Rachel Maddow kicks Robert Reich's ass!

I can’t believe she did it! Maybe she did it by accident? Rachel Maddow was interviewing Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich in this clip, and he was running his mouth about how the current financial crises was the fault of the Bush Administration, and then at the 7:20 mark, Rachel asks, “Yeah, but weren’t you Clinton guys responsible for all of this financial deregulation shit?” Watch how the little tunnel rat squirms when he realizes that she totally nailed the Clintonistas as the culprits.

What was the origin of the financial meltdown? Here it is. The Financial Services Modernization Act.

“Administration officials say the President would veto the Senate version because it would dilute requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers and others who have had little access to credit. The legislation also contains provisions that have been criticized by Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin because they reduce his department's oversight of banks.”

Bill Clinton wanted to make sure that poor people could receive loans, even if they were nowhere near credit worthy.

Look at how the actions of the Clinton Administration will be graded by history.
“But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.”

The Bush Administration tried to reign in the excesses of the Clinton Era, and their policy of easy loans for everybody. But the Democrats would have none of it.
< Breaking News - many Americans still racist bigots | Most mature US foreign policy debate of the year >
 Display:

 

they take no responsibility for anything.


Deregulation has some great advantages so that is why Clinton gave in to the repulicans who pushed for it.

It was totally up to Bush to keep an eye on the ecomomy regardless of when the rules were made.

With this kind of thinking Ken you are saying that Bush should only look after the rules he put in place and let the country go to the dogs if it involves any rules or regulations that were put in place by the previous 43 Presidents.

Is that how it works when you are President? Really?

Bush didnt just take his eye off the ball, he was totally asleep at the wheel when we went off the road and now people blame Clinton for handing him the keys !

by Maverick on 09/21/2008 03:59:08 AM EST


Clinton got a blow-job so he is an evil, evil man, might well be the anti-Christ and all the problems in this world, from the mishandling of the war in Iraq, to the current financial crisis is and will forever be his fault.

The failed response to Katrina-Bill Clinton.
Global Warming-Bill Clinton
Price of Gas-Bill Clinton
Enron-Bill Clinton
Anytime your favorite team loses-Bill Clinton

The list is endless on wrongs Ken can place right at the feet of Bill Clinton, and yet amazingly enough he has never ever, ever found a single solitary thing that he could fault the Republican Party and the lump of shrubbery that currently resides in the White House for.

Now on the off chance you can find one thing wrong in this world that Ken doesn't blame on Bill, I can assure you it is definitely the fault of "Liberal Democrats", and the only answer to any problem we as a nation face would be to (alright everyone say it with me)..........CUT TAXES.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 09/21/2008 08:13:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]

An oldie but a goodie...

Assume the world was going to be destroyed by a comet next week. Typical KenTx responses( in order)

  • Clinton responsible for failure to track said comet...blah blah blah..raise taxes!
  • If Clinton wasnt busy getting a blow job...blah blah blah... track said comet...al Queda!
  • Compare and contrast..comet...blowjob.. .Clinton.
  • You know if we wernt spending so much money on the worthless lazy federal goverment that expanded under Clinton...blah blah blah Clinton blah blah blah...lard ass....blow job
  • We should have privatized comet tracking. Private comet trackers could have warned us...stained blue dress...Clinton. Million dollar haircut!
  • See the tax cuts are working, more comets!
  • Clinton! Comet!..CLINTON! In the same sentance..must be proof Clinton sent the comet.
  • The unions wouldn't allow comet tracking in the north so we had to move the Comet tracking to Mexico....empty library...Clintons NAFTA deal was responsible...Juanita Brodderick...blow job
  • Our involvement in Kosov....Clinton killed all the comet trackers.... Everyone knows the best comet trackers come from the Balkans...blah blah
  • Saddam Hussein was much worse than Slobidan Milosevic...blah blah blah... Clinton...blue dress!
  • If Clinton hadn't of killed Vince Foster....blah blah blah... Comet..blah blah blah...blue dress.
  • Hubble is Chelsea's daