You might try reading the articles again, and please note the democrat mantra for conservatives, and that is:"they are all racist slime that would never help those less fortunate".

So you see, it could not be republicans pushing for deregulation, and please note, this deregulation spurred the Clinton years as the catapult of home ownership. I just like to point out the benefits of liberal thinking of pressuring the lending institutions to give loans to people of color as part of the criteria for lending, and lack of financial stability really doesn't matter, as part of the liberal plan for equality.

Here is the original article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=75717

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Too bad you do not have concrete evidence.

Seriously, every president since Nixon has contributed to this. It was particularly bad under Bush. The more closely aligned with lobbies and investment firms a president is, the more lax the rules become.

It was just a few years ago that mortgages were being handed out to every immigrant whether he or she could afford it or provide verifiable credit evidence. Meanwhile, the average US citizen could not get approved for a montage without overly high interest rates.

It was just a few years ago that those same companies were performing some fraudulent lending practices that led to today's collapse. This was not the work of liberals wearing paisley suits and tie-died briefcases...this was venture capitalists.

__________________
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
(To such heights of evil are men driven by religion)

Of course liberals caused the mortgage meltdown. Government assistance/guarantees for first time homebuyers is not a conservative concept.
The conservatives are also to blame. The complete lack of regulation of of the loan rating process isn't a liberal concept.

Both sides are responsible, but as always the partisans don't see half the story.

__________________
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"- Iowa state motto
-Proof-hunter

Ventura/ Paul '12

They didn't, for a minute, think those folks could afford those mortgages. The plan was for these predatory lending institutions to loan the money, then foreclose on the property and sell it at a profit. But when people stopped buying homes, these banks found themselves out a ton of money, sitting on foreclosed properties no one wanted to buy.

Thank goodness we're bailing these financial wolves out of the predicament their greed created... allowed by McCain's appetite for deregulation.

__________________
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."

--President-elect Barack Obama
November 5, 2008

Please read the following...

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/1...e-mac-in-2005/

If you don't like this link, you can research it yourself and find many other sources of information on this topic. McCain is not a "Bush puppet" like so many claim he is.

Deregulation does not mean the removal of government oversight. It just means the government should not force someone to run a business the way the government sees fit. It means the government should not have "strong armed" these major lending institutions to reduce their standards in writing home loans (and yes, this did start in the 90's, but the Bush administration is as much responsible for riding the wave and doing nothing about it). Proper government oversight would have been to allow these institutions to do business the way they wanted to do business, and to warn the public about their poor business practices. It also means holding them accountable for fudging the books and breaking the law.

We have to be willing to let people fail! What kind of message do we send when you, along with your bank can make a horrible decision, and the government bails you out! That is socialism... I don't know what Bush was thinking... other than a little CYA for ignoring the issue.

Bush? Nothing changed since Bush has been pres., more people bought houses that shouldn't have, the regulations were in play long before he came into the picture.

The bottom line, and my point being made, liberal equality thinking is what propagated this, because liberals are always looking for the politically correct answer to every problem. Illegal immigrants? Try again, the state of California, along with many others have insisted they get loans, go to college, and collect welfare, all on our dime, and that is not republican thinking, that is democrat thinking.

I am acknowledging the culpability of spreading the blame for where it ended up, but this would have never been started had the liberals not demanded and changed the rules so that everyone on the planet can live in a 2500 square foot home, and drive a Mercedes.

This is a rare time I will definitely agree with a democrat, deregulation of major industries always turns financially fatal. There needs to be strict and enforced guidelines, but yet retain a free and open market place.
http://www.dhonline.com/articles/200...03_defazio.txt

DeFazio said the trend to deregulate much of the American economy started under President Carter with natural gas.
_________________________________________________
Even Obama admits this deregulation was stupid, and the fact is, it never works out.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7960/

I also think they should hold accountable every CEO and the board members personal assets, and I mean all their assets, to the lending institutions they run, and manage, I guarantee you, they would not be so willing to gamble with our money.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

You're assuming that the ONLY cause of this problem was that people took loans they couldn't pay off. Look, the economy has "grown" significantly since Bush took office. Inflation has also grown faster during Bush's term than any since the Reagan administration (17% interest rates in 1982). With economic growth AND inflation growth, housing prices haven't been remarkably ridiculous in their increase, if normal growth rate + inflation is working. Though it was a mistake for contractors to build 5 bedroom, 3000 square foot homes by the thousands and expect people to be able to afford them. If businesses have been paying appropriate inflationary raises during this period, then citizens SHOULD have been able to pay for the housing increase.

The underlying problem that IS ABSOLUTELY the BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS FAULT and no one elses is the incredible shrinking dollar. If the dollar were the SAME value or better valued than 8 years ago with Clinton, then prices relative to global inflation would be very manageable. We wouldn't pay $4.00 for gas because our dollar would be MORE valuable than other international markets, and our dollar would go further (nearly $2.00 less during Clintons term).

Every dollar that your favorite King W has given to companies like Halliburton for defense, that has then been shipped overseas to buy things like steel, weapons, and other, has devalued the US dollar relative to the global economy. Because of Bush policy, Bush's war, and Bush's never ending spending (now 7 trillion dollars of EXTRA debt than before he came into office), the US dollar isn't even HALF the value it was before he came into office. We could brush these problems off of our shoulder if we had say, 4 trillion in debt, no war, and OTHER countries were still borrowing from us, because we had a monetary advantage. Now, and it will only get worse, other countries can take huge advantage of us in imports/exports and continue to drive our prices up and our dollar down. Its the same way Reagan beat the Soviets. Devalue their dollar and price them into deep depression. The difference is, that Bush is responsible for our OWN problem.

You have no concept of fiscal economy so please don't try and explain that these problems were in place before. They weren't real problems until Bush tanked our dollar.

No concept? My personal finances are not in the toilet, are yours? Please save your condescending BS for someone else. This nightmare of all fiscal responsibility lies at the hands of socialists trying to always subsidize those that have no concept of achievement. Instead of teaching them to fish, they just continue to hand fish out, and that is a guaranteed disaster every time. BTW, Clinton left office with a recession, but that is not what I am talking about. Our political leaders continue to enable those that don't help themselves, and that is the main theme for all liberal thinking.

There is nothing really difficult about this math, and it boils down to one basic economic rule, you can't spend more than you make. You can live in la la land until you leave this earth, but until our nation quits supporting everyone that sucks our system dry because they are too stupid and lazy to get off their azzes to better themselves, Obama will only make it worse.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Everyone with a brain knows that the first year of a POTUS Administration is the budget for the previous administration. They pass it and then it goes into effect the following year, so your inane comment about Reagan having high interest rates doesn't cut it. Then most of us brainiacs know that in the realm of economics it can take from 6 months to 18 months for things to change in the economy from government actions, taxes, spending,etc.. If you look at the Reagan tax cuts and the time in which it took for the economy to rebound from Carters folly, 6 months is the number of months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_Steagall_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

__________________
"The only title superior to President of the United States of America is Citizen."

Did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

First off much of the legislation to provide sub-prime of b-note were introduced by the republican congress in the 2001. They did as a way to increase the wealth and capital of banks. They thought that if banks were allowed to make risky loans and investments then they would end up in the winning side of those investments. Yes Clinton did weaken some parts of the mortgage underwriting but was because much of the underwriting was outdate. The Republican congress took it 3 steps further and deregulated many laon provision, underwriting, and approval.

The 3rd article doesn't even exist, so I don't know what you are talking unfortunately, please fix the link.

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king
- Nas