 2015