Covering Up The Democrat Role In Financial Crisis
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Plausible, but I would put as much stock into an IBD report down-casting Democrats as I do an MSNBC report about all conservative evils.
Democrats were complicit
in the overall collapse in my opinion not because of the baloney dealing with the whole "it was poor people getting home loans" malarkey, but the late 90s saw the Dems agree to repeal Glass-Steagall and just overall from that time and on did little to nothing to address the growing credit swaps and other things the banks were allowed to get away with.
IOW, both sides were on the same side: the banks side. Little to no opposition until it was too late and the seeds for the collapse were already sewn.
in the overall collapse in my opinion not because of the baloney dealing with the whole "it was poor people getting home loans" malarkey, but the late 90s saw the Dems agree to repeal Glass-Steagall and just overall from that time and on did little to nothing to address the growing credit swaps and other things the banks were allowed to get away with.
IOW, both sides were on the same side: the banks side. Little to no opposition until it was too late and the seeds for the collapse were already sewn.
Re: Democrats were complicit
This culture of blame one side or the other is ridiculous, but it's also part of what makes the government work: change is slow and difficult in most circumstances, as it should be...
This post was edited on 1/23 12:30 PM by gr8indoorsman
Of course it can. It's partly the Democrats desire to make everyone equal in terms of worth/income to the maximum practical extent encourages home ownership for all, when practically speaking there are people who should never take on the responsibility of home ownership and that level of debt. It's partly the Republicans de-regulating everything which allowed sub-prime lenders to become easy targets for banks and lenders.
This culture of blame one side or the other is ridiculous, but it's also part of what makes the government work: change is slow and difficult in most circumstances, as it should be...
This post was edited on 1/23 12:30 PM by gr8indoorsman
I'm not sure your subject line is entirely accurate
The article you linked to suggests that the Democrats covered up the federal government's, particularly HUD, alleged role in causing the financial crisis. That's not the same thing as covering up some alleged role the Democrats had in causing the crisis. In order to make that claim one would have to not only show that federal agencies, particularly HUD were a major contributing factor in causing the crisis, but also that it was the Democrats that were the only driving force behind HUD's actions. It seems to me that what the article points to is that the Democrats steered the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to placing all of the blame on Wall Street, corporate greed, deregulation, etc., rather than placing any blame on federal agencies such as HUD. Why? Not to cover-up that the Democrats were somehow more blameworthy than the Republicans with respect to what caused the crisis, but rather to support their narrative that more governmental controls, etc. were needed.
On the other hand, I suppose it's not unreasonable to suggest that, if the Democrats indeed coerced the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to place blame solely on Wall Street, deregulation, etc., they did so in order to convince people that it was Republican policies, principles, etc. that were the root cause. Trouble is, the Democrats were willing participants in everything, including deregulation--just like HUD was operating under a Republican administration for the 7 years leading up to the crisis.
In my opinion, there is plenty of blame to go around--both parties, as well as things inside and outside of the federal government.
The article you linked to suggests that the Democrats covered up the federal government's, particularly HUD, alleged role in causing the financial crisis. That's not the same thing as covering up some alleged role the Democrats had in causing the crisis. In order to make that claim one would have to not only show that federal agencies, particularly HUD were a major contributing factor in causing the crisis, but also that it was the Democrats that were the only driving force behind HUD's actions. It seems to me that what the article points to is that the Democrats steered the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to placing all of the blame on Wall Street, corporate greed, deregulation, etc., rather than placing any blame on federal agencies such as HUD. Why? Not to cover-up that the Democrats were somehow more blameworthy than the Republicans with respect to what caused the crisis, but rather to support their narrative that more governmental controls, etc. were needed.
On the other hand, I suppose it's not unreasonable to suggest that, if the Democrats indeed coerced the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to place blame solely on Wall Street, deregulation, etc., they did so in order to convince people that it was Republican policies, principles, etc. that were the root cause. Trouble is, the Democrats were willing participants in everything, including deregulation--just like HUD was operating under a Republican administration for the 7 years leading up to the crisis.
In my opinion, there is plenty of blame to go around--both parties, as well as things inside and outside of the federal government.
Re: Democrats were complicit
This we can agree on. The American taxpayer gets screwed, but the banks are made whole for the most part and many of them come out of the debacle in better shape than before it.
I do think the recent government actions to once again allow people to buy homes for 3.5% down is foolish. It's as if the country learned next to nothing from the housing debacle.
This we can agree on. The American taxpayer gets screwed, but the banks are made whole for the most part and many of them come out of the debacle in better shape than before it.
I do think the recent government actions to once again allow people to buy homes for 3.5% down is foolish. It's as if the country learned next to nothing from the housing debacle.
Re: Democrats were complicit
I think that FHA loans were available at 3% down before and after the financial crisis, only going to 3.5% in 2009. Of course FHA loans require the borrower to purchase PMI, and they have pretty low limits on the total loan amount (which vary by county). Also, there are credit score requirements to qualify for 3.5%.
Fannie and Freddie recently announced that they would go to 3% this year, again with credit score limitations. But Fannie was previously offering 3% DP loans up until 2013 (I think). Also, private lenders offer 3% DP loans as well, albeit with a little higher credit score requirements than FHA or Fannie/Freddie.
But I tend to agree with you that 3 or 3.5% DP loans are foolish and dangerous--particularly when lenders and federal agencies are still bundling up those loans and selling them to investors. Home ownership is great and should be encouraged and supported. But come up with at least 10% as proof that you have the ability to handle your finances.
I think that FHA loans were available at 3% down before and after the financial crisis, only going to 3.5% in 2009. Of course FHA loans require the borrower to purchase PMI, and they have pretty low limits on the total loan amount (which vary by county). Also, there are credit score requirements to qualify for 3.5%.
Fannie and Freddie recently announced that they would go to 3% this year, again with credit score limitations. But Fannie was previously offering 3% DP loans up until 2013 (I think). Also, private lenders offer 3% DP loans as well, albeit with a little higher credit score requirements than FHA or Fannie/Freddie.
But I tend to agree with you that 3 or 3.5% DP loans are foolish and dangerous--particularly when lenders and federal agencies are still bundling up those loans and selling them to investors. Home ownership is great and should be encouraged and supported. But come up with at least 10% as proof that you have the ability to handle your finances.
Re: Democrats were complicit
Don't know if you saw this, but the PMI % rates for FHA loans were lowered from 1.35% of the loan's value to 0.85% earlier this month.
Don't know if you saw this, but the PMI % rates for FHA loans were lowered from 1.35% of the loan's value to 0.85% earlier this month.
I don't have a problem
with the notion that Democrats sat by and did nothing OR in many cases actively voted for deregulation and thus they share a not insignificant portion of the blame.
I will caveat that by saying, of the two parties, I think the banks prefer one over the other, but again, unfortunately from my POV, it's more just a matter of degree (i.e. Reps will kowtow to them a little bit more) then of anything else.
Part of the problem is campaign finance and how lobbying works.
with the notion that Democrats sat by and did nothing OR in many cases actively voted for deregulation and thus they share a not insignificant portion of the blame.
I will caveat that by saying, of the two parties, I think the banks prefer one over the other, but again, unfortunately from my POV, it's more just a matter of degree (i.e. Reps will kowtow to them a little bit more) then of anything else.
Part of the problem is campaign finance and how lobbying works.
OBL
and AQ weren't going to care about how hard we hit them. They literally want to die, hopefully taking some of us with them.
So, you are right, it's silly to assert that somehow if we'd only been tougher, we'd have scared AQ out of 9/11, of course we wouldn't have.
You can't scare someone who wants to die and take out as many of you as possible. They don't care about leaving their families, and they don't care about their lives, so threats are pretty meaningless in that scenario.
The only solution would have been to have an effective plan in place to stop them...and even that's not fool proof. Sooner or later, no matter how much you try to stop, someone, unfortunately, will have a lucky day. I hope not, but being 100% all of the time is almost humanly impossible...and they only need to get lucky once.
And our open society limits the steps we can take.
and AQ weren't going to care about how hard we hit them. They literally want to die, hopefully taking some of us with them.
So, you are right, it's silly to assert that somehow if we'd only been tougher, we'd have scared AQ out of 9/11, of course we wouldn't have.
You can't scare someone who wants to die and take out as many of you as possible. They don't care about leaving their families, and they don't care about their lives, so threats are pretty meaningless in that scenario.
The only solution would have been to have an effective plan in place to stop them...and even that's not fool proof. Sooner or later, no matter how much you try to stop, someone, unfortunately, will have a lucky day. I hope not, but being 100% all of the time is almost humanly impossible...and they only need to get lucky once.
And our open society limits the steps we can take.
Re: Democrats were complicit
I'll have to do more digging. I know that the rates were lower than 1.35% for FHA loans before the crisis, just not sure how much.
It's interesting to me that two of the first actions the new FHFA Director, Mel Watt, made were to increase access to 3.5% down loans and to cut the PMI rate. He took over in his new position in early to mid December.
I'll have to do more digging. I know that the rates were lower than 1.35% for FHA loans before the crisis, just not sure how much.
It's interesting to me that two of the first actions the new FHFA Director, Mel Watt, made were to increase access to 3.5% down loans and to cut the PMI rate. He took over in his new position in early to mid December.
Re: OBL
Not true. Unfortunately, there's no open source way that I can really discuss it any further, but suffice it to say AQ and OBL very much considered and cared about what the US retaliation would be for something on the scale of 9/11, and were convinced it would be significantly less than it was and specifically cited the response to Cole as central to their hypothesis. They (the educated "ruling elite" of AQ) do not want to die. They want others to die on their behalf, and exploit those who are susceptible to their ideology and don't have anything worldly for which to live.
Re: I don't have a problem
Part of the problem? More like 99% of the problem... While I'd never accuse a politician of taking money directly, the fact is if someone's financing your campaign, you're on the take nearly as much as you would be if someone was handing you an envelope stuffed with $100s.
I don't buy
that AQ or some offshoot, wouldn't have tried something at sometime. OBL might have cared, but there are plenty of elements of AQ or AQ offshoots that wouldn't/don't.
I'm also not really going to consider what they cite in really any matter, because they are savvy enough to cite what they need to in order to stir us up.
that AQ or some offshoot, wouldn't have tried something at sometime. OBL might have cared, but there are plenty of elements of AQ or AQ offshoots that wouldn't/don't.
I'm also not really going to consider what they cite in really any matter, because they are savvy enough to cite what they need to in order to stir us up.
Re: I don't buy
I'm not talking about public statements here, and I don't disagree with you that AQ would've done something eventually. However, to say the previous responses to AQ attacks didn't factor in to their plans is completely false.
I'm not talking about public statements here, and I don't disagree with you that AQ would've done something eventually. However, to say the previous responses to AQ attacks didn't factor in to their plans is completely false.
Not surprising
that Nancy (you've got to pass the bill, before you find out what's in it) Pelosi would resort to underhanded activities. She's hardly a paragon of virtue and she's always been more interested in accumulating and keeping power, than she has in doing what's right, or best for the country.
that Nancy (you've got to pass the bill, before you find out what's in it) Pelosi would resort to underhanded activities. She's hardly a paragon of virtue and she's always been more interested in accumulating and keeping power, than she has in doing what's right, or best for the country.
Re: Democrats were complicit
This post was edited on 2/7 9:02 PM by threeeputtt
You nailed it. Most have no idea of when, why the Glass/Steagall Act was started and the consequences of what it opened up the next several years. I also agree both parties are at fault. I would take a slightly different spin on "poor people getting loans". Most people can figure out when they can't pay their bills or over extend. It is a lack of discipline/responsibility.
This post was edited on 2/7 9:02 PM by threeeputtt
Similar threads
