End of the ‘Ownership Society’

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: steven.j.warthen @ 10/13/2008 1:08:59 PM

    I notice that Fannie May and Freddie mack are not mentioned in this piece. Ofcourse that run counter to the Repulicans are to blame for everything theme. Say what you will about Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, but at least he has enough integrity to admit his bias.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/15/2008 10:28:24 AM

      All Mr Limbaugh ever was, is bias. That is his gig. He is a verbal bomb thrower.

  • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/15/2008 12:31:49 AM

    "Press Releases

    AJC Strongly Condemns Rev. Jesse Jackson's Comment on American Jews
    October 14, 2008 - New York - The American Jewish Committee (AJC) has condemned the Rev. Jesse Jackson's statement about 'Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades.'
    "Rev. Jackson's remarks, which appeared in an interview with the journalist Amir Taheri in today's New York Post, echo classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jewish power," said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris. 'This statement, regrettably, is not the first troubling comment by Rev. Jackson regarding Israel, Zionism and the Jewish people.'

    Arguing as a private citizen that an Obama administration could bring significant change to U.S. foreign policy, Jackson was quoted as saying that "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" would lose much of their influence should Senator Obama be elected president."


    http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=849241&ct=6107743

    And people are upset about raciest comments some in the crowd are allegedly saying at Palin events? Isn't this the same Democrat leader who once called New York "Hymietown"?

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/15/2008 10:04:15 AM

      Ohh, you are posting the "Scare the Jews" stuff here too.
      (I heard Barack has fathered balck kids too!)

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 10/14/2008 12:44:13 AM

    Perot had a lot of things right. The giant sucking sounds still echo off of the walls of Wall Street.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/14/2008 8:37:45 AM

      Yes, Ross was telling the truth, and I wish someone still had a copy of his charts and speech. If the threats against his family had not driven him to suspend his campaign, I suspect he may have done greater than 19%. I voted for him. Twice.

      • Posted By: JoelMateo @ 10/14/2008 9:06:17 PM

        I voted for him once. If he doesn't have the courage, then he shouldn't be our leader. Unfortunately this applies too well in this election.

        • Posted By: Braes @ 10/15/2008 9:49:17 AM

          Now, when a President and former CIA Chief threatens your daughter, I am sure you are going to just bow-up and take down the machine? Funny.
          It wasn't about "Courage" it was about the infamy of a family that will be judged far more harshly than it is today. Once the FOIA and other "democratic" measures are used by whomever this generations Jack Anderson is, the better for us all. (I'd be willing to guess that there are already several hundred pardons sitting in the desk in the Oval Office, signed and ready.)

  • Posted By: Politics Anonymous @ 10/15/2008 9:20:17 AM

    Being at the mercy of big business and big government doesn't work any better. Financial savvy hurts no one. We could all be solvent and homeowners and/or at least part owners of businesses. Seems to me that the writer forgot to mention what happened in the 1960's when the worker complained about being at the mercy of the owner and the owners vestment in their companies and ownership of companies by the workers themselves was tried out....the airlines mostly went belly up. There are a lot more reasons why now is the time of isolated people who are isolated from others and from families and from having the certainty to start families. Like the whole computer revolution, itself. If Bush hadn't have had these policies of hoping for the best for the country including the dream of family and home ownership we could be in a lot worse shape! I like this article for it is well written but it leaves out so much and makes Bush and "his" policies the scapegoat for so much of what has happened since Reagan and the West won the Cold War and Al Quaida began the terriorist wars......

  • Posted By: williambanzai7 @ 10/15/2008 12:05:28 AM

    Ballad of Komrad Hank (Gorgy Busz's Kommerz Sekretary)
    (Tune of Beverly Hillbillies)

    Come and listen to a story about a komrad named Hank
    A szwanky Goldman banker, who ably kept his partners in the Fed,
    Then one day he was laughin at some AIG fools,
    And up through the ground came a toxic monetary krude.

    CDOs that is, fools gold, Wall Street sleaze.

    Well the first thing you know ol Hank buys billionz of CDOz n szhares,
    Taxpayers said "Hank move away from here"
    Said Zheleznodorozhny is the place you ought to be"
    So he loaded up the junk and shipped it overseas (to Moscow that is).

    Szwimming pools, Oligarchs , and everything.

    Well now its time to say good by to Hank and all his bailout kin.
    And they would like to thank all you kapitalistic fools fer kindly droppin in.
    You're all invited back again to this socialistic locality
    To have a heapin helpin of state hospitalities
    Set a spell, Take your white shoes off.

    Do swidania, y'hear?.
    http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/


  • Posted By: JoelMateo @ 10/14/2008 6:33:25 PM

    This is typical biased rhetoric from a VERY BIASED and twisted media. Don't take ANYONE ELSES word for it, here it direct from the lips of the theives and the supporters of the theives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=bz302
    There are also Articles from 1998 where Bill Clinton specifically called for giving no down payment loans and liberalizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage market.
    As much fun as it is to hate Bush, why can a little truth, reality, and honesty ever be injected into the conversation?

  • Posted By: myfoursons @ 10/14/2008 3:48:33 PM

    This article began as "So Much for Bush's Ownership Society" and is now "End of the Ownership Society". I guess someone realized their facts were incongruent with "... giddiness of the Bush years ...perfectly encapsulated by a 1999 billboard ... YES, YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL!" Bush became president Jan 2001 so that means Clinton was still in office when this mess began. And the " ... collapse of the Internet stock bubble in 2000-2001 and then with 9/11, both of which destroyed billions of dollars of wealth ..." cannot be blamed on Bush, there had to be a whole lot of pressure building for that bubble to burst. Read bzmom6's comments and start your own search for information about the legislation Clinton signed into law - don't miss the one he signed on Dec 27, 2000 called The American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000. Besides the so called title, you'll find words like liquidity and regulation tucked in there for financial institutions. Just like Obama, Zachary Karabell didn't turn away from his habits, beliefs and opinions until it was either politically incorrect or embarrassingly unavoidable.

  • Posted By: steven.j.warthen @ 10/13/2008 1:29:15 PM

    Give me a break. The Dems are up to there noses in this mess. The truth is one party cannot be trusted anymore than the other party. I will be %&$# if I use my vote to give one party control over all three branches of government. The dems have the house and senate locked up. That's why my vote will go for the repubs for the White House.

    • Posted By: pleasebiteme @ 10/13/2008 5:11:55 PM

      While I don't really want to have control over all three branches of government either, I'm not going to vote for the lesser of 2 choices to make that happen. The GOP has only themselves to blame for not being able to get their candidates elected during the last election. 4 years ago I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat, but his total change of direction and thinking voters are a bunch of idiots has made me change my mind on voting him into office.

      • Posted By: Braes @ 10/14/2008 9:08:46 AM

        McCain lost me completely when after winning the nomination, he let the neo-cons run his campaign. The stunts and lack of any strategic direction in the campaign have been a total turn off.
        You can tell a lot about how a candidate will govern based on how they run a campaign. Mr McCain was saddled with Bush, and addled by the talk radio screamers.
        I honestly feel terribly sorry for John as a human-being. He has many of the problems of his generation, but could have overcome that by just being the centrist he is. (I am not being ageist, I am just highlighting the lack of support for the MLK holiday, the inability to equate Arab with good, etc.) John carries the same baggage my father had. His pick of the Gov. of Alaska also played to the far right. She has turned into an albatross the likes of which has not been seen since Mr. Cleese popularized them on Monty Python's Flying Circus.
        If John had picked a Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Snow, Mrs. Dole, or other qualified Republican, the palatibility index would have pegged.
        If John didn't have Randy "wars for sale" Schunemann as his foreign policy guy, and direct ties to Saakashvili, maybe I could have taken the bait, and voted for him. (Starting a war with Russia by proxy with all of the competence of the bay-of-pigs is a real hard sell...)
        When John referred to the neo cons and their fellow travelers as "Agents of Intolerance" and demonstrated a concept of seperation of church and state, He represented the very best of the Republicans I remember from so long ago.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 10:03:53 PM

      Ok, just a little tweak to the Civics here, there are three branches of Government, but the House and Senate are in the same branch, the Legislative. (See Art I. of that pesky Constitution.) The President is part of the Executive Branch... Article II. Those terrible Courts are the Judicial branch, in the thrid Article.
      Those Courts are solidly Republican, as Presidents appoint these people, and most of the time lately, those have been Republican. Now not all of those Justices and judges are as conservative as some might like, but that is hardly possible unless Atilla the Hun were available, or the Great Khan nominated and confirmed.
      So all that is really at stake here are a few Senate seats (1/3rd) all of the House seats, and the Presidency. Elections at the Federal Level do not ever confer power in all 3 branches, nor do they always adhere to the constitution. (The House should have decided 2000, not the Supreme Court... and the R's controlled that.) Take some time and root around that silly constitution. We may need it again someday.

  • Posted By: mccandrj @ 10/13/2008 12:28:03 PM

    These are the reasons we are in the shape we are in now, not Bushes fault for the most. I still think we should have made the Iraqy's pay for the war as Bush stated at the begining.

    1996 Housing Act
    1999 Bank Deregulation Act
    These were all put into effect while slick Willy was getting serviced in the oval office

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 10:20:48 PM

      Both bills originated in the House, Controlled by Newt Gingrich.

  • Posted By: bzmom6 @ 10/13/2008 4:18:20 PM

    I don't know where Newsweek gets their facts, but a HUGE fact is that Bill Clinton's administration changed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1995 which added massive new provisions for low income people to buy into mortgages that they couldn't afford. Thus allowing everyone in America to be able to afford a home. Bill Clinton himself admits this! This was the beginning of the downfall. Banks were FORCED to issue 1 Trillion dollars in subprime loans. In 2003 President Bush saw that the large banking institutions had too much leverage and asked congress to put regulations on Fannie Mae or there would be dire consequences in the financial housing market. Our Congress did nothing because most of them had their pockets lined with money from these monsterous financial institutions. In 2005 John McCain co-sponsored a bill with 3 other Republicans (Chuck Hagel, Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu) to get some regulations on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, etc but our Democratic led congress did nothing once again. In fact Barney Frank in 2008 said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were doing just fine and needed no regulations. Why does Newsweek not tell the real truth behind this housing collapse and put the blame where it really belongs -- The Democrats! PS Nancy Pelosi should be fired from her job, and some of our congressmen should go to prison over this!!!

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 10:08:49 PM

      One boner here, in 2005 the R's controlled the gavels. Details, details.
      The Republicans ***-blocked their own reform.
      In November of 2006, the Democratic Party won control of the Gavels, and got them in Janurary 2007.
      So you can flame Nancy Pelosi all day, but try and nail her for something she actually had control over.

  • Posted By: tmr3513 @ 10/13/2008 10:08:33 PM

    Apparently everyone has forgotten that Slick Willy Clinton came up with the "Ninja" loans back during his tenure.
    You know the guy who left office with nothing but a government/state pension,who is now eight years later is personally worth over 100 million dollars. Heard he did pretty well on the futures market recently. Put it all on the hopes the price of a barel of oil would go up.


  • Posted By: erene1 @ 10/13/2008 7:57:14 AM


    Don't blame the GOP. Can you say "ACORN?" "Barney Frank?" I was in my late 30s and many years into the world of hard work before buying my own small home. Home ownership is not a right. It is a privilege earned by the sweat of the brow and the building of good credit over many years. Rent until you can legitimately own without someone baby-sitting your mortgage. I, and 95% of all other mortgage holders, did.

    • Posted By: gigglinggirl @ 10/13/2008 11:14:00 AM

      You are right to suggest that people should be responsible for themselves and not get into a mortgage before they can afford it. However, I think you underestimate the high pressure, mis-leading and "con-artist" sales pitches that went into convincing some of these people that they could afford it. Real estate agents who wanted a commission and mortgage brokers who were only interested in fees also contributed to this mess. And if you've ever been to one of those time-share sales pitches, you know how convincing high-pressure sales tactics can be. They make you think it is the greatest investment you ever made in your life, and you would be a fool not to do it. After you've committed to it though, and you realize it's really a yoke around your neck, it's too late....some of these people were conned into thinking it would all work out, when they were only after "the American dream".

      • Posted By: rpearlston @ 10/13/2008 10:07:49 PM

        Again, though, this comes down to personal responsibility. If you know that you simply can't afford to own a home under any circumstances, they why are you going to those time share sales pitches, etc.

        This is about TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). A sub-prime loan, no matter the manner in which the money was to be used, is a free lunch. Sub-prime loans in the US weren't offered before late September of 2001. They were the "answer" to the mini-economic slump generated by the terrorist attacks of September 11 of that year. They were supposed to offer a stimulus to the overall economy. Offering them, and applying for them, was the patriotic thing to do.

        Save for those who signed up for the armed forces in the aftermath of those attacks, no one was asked to sacrifice anything. No one was expected to sacrifice anything. Fifty years earlier, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbour, sacrifice was expected and demanded, in order to support the war effort. Not sacrificing, hoarding goods, etc was not only unpatriotic but could result in criminal charges and time in jail. This time around, Americans were told that if they had to sacrifice anything, the terrorst had won.

        Well, guess what, folks. They have won. They have caused the conditions that set up the sub-prime credit crisis.

      • Posted By: celticdreaming @ 10/13/2008 2:34:02 PM

        So where does 'personal responsibility' come in? Before I sign paperwork, I read the fine print. I ask questions. I calculate what payments are going to be. It's my money....I want to know where it is going and how much of it it's going to take. What are we? Sheep? We just take the 'salespersons' word for it? High pressure sales tactics? So a person caves into that. Again...Sheep. It was ultimately their decision to sign the paper. If they were too caught up in the emotional idea to step back and be realistic...then what does that say about their ability to manage their lives? The desire to own a home is natural. However, a person IS responsible to make sure they can afford it before they sign on the dotted line. And that means THINKING about it and not just reacting. Personal Responsibility. People just don't want to blame themselves for not paying attention. It's easier to turn on American Idol and hope it will all take care of itself.

  • Posted By: celticdreaming @ 10/13/2008 12:41:47 PM

    "To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds???a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment."

    Actually this part of the program wasn't really the problem. My husband and I bought our house back in 1989 with no money down. It was a good deal for us because we were young, had just had our second daughter, and we could pay a mortgage payment just as well as we could a rent payment. The difference was that we had established a good credit history and both had been employed consistently since the age of 16. We had documented income, and we didn't try to buy a house that was beyond our means. We stayed within that '2 times your yearly income' bracket that financial advosors told you about. Though apparently NOW they say it's 3 times your yearly income.
    The problem came with the OTHER stuff the Democrats wanted. No/low credit score, no credit history. No documented income. Counting welfare checks and unemployment checks as 'viable' income. Please. THAT is where the problem comes in. If you are going to give no down payment loans, which aren't bad, then you HAVE to have those other restrictions in place. Not just give away the candy shop for free.

    And it WAS the Democrats who did this. The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) was a Democrats baby, and Frannie and Freddie were the vehicle. When Republicans tried to pull it back a bit, the Democrats (with pressure from ACORN) killed the regulations.

    This does by no means excuse the Republicans. They had the majority for what? 6 years? They could have forced something if they wanted to. They've forced everything else on us. AND *they* are responsible for the de-regulation of the financial institutions that BOUGHT the bad loans and have also caused this crisis. The Democrats started it, the Republicans finished it.

    What *I* want to know is what they are going to do about it. And I mean fixing the ROOT CAUSE of the problems. Democrats: Are you NOW going to pass regulation recinding those rediculous 'loan qualifiers'? Or are you going to just keep shoving it down the banks throats that they HAVE to make these risky loans? No money down is fine. You help younger families be able to buy. BUT they HAVE to have a credit history and they HAVE to have VIABLE income. You MUST change that legislation...and you have to do it in November when you come back in session.
    Republicans: You HAVE to regulate Wall Street at least to a certain degree. Put the regulations BACK in place. Americans: You should demand that this be addressed. What good is plugging the dam when you don't address the original cause of failure? Demand that they fix the actual issue.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 10/13/2008 12:53:47 PM

      The dollar amount for the CRA loans doesn't even come close to being a significant fraction of the total money involved. This wasn't caused by poor people buying low-end housing. This was caused by a combination of middle income people buying $400,000 homes, and greedy mortgage brokers who spared no thought for tomorrow.

      • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 9:53:24 PM

        Amber Frye, of the Scott Peterson murder trial, managed to default on a $500k house in Modesto. How did a bar fly get a half million dollar loan, and who in the heck built something worth a half million bucks in Modesto?
        Those are some wormy apples, and I am not wanting the pie.

      • Posted By: celticdreaming @ 10/13/2008 2:19:23 PM

        It's not the dollar amount of the CRA loans. It's the regulation BEHIND the CRA loans that allowed the problem. Not just for poor people...but also for those others that bought 2nd homes, speculators that flipped houses, and developers that built those McMansions thinking that ANYONE could get a loan to buy them. It was de-regulation of the mortage brokers and financial institutions. Just because a law was passed to help the 'poor people' does not mean that same law is not available for greedy people to also take advantage of. No money down, no credit history, no income verification works as well for some developer as it does for a low income person on unemployment. Human beings are typically greedy people...no matter what income level or class. Give an inch, they will take a mile. So the basic LAW behind the availability of those loans has to be repealed. It helped start the problem....so now it should be revoked. In this particular instance...this is one problem that has to be addressed from the bottom up. The trickle down affect will not work here. Giving money to banks and buying up the troubled mortgages won't fix the problem. Giving the loans to people who can't afford it IS. Regardless of whether they are low income or middle class. Exotic loans and sub prime loans need to go away. End of story.

  • Posted By: ACapitalist @ 10/13/2008 11:41:50 AM

    Another Commie writer ! We are still an ownership society, even though groups like Acorn, badgered the Banking community to give loans out to people that had no business to own a house, and a corrupt Congress that encouraged the same. Secondly, Clinton repealed the Glass Steadman Act, passed in 1933 that created a firewall between Banks and WallStreet, how's about those Apples.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 9:49:15 PM

      I think the Federal Government has become the owner, and we got the bill for the financing.

  • Posted By: 7g18R5e5E @ 10/13/2008 10:25:01 AM

    For sure he supported it, but the Dems engineered it and forced banks to make bad loans. Talk about dysfunctional. We need real change, which includes firing and jailing 3/4 of Congress, and a few Senators too. I have had enough of this crap, and of your so-called journalism trying to manipulate me. I think you, as an organization should pretty much go out of business because you are worthless.

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 11:01:29 AM

      Bush has had command for the last two terms, and the R's held the congress 14 of the last 16 years. The Supreme court is nearly all republican appointees.
      With near dictatorial power, how is it the oppositions fault on anything? Couldn't the Bushiot have not just done a signing-statement and dissolved the program? (Or would that have hurt his wall street buds we bailed out, or the developers, or the suppliers, or the brokers of mortgages and properties?) You see, the pyramid scheme was abused under Republican control.
      Lock-step Republican control. Near absolute power. For nearly a Generation.
      Now, which day did you expect W. to wake up and do his job for the people of America, instead of his corporate-cronies? It is a lot easier to fling this stuff on minor actors, who have very little real power. It is called a modified limited hangout. The tipping point in our economic collapse was the staggering rise in energy prices, which created the cascade of failures. While we sift through the mortgage pile and bank-rubble, we forget quickly what pushed things over the edge. ENRON economics in the trading pits, and speculations and market manipulation. (those people would be all republicans there, champ...)
      Reaganomics ws based on trickle down. America can not run main street on a trickle. Newt's contract on America was a populist ploy to run the deregulation agenda. None of that was DNC led, nor were the Democrats a part of the program.
      You can stretch the spin on freddie and fannie only so far. It was Republican policies and rule that destroyed things.

      • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 10/13/2008 1:07:02 PM

        Surely Braes you do not really believe that Bush and Republicans had "dictictorial" powers? If so, then why didn't they "make it all better?" The trouble with de-regulation is not in the concept, but in the fine print. It's the political gamesmanship of congressional oversight committees that too often screw up the free market by putting in place stupid rules that pick the winners and losers ahead of time. You complain of trickle down economics, but what is the alternative? Economics by central committee? Economics by regulation? What? . In other words, markets are most often screwed up not be the greed of the businessman or consumer, but by often ridiculous, counterproductive regulation that comes out of the legislative process.

        • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 9:29:06 PM

          Yes, with signing statements and the Unitary Executive theory, we have had a Dictatorship.
          I do agree however that bad regulations inhibit economic growth. (Congressional or Executive promulgated, non-withstanding) Good regulations exist. I'd like a little less poo in the food, drugs such as heparin produced correctly, etc. Where regulations serve a health or safety function, I support them. Where they perpetuate senseless horseshooey, like say, out of the Department of Education, The Department of the Interior, The Department of Redundancy Department... I look at them with a wary eye, and wonder how we get anything done.
          Since the beginning of the 20th Century or so, we have created Executive departments willy-nilly, and taken power from an accountable congress, and transferring it to the faceless bureaucrat. I would like a sunset on several federal agencies.
          We have had a dictatorship though. Bush has really pushed the executive power well past framers intent.

          • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 9:47:40 PM

            I forgot the clause about "why they didn't make it better..."
            That goes to motive, and I am completely unsure of what their motives were. Nothing from the record appears to point to a plan. Now a few of their buddies did really well. Maybe they made it better for Oligarchs. (I have my satire shoes on, and will now tap-dance, offstage, left...)

  • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 10/13/2008 9:08:33 AM

    Again with re-write of history...as well as the "just as ridiculous" "end of all" crap. Karabell conveniently forgets that the "ownership" society, however poorly penned, is a concept intergral to nearly every campaign pitch for the past 40 years! From Johnson's Great Society to Reagon's "house on a hill," the dream of home ownership is a American as apple pie. One cannot deny that it picked up "exhuberance" during the Fannie Mae creation, boosted further by the Dem race-card politics of bias lending claims and the panicea thereby needed -- more easy loan terms. Now, when SOME of the financial tools created during the last 20 years to meet the public demand and conveniently ignored by the congressional leadership (Dems and Republicans alike) go bust, out come the "journalists" to say it's the "end of home ownership." Terrific insight, Karabell. How old are you...20?

    • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 11:07:45 AM

      Since you do not seem to remember, Red-lining, or discriminatory loan practices that were in place in the Jim Crow era prevented anyone who wasn't white from owning property. Jim Crow is still on life-support in many places. HUD was formed to change some of that, but has basically been gutted and is a failed institution.

      • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 10/13/2008 12:55:08 PM

        Not sure what the formation of HUD did for the country other than create a massive and very expensive beaurocracy that folks from all walks of life have exploited to the hilt ever since Noble intentions do not always pan out to noble ends when government leads the way. And there is an ocean of difference between fixing the ills of the Jim Crow era and the politically advocated agressive lending practices of recent times.

        • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 9:38:27 PM

          Well, at least once a year, HUD is the most important federal appointment in the Government. During the State of the Union, they secret away the Secretary to some secure location in the countryside and guard him or her in the godforsaken event that the entire rest of the Government is somehow beset by some calamity.
          Other than that, it is a Department that was created to solve a problem that doesn't exist in the form or scope it did, and it has created paperwork that didn't stop any of the problems that we now face.

      • Posted By: celticdreaming @ 10/13/2008 1:43:09 PM

        Yes there were discriminatory loan practices. I don't dispute that. However, I think that there were better ways to get around that than forcing banks to make a certain percentage of their loans 'risky', or have their ability to expand their business be forfiet. It should all be by the numbers. If you have credit history and work history, then you get the loan. Why couldn't government regulate THAT? Oh wait. They did. No credit history...no viable income. Wow! Now why couldn't they have been SMARTER about it? Certain levels of income are required when it comes to home ownership. Regardless of whether you are a minority or not. Couldn't there have been a governemnt agency that handled discrimination cases by banks put in place? Or maybe there was and they just didn't want to do their jobs.

        • Posted By: Braes @ 10/13/2008 9:33:51 PM

          Somewhere along the line, we decided to rectify sins of the past with sins of the present.

  • Posted By: HAL--- @ 10/13/2008 9:13:19 PM

    Whatever the case may be, this definitely is not the solution:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRNNPDnuIxU&eurl

    Why make things worse with these two in office?

  • Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/13/2008 8:30:04 PM

    Biggest one day increase in the Dow in market's history. However:

    "The Dow's lone decliner was General Electric (GE, Fortune 500), which reported weak quarterly earnings late Friday. It was also among the 18 components of the S&P 500 that didn't join the rally.???"

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/markets/markets_newyork/?postversion=2008101318

    Another reason might be that, having provided a soapbox for socialist through its NBC division, the market no longer trusts GE with investment capital, Buffet notwithstanding.

  • Posted By: audie @ 10/13/2008 8:14:26 PM

    Obamarama, hark the new Messiah. Here's how it will play out. He will be elected, the cake is already baked, the only change will be for the worse, the population becomes disillusioned, he's a one-term president (like Carter caught up in events bigger than him), someone who looks like the face on the dollar bill comes along in 2012, they are elected, and the beat goes on.

    The fundamental problem is the Axis of Stupidy: Debt ($10 trillion and growing); Demise (of a manufacturing economy for a shell game services one); Dependence (on foreign oil and worthless bond sales). Obama's mantra is the Audacity of hope. Granted it is audacious to think we can trade hope for oil.

    Next up, all the baby boomers trying to entire retirement and depending on funds that just ain't there.

  • Posted By: cani77 @ 10/13/2008 6:20:12 PM

    THE GREAT BUSH DEPRESSION
    I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
    He perfectly predicted the current meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen next
    is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
    The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide ,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch , Fanny and Freddy Mae ,AIG
    The government took them over because they are bankrupt. Even with the goverment nationalizing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt the stock market is crashing
    the credit markets are frozen and all of us may suffer beyond anything seen in generations
    McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
    That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand how its been broken.
    It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use quantum mathematical models very few people understand.
    Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
    Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
    Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
    No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He was the last to know somthing was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime. Check out this link to the truth http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo
    It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
    even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a budget surplus like Bush did but a crashing economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
    If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
    When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
    So why are the polls even close then ?
    Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time talking about obama
    which means running the biggest smear campaign in history.
    They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
    Let's teach him we are smarter than that
    Stand up and hold them accountable
    Bush isn't on the ballot this year but his policies are
    Elect Obama Biden 2008






    Check out this video of sarah palins interview and ask your self if she understands what she is talking about.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse