Under pressure from banking industry, U.S. government eased lending rules

 

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.

 

The administration's blind eye to the impending crisis is emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy. Its belief ironically has ushered in the most massive government intervention since the 1930s.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/

MSNBC has come to the conclusion that it's Bush's fault. Who would have thunk it!

MSNBC has come to the conclusion that it's Bush's fault. Who would have thunk it!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually, it's a reprint of an Associated Press story ... of course, they're part of the media consipracy, too.

 

Now, back to the regularly scheduled "attack the messenger" programming ...

I blame Bush and Congress. Congress has more "oversight committees" than you can shake a stick at. Yet, when something like this happens, it's always the fault of the administration. They all need to man up and take responsibility for this, rather than just say it is the fault of one person. 1 man overlooking something, I can see it. All 535 members of Congress missing something is unacceptable.

I blame Bush and Congress. Congress has more "oversight committees" than you can shake a stick at. Yet, when something like this happens, it's always the fault of the administration. They all need to man up and take responsibility for this, rather than just say it is the fault of one person. 1 man overlooking something, I can see it. All 535 members of Congress missing something is unacceptable.

 

The blame should be assigned (in this order):

 

• The individuals who accepted a loan they could not repay
  
• The banks who were willing to loan money to people who could not repay it
  
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who backed loans they knew (or should have known) were questionable.
  
• Congress who passed laws which encouraged (forced?) banks to loan money to persons of questionable resources, failed in their duties to perform proper oversight and resisted tighting of regulations by the administration(s)
  
• The Federal Reserve who lowered interest rates which made it economically advantageous (in the short run) to loan money.
  
• The regulators who were aware of the potential problem and instead doing the right thing caved to politcal pressure from Congress and the banking industry and allowed the risky practices to continue.
  

 

Of course it's much easier and politically advantageous to blame Bush.

Actually, it's a reprint of an Associated Press story ... of course, they're part of the media consipracy, too.

 

Now, back to the regularly scheduled "attack the messenger" programming ...

 

Ok. That makes a difference.

 

MSNBC, AP, Reuters, ABC, CBS, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, or Washington Post; it doesn't matter. IMHO, one of the outcomes of this past election season was the death of journalism as a true profession.

Plenty of blame to go around if your fair minded, if you're not you buy into MSNBC.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

I blame Bush and Congress. Congress has more "oversight committees" than you can shake a stick at. Yet, when something like this happens, it's always the fault of the administration. They all need to man up and take responsibility for this, rather than just say it is the fault of one person. 1 man overlooking something, I can see it. All 535 members of Congress missing something is unacceptable.

 

Wait a minute, it has to be Bush's fault. It's a shame that he didn't listen to Barney Franks and the other leaders in Congress who warned the administration of the poor practices of many of these lending institutions and how much trouble it could cause and .... oh wait a minute, .. Franks and his banking committee thought everything was in great shape and that the banks should be left alone. And since they were doing so well, they should also lend money to people who deserved it but couldn't afford to make the payments, especially with the variable interest rates and the increased payments. I was just a little confused there.

The blame should be assigned (in this order):

 

• The individuals who accepted a loan they could not repay
  
• The banks who were willing to loan money to people who could not repay it
  
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who backed loans they knew (or should have known) were questionable.
  
• Congress who passed laws which encouraged (forced?) banks to loan money to persons of questionable resources, failed in their duties to perform proper oversight and resisted tighting of regulations by the administration(s)
  
• The Federal Reserve who lowered interest rates which made it economically advantageous (in the short run) to loan money.
  
• The regulators who were aware of the potential problem and instead doing the right thing caved to politcal pressure from Congress and the banking industry and allowed the risky practices to continue.
  

 

Of course it's much easier and politically advantageous to blame Bush.

 

By George, I think he's got it! :thumb:

This is one crisis that I have been following with quite a bit of interest as of late. Instead of relying on the drivel put forth by msnbc (as referenced in the 1st post), I invite those of you who are actually interested in knowing what ACTUALLY has transpired over the years as it relates to what the Bush Administration has done to click on the following link and read it in its entirety.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

 

No, I'm not saying I agree with everything included in the linked story, but to say the Bush Administration ignored "clear warnings on lending rules" is so utterly laughable that I can't believe someone would actually be so naive as to believe such misinformation.

This is one crisis that I have been following with quite a bit of interest as of late. Instead of relying on the drivel put forth by msnbc (as referenced in the 1st post), I invite those of you who are actually interested in knowing what ACTUALLY has transpired over the years as it relates to what the Bush Administration has done to click on the following link and read it in its entirety.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

 

No, I'm not saying I agree with everything included in the linked story, but to say the Bush Administration ignored "clear warnings on lending rules" is so utterly laughable that I can't believe someone would actually be so naive as to believe such misinformation.

 

Thanks for providing facts, rather than mindless fodder. Even with this though, there will still be plenty who ignore these facts and continue to throw the blame on Bush. Those that choose to go that route have no hope of ever seeing past the hate.

Thanks for providing facts, rather than mindless fodder. Even with this though, there will still be plenty who ignore these facts and continue to throw the blame on Bush. Those that choose to go that route have no hope of ever seeing past the hate.

 

 

And, I'm not saying the Administration has zero blame, I'm just sick of all the unsubstantiated hyperbolic gibberish that keeps trying to point fingers ONLY at one person.

 

I always like to say "Misinformation is a lethal weapon when aimed at the uninformed".

Ok. That makes a difference.

 

MSNBC, AP, Reuters, ABC, CBS, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, or Washington Post; it doesn't matter. IMHO, one of the outcomes of this past election season was the death of journalism as a true profession.

OK, Mr. Hannity ...

 

Seriously, what wasn't reported during the campaign?

Weren't the republicans in charge until two years ago? So Bush couldn't get his people to do anything very effective leadership there.