114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 12:47 pm
@genoves,
The Dems took over congress in 2007, not 2006. Moreover, they were essentially powerless to initiate anything because they lacked sufficient votes to override vetoes or filibusters.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 12:59 pm
@Advocate,
Here's another interesting article about the current bank/cash crisis:

Quote:
McCain guru linked to subprime crisis
By: Lisa Lerer
March 30, 2008 02:54 PM EST

The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm.

Later, he became a major player in its government affairs operation. According to federal lobbying disclosure records, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006.

During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

For his work, Gramm and two other lobbyists collected $750,000 in fees from UBS’s American subsidiary. In the past year, UBS has written down more than $18 billion in exposure to subprime loans and other risky securities and is considering cutting as many as 8,000 jobs.

Gramm did not respond to an e-mail and was unavailable for comment, according to a UBS spokesman. The bank has no official position on the subprime crisis, the spokesman said, but is a member of the Financial Services Roundtable and other industry groups that are actively lobbying Congress on the issue.

Now, some housing experts and economists see Gramm’s thinking in the recent housing proposal from McCain, the Republican Party’s presumed presidential nominee. Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he’d consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration.

McCain delivered an economic speech Tuesday that had Gramm's input, but it was written by domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

“Sen. Gramm was one of dozens of folks whom Sen. McCain has consulted on the housing issue, including Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman from eBay," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers. "They've been friends for years, and he values Sen. Gramm's advice."

In the speech, McCain rejected the type of aggressive government intervention in the economic meltdown that has been embraced by his Democratic opponents " and even some Bush advisers.

“I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,” McCain said. “Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.”

McCain’s campaign later clarified that he would support programs for “deserving” homeowners and reforms that would improve transparency and accountability in capital markets.

Andrew Jakabovics, a housing expert at the liberal Center for American Progress, said McCain’s interpretation of the crisis puts little blame on investment banks for their role in packaging the subprime loans into dangerously complex and ultimately hard-to-value financial instruments.

“I’d characterize this as the deux ex machina theory of financial products,” Jakabovics said. “He views this as a market problem that manifests at the local level as housing, meaning he’s more likely to argue in favor of these guys when they argue for deregulation.”

Wall Street firms are increasingly under scrutiny for contributing to the economic downturn by packaging and selling risky mortgage securities. When the home loans tied to the mortgages defaulted, investors and the banks lost billions, contributing to a widespread credit crunch.

“I think [McCain’s] attitude is the market can basically handle this and government doesn’t need to be heavily involved,” said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poor’s.

McCain and Gramm have a long political history. The two became close when they worked together as senators to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 1993 health care plan, holding meetings at hospitals and clinics across the country.

In 1996, McCain was national chairman of Gramm's unsuccessful presidential bid.

In 2000, the duo had a rare parting when Gramm backed his home-state governor, George W. Bush, for president instead of McCain. But they’ve reunited in this presidential race.

Gramm stood by his former Senate colleague in his worst days last summer when his campaign went broke and his candidacy was all but written off by political observers.

Gramm, who had joined the campaign in March as a domestic policy adviser, was among those who helped cut staff and shrink the budgets. He traveled with McCain in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and stumped for him in Georgia.

Staff writer Victoria McGrane contributed to this story.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:19 pm
@Advocate,
Really? Do you mean they could not persuade birdbrain Olympia Snow and the moronic Susan Collins to vote with them. I am looking up their votes now. I am sure that theyvoted with the Democrats dozens of times. They have INTEGRITY. Don't you know that? Ask them. They would not have stood by to watch the US financial system go into the toilet because of partisanship.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:25 pm
@genoves,
Really? Did you "read" the article above yours?
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here is an even better and more truthful article about the sub-prime crisis.






October 7, 2008 7:00 AM

Planting Seeds of Disaster
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.

By Stanley Kurtz

‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness.

Militant ACORN
At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis.
I’ve already told the story of Obama’s close ties to ACORN leader Madeline Talbott, who personally led Chicago ACORN’s campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers. Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards " and to fill ACORN’s coffers to finance “counseling” operations like the one touted in that Sun-Times article. This much we’ve known. Yet these local, CRA-based pressure-campaigns fit into a broader, more disturbing, and still under-appreciated national picture. Far more than we’ve recognized, ACORN’s local, CRA-enabled pressure tactics served to entangle the financial system as a whole in the subprime mess. ACORN was no side-show. On the contrary, using CRA and ties to sympathetic congressional Democrats, ACORN succeeded in drawing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the very policies that led to the current disaster.

In one of the first book-length scholarly studies of ACORN, Organizing Urban America, Rutgers University political scientist Heidi Swarts describes this group, so dear to Barack Obama, as “oppositional outlaws.” Swarts, a strong supporter of ACORN, has no qualms about stating that its members think of themselves as “militants unafraid to confront the powers that be.” “This identity as a uniquely militant organization,” says Swarts, “is reinforced by contentious action.” ACORN protesters will break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, or pour protesters into bank lobbies to scare away customers, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers. According to Swarts, long-term ACORN organizers “tend to see the organization as a solitary vanguard of principled leftists...the only truly radical community organization.”

ACORN’s Inside Strategy
Yet ACORN’s entirely deserved reputation for militance is balanced by its less-well-known “inside strategy.” ACORN has long employed Washington-based lobbyists who understand very well how the legislative game is played. ACORN’s national lobbyists may encourage and benefit from the militant tactics of their base, but in the halls of congress they play the game with smooth sophistication. The untold story of ACORN’s central role in the financial meltdown is about the one-two punch to the banking system administered by this outside/inside strategy.

Critics of the notion that CRA had a major impact on the subprime crisis ask how a law passed in 1977 could have caused a crisis in 2008? The answer has a lot to do with ACORN " and the critical years of 1990-1995. While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky.

At first, ACORN’s anti-bank actions were relatively few in number. However, under a provision of the 1989 savings and loan bailout pushed by liberal Democratic legislators, like Massachusetts Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, lenders were required to compile public records of mortgage applicants by race, gender, and income. Although the statistics produced by these studies were presented in highly misleading ways, groups like ACORN were able to use them to embarrass banks into lowering credit standards. At the same time, a wave of banking mergers in the early 1990's provided an opening for ACORN to use CRA to force lending changes. Any merger could be blocked under CRA, and once ACORN began systematically filing protests over minority lending, a formerly toothless set of regulations began to bite.


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:28 pm
@genoves,
genoves, More truthful? Please explain how before I read what you posted. Also how ACORN relates to the current cash crisis.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:29 pm
@genoves,
Even with them, they still lacked sufficient votes. Didn't you hear about the big effort to elect more Dem senators during the just-ended election in order to preclude filibusters?
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Read the paragraph carefully, Cicerone. If you can understand more than two sentences at a time, it says that Acorn was able under the legislation placed by left wing Democrats, to embarrass the banks not to scrutinize the loan requests made by insolvent scum-bags. If you can't figure out how that led to the current crisis, I will try to explain it to you. If you wish, I will not give you more than two sentences at a time. I wouldn't want to overtax your mental facilities.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:36 pm
@genoves,
genoves, You are the one lacking any comprehension. This is my previous post which is concise and clear to "any" reader except you!

Quote:
genoves, More truthful? Please explain how before I read what you posted. Also how ACORN relates to the current cash crisis.


Please answer my question how your article is "more truthful?"
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It is up to you, Cicerone, to show why the article is not more truthful. Do you doubt any of the assertions made in the article? If so, give evidence that the writer is mistaken.

You do know who ACORN is, do you not?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:43 pm
@genoves,
No, you made the claim. You really don't understand logic do you?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:45 pm
@genoves,
The Stanley Kurtz article is from The National Review -- so we're suppose to believe that any media that leans left consistently reports untruths while those leaning right are absolutely truthful backed up by empirical facts? Not.

Pox is still so busy on their recount of the last election, they don't have time to check their facts.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 01:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If I say "the world is flat," it's a claim I must prove through evidence that is objective. Your opinions are worthless garbage.

genove, You are close to meeting my very short "Ignore" list.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:00 pm
So the banks (specifically what banks?) we're "embarrassed" into making loans? Laughing Laughing That's a real corker.

It couldn't have been the there are ignorant and also greedy loan officers, given the go-ahead by higher up ignorant, greedy bank officers, to approve loans submitted by greedy, unethical real estates salesmen (I've know about that for years in Orange County clear back to the 80's) who write up bogus credit applications to make a sale. Caveat emptor has to work with banks as well as the consuming public.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It is apparent, Cicerone, that you know very little about the need for evidence and documentation and the difference between self-evident statements and statements that require back up.

Try Mortimer Adler's chapter on "The Pursuit of Truth" in his"Six Great Ideas", especially the section on Self-evident and non self-evident statements.


genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:13 pm
@Lightwizard,
Of course, there were ignorant and greedy loan officers. There are many greedy and ignorant people in every profession and trade but do I really have to explain to you that NO bank, NO savings and loan, NO agent, NO real estate agent could possibly want to be branded with the mark of CAIN.

In the USA at present, you can be called a son of a b...., a bas....., an ignorant fool, a bird brain, but you must avoid the mark of CAIN. You cannot and must not ever be called a racist. That will ruin your livelihood, your relationships with the rest of the world and your standing in society.

You must be very naive if you do not think that thousands of loan companies and agents made loans under the threat of being labeled!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:23 pm
@genoves,
genoves, You seem to lack the ability to differentiate between facts and opinion.

A question for you: which school or college did you graduate from? What was your primary major or field of study?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:34 pm
@genoves,
Show me now what banks have been marked now that they are turning down loans? Can you come up with one example? Personal names, bank names, anything?

Good luck
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:39 pm
@Lightwizard,
There are no banks which have been marked for turning down loans. Why?

Because the banks fear financial failure. Any bank that would be so labeled would certainly reply that they would be most willing to loan money to people who do not have a sufficient down payment or financial back up, IF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD GIVE THEM FUNDS TO INSURE THEM IF THE LOANS TURNED OUT BADLY.

There will be no such largesse forthcoming to banks on that basis
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 02:43 pm
@genoves,
You're just full of contradictions, aren't you. You should be a politicians, or perhaps a lobbyist.

I was assuming you were shouting out a Biblical reference with CAIN, or is that an acronym. I Googled it and found a lot of Cain and Able.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/20/2025 at 01:44:52