evince
Truthmatters
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081201/meltdown_ignored_warnings.html
Pretty much going to be a big part of his legacy.
Pretty much going to be a big part of his legacy.
Bush admin were warned about sub prime and failed to act
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
See my other thread, bush failed to take any action when he was warned. He listened to WAMU and such other junk mortgage dealers instead of logic.
Greed ruled the Republican party as always in recent years.
True, and five years later when the spoiled fruits of that deregulation were becoming obvious, the bush administration, under pressure from the very same banking ceo's that our tax dollars are being funnelled to in big fat buckets today, refused to act.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
True. Good thing Senator Dodd took action. As Chairman of the Senate Banking committee, he took prompt action and secured a nice sweetheart loan for himself.
You think that I don't understand that the free market religion is a bipartisan sickness, but in fact I do.
It's why I'm considered a "far left nut", because I reject these harmful economic policies. Or, a "socialist".
You're such a sad case.
I'm not going to defend anyone on this mess, on either side, but leadership comes from the top. To me, this is just another example of the complete LACK of leadership coming from a guy who you actually pulled a lever for...
Twice! You left that part out.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The only thing 'sad' is the inability of idiots like you to detect sarcasm. It really makes it quite boring to have to explain sarcasm to you over and over and over again.
uscitizen
Villified User
LOL, that will not "sell" SF.
evince
Truthmatters
In 2005, faced with ominous signs the housing market was in jeopardy, bank regulators proposed new guidelines for banks writing risky loans. Today, in the midst of the worst housing recession in a generation, the proposal reads like a list of what-ifs:
--Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.
--Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.
--Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn't be crippling.
--Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.
--Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.
Those proposals all were stripped from the final rules. None required congressional approval or the president's signature.
"In hindsight, it was spot on," said Jeffrey Brown, a former top official at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, one of the first agencies to raise concerns about risky lending.
Federal regulators were especially concerned about mortgages known as "option ARMs," which allow borrowers to make payments so low that mortgage debt actually increases every month. But banking executives accused the government of overreacting.
No it was orchastrated by Phil Gramm
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
The final language was written by Rueben and the bill was signed by Clinton, it's in both NY Papers, Wikipedia and about 500,000 other sources according to google, but yeah Phil Gramm was also heavily involved. To me the problem wasn't deregulation anyway it was risk distortion by low rates and GSE's.
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
It's easy to talk about Bush being a failure as he was. I would imagine it's been alot harder to defend liberal policy for the Dems the past 28 years as Republicans have been the dominate party since then and only a true moron would suggest the 50-70's period as superior to the 80's-2008.
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
The problem was too low Federal Funds interest rates and GSE's, not deregulation, way more good has came from the act than bad, if the Federal Reserve opened the discount window to the investment firms when the law was passed they could regulate the leverage and we wouldn't have had nearly the size of this problem. There is a reason NO ECONOMIST thinks we need to go back to the old law.
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."
Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton