we can blame him for socializing their losses onto us, most definitely. Proof that the system is not free market, or those banks would have died, as deserved.
The Bush admin brought it up a number of times during his two terms. The Dems said all was fine. And housing for all?....isn't that a Dem stronghold? Dem DNA is all over and thru that fatherless child.
Would a socialized, nationalization, been better, if on a not for profit basis? In any case I agree with you that truer forms of capitalism would not conceive or have any mechanism for a bailout for any firms failing to compete regardless of market conditions at any given time.
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2...tgage-scandal/ Affordable housing is liberal code word for “giving risky people loans” while shouting ‘discrimination and racism.’ Forcing banks to meet quotas by giving unqualified borrowers subprime loans was an idea of Andrew Cuomo, who ran HUD under Bill Clinton. Look at where this ideology got us. Investors.com reports: Subprime Scandal: Andrew Cuomo is running for governor of a state whose economy he helped sink when he ran the agency regulating Fannie and Freddie’s “affordable housing” mission. The Democratic candidate’s role in the subprime mortgage scandal has not come out in New York’s gubernatorial debates or in the media. But he’s a chief reason Fannie and Freddie invested so heavily in the subprime loans still plaguing the mortgage giants and the overall economy. As HUD secretary from 1997 to 2001, Cuomo pushed government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie to buy more home loans to low-income borrowers with impaired credit, in an attempt to end what he thought was lending discrimination against minorities. By 1999, they had committed $1 trillion in such high-risk loans. But Cuomo still was not happy. So in 2000, he hiked their affordable-housing quota to 50%. That meant Fannie and Freddie had to devote fully half their mortgage financing to “underserved” borrowers with unproven or damaged credit. To help them meet that drastic new goal, Cuomo pressured them to relax their lending criteria and invest in subprime loans. He also authorized them to buy subprime securities. This isn’t ancient history. The quota Cuomo set in 2000 remained in force through 2004 and beyond. Four years after he required Fannie and Freddie to commit half their lending to support affordable housing, they together commanded almost half the subprime securities market. Credit quality suffered while risk soared. By 2005, most of the loans they’d bought had down payments of 3% or less. Many had no down payment at all. By 2008, Fannie and Freddie had drowned in a toxic soup of bad subprime paper. Relevance to New York voters? Like the rest of taxpayers, they are on the hook for an estimated $1 trillion in losses in what could end up being the mother of all bailouts. Meanwhile, related foreclosures are still rattling Wall Street. Subprime lender Countrywide Financial was Fannie’s biggest customer, and now it’s Bank of America’s biggest headache. BofA can’t finalize foreclosures and liquidate the toxic debt it inherited from Countrywide until it untangles the chain of title on the subprime mortgages its subsidiary originated and sold to Fannie. Some think Bank of America was forced to buy CountryWide. Remember, Chris Dodd received sweetheart deals from CountryWide and just happens to be the one who wrote the financial reform bill that conveniently left out regulating Freddie and Fannie. Ex-Fannie chief credit officer Ed Pinto blames Cuomo for the mess. He says he and other HUD officials “should have known the risks were large,” adding that “Cuomo was pushing mortgage bankers to make loans and basically saying you have to offer a loan to everybody.” Why? Because like Bill Clinton, whose housing policies he was following, Cuomo championed the faulty notion that “racist” bankers erected barriers to minority homebuyers, creating a “mortgage gap.” And he was hellbent on closing it.
U.S. to Push Banks on Credit in Poor Areas December 09, 1993|ROBERT A. ROSENBLATT and CHRIS KRAUL | TIMES STAFF WRITERS WASHINGTON — The Clinton Administration, hoping to generate billions of dollars in new loans for small businesses and residents in poor and minority neighborhoods, on Wednesday unveiled proposed new rules requiring banks and thrifts to aggressively seek new customers in all parts of their communities. Federal regulators will now be much tougher in demanding that financial institutions make credit available to the poor as well as the affluent, said Comptroller of the Currency Eugene A. Ludwig, whose recent travels have taken him from South-Central Los Angeles to a reservation in North Carolina to hear complaints about the lack of credit in low-income areas. Ludwig told a White House news conference that the proposals "will channel billions of dollars a year in new credit into America's distressed communities, while at the same time reducing unnecessary burdens on the banks." The proposed rules do not need congressional approval and are likely to become effective next spring following a period of public comment. Bankers generally greeted the proposals with restraint while community groups were more enthusiastic. The rules would make enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act much more rigorous. The CRA requires that lenders be sensitive to community needs, but it has been ignored for most of its 15-year history, with banks getting a satisfactory rating for submitting a marketing plan even if it produced hardly any loans. Regulators said they will begin evaluating banks and thrifts according to three tests: * Lending: Loans should be granted to small businesses, individuals and small, family-owned farms. If a bank has 10% of the Los Angeles market, for example, it should have a roughly comparable share in the city's poor neighborhoods as well. However, there are no specific tests. "We will not use formulas or quotas or credit allocation," Ludwig said. "It doesn't work." * Service: Branches should be "accessible to low- and moderate-income areas," and there should be services, such as low-cost checking, to promote credit availability, according to a statement of goals prepared by Ludwig's office. * Investment: Banks should invest in organizations or programs "that foster community development, small and minority-owned business development, or affordable housing lending," the comptroller's office said. A bank, for example, might join with a local church to find borrowers and buyers for a new housing development. Not every financial lender must meet all three tests, regulators said. A savings and loan specializing in home mortgages would not be expected to make business loans. But it might join a cooperative effort by other lenders to help generate business loans for the neighborhood. The main impact of the new policies will fall on the bigger banks. Those with assets of less than $250 million, representing 75% of the industry but holding just 15% of total industry assets, will be given streamlined examinations under the CRA, something they had long sought. Only recently have regulators been using the CRA as a threat to reject mergers or new branch applications--and then only in unusual circumstances. Now, Ludwig said, the CRA will be a key part of every bank's regular examination. Under the current practice, each lender is given a CRA rating that, if unsatisfactory, makes it hard to receive approval to acquire another bank or open new branches. But, under the new proposals, federal regulators would be prepared to use cease-and-desist orders or impose stiff penalties to force lenders to change their behavior, he said. http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-09/news/mn-65506_1_community-banks
Any new fangled government program is not an answer to our dilemma of entitlement mentality in the US; why not simplify and use existing infrastructure to solve a simple problem.
My grand nephew Got a job 2 hours after he told me he wanted a job I called up the chief engineer where I had worked He said send the send him over we will something for him to do We can get him a license They will only make $22.00ph to start This does not mean that jobs are easy to get And you can find isolated incidents
Partisan politics doesn't get more absurd than this. GTHOH. And no, the early 80's recession was not worse than TGR. 2008-2009 saw (easily) the biggest economic contraction of our lifetimes, unless you're old enough to remember Hoover, you haven't experienced one worse
Letting the banks die in 2008 would have plunged us into a worldwide depression. A deep one. We narrowly avoided one as is.
Only $22 / hour? That's good money where I live. I assume you're being sarcastic referring to it as "only."
The bush tax cuts didnt expire, the top rate tax hike hasn't kicked in just yet. The employment participation rate hasn't been this low since women became fully employed. It continues to drop, the debt continues to rise, defecits are only going down because of tea party blocks of new obama free cash giveaways to corporate America the left is in love with. Are you in one of those states that legalized MJ?
their banks should have been seized, owners, operators and regulators jailed. the government was complicit in the crime, and continues to be. Glass-Steigal should be immediately restored.
No not sarcastic He will be a stationary engineer In a 4000 horsepower power plant The 22 ph Will start when he receives the second class engineers license I may have misstated how he is being paid now I think it's the only about 17 or 18 per hour He a assist and operating engineer Which they do not need In a few months he will receive his second class license which we New Jersey call red seal he really does not start to work until he receives that license If a inspector comes to the plant He had better not be doing anything without direct supervision of a license person my post was to point out that the post I was responding to meant nothing it only spoke of an isolated incident
My nephew graduated with a degree in engineering and went right to work for a subsidiary of ALCOA. I don't care how many Occupy Wall Street morons with a degree basket weaving or African studies are stuck at McDonalds. It's where they belong. But people with useful skills are finding jobs.
Oh really? Republicans around here have been blaming Obama for the millions of jobs lost in his first year in office. They have also repeatedly blamed him for the first $1T deficit he inherited on his first day in office. They even made some feeble attempts to pin the wars on Obama and naturally blasted him when he ended it in Iraq. (Micheal Steele's famous video that ultimately got him fired comes to mind). [quote[Then why do they make such fallacious claims about Bush and the deficits and give Clinton credit for the surplus?[/QUOTE] What fallacious claims about Bush? What fallacious claims about the deficit? The give Clinton credit for the surplus, because he managed to make it happen, and LEFT his presidency with it.
Finding jobs where Factories ? Without someone to help very few people of finding good jobs Do you think a good friend of mine will hire your nephew instead of my nephew
The top tax cut kicked in on January 1st of this year. The employment participation rate has been plummeting since 2000. A variety of factors are implicated such as the number of manufacturing jobs, unemployed becoming discouraged, and retirement of the Baby Boomers. It has been known for quite some time that the Boomer retirement wave would lower the ratio of workers to retired so it's not really a huge surprise but appears to be coupled with other factors. So I keep hearing from the right-wing about this labor force participation rate. How exactly is cutting over 600,000 jobs improving that? How will destroying the US Post Office help the numbers? Tea Party blocks? What did they block? They certainly didn't block the double digit increases for the Pentagon. They were two busy attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act and banning abortion to do anything actually useful. In fact, the Tea Partiers merely want to continue the policies that have led to this lopsided recovery. We've had tax cuts for the past decade. Government revenue as a percentage of the GDP is way down and corporations simply aren't sharing the burden. So naturally, the right-wing answer is more of the same: Cut taxes for the uberwealthy and deregulate everything. Failed policies. Failed ideas. Let's hope they also fail in the next election.
The pain comes later when the money isn't reinvested. What was the employment participation rate in 2006 when the Dems took over? Now? What has happened to wages, up or down? Your failed housing policies caused that mess. You won't be able to argue otherwise, the money leads back to democrat programs. Without the cheap money, no housing bubble and bust. Even you must see that even if you won't admit it.
Business was definitely not "booming" in 2013. My honest assessment is that business was up, a little bit... While it was only up a tiny amount! the sentiment is at least changing a bit. People aren't as lost or desperate. I feel like at least what I see as consumer confidence is improving. I sure hope 2014 turns out to be a great one!
"Free Trade" has basically become an acronym for "Corporate Capitalism" and "Trickle-down" economics that has been promoted by the wealthy investors. It is based upon the false belief that investments create jobs but investments don't create jobs, consumption does. It also focuses on the wrong segment of the economy as small enterprise provides over 70% of all jobs in America while very large corporations only account for 5% of all of the jobs. Our entire tax code is based upon providing the lowest tax burden relative to income for the most wealthy while imposing the highest tax burden relative to income on the lowest paid workers in America. It's all about wealthy investors that are not really "consumers" (they have the lowest percentage of disposable income spent on consumption) while ignoring the workers of America that have the highest percentage of income spent on consumption. Since around 2001 or 2002 the "real income" (i.e. after inflation) of the workers has been in constant decline. Since 2008 it made a dramatic downturn and it even brokedown on racial where "whites" with middle incomes saw their real wages decline by 7% and blacks, with 40% less income to begin with, saw theirs drop by over 12%. That has resulted in a dramatic downturn in consumption which is the reason the ecomony is not recovering for most Americans. Only the very wealthy top 1% are seeing any financial benefit from over 50 months of economic expansion and that money is not being spent on consumption that creates jobs. The primary reason all of this money is going to the very wealthy is because they have the lowest tax burden relative to income in America. That is a fact that the "Tea Party" movement doesn't understand and yet it is a glaring problem. Average Americans are over-taxed because the wealthy are under-taxed.
With average income of the bottom 99% of Americans only going up by 0.4% since 2009 (the income of the top 1% went up over 34%) we're not going to see an increase in consumption because 99% of Americans don't have more income to spend on consumption (and the top 1% don't spend increases in income on consumption).
We need something like this for the Obameconomy. [video=youtube_share;uHPI3A369xM]http://youtu.be/uHPI3A369xM[/video]
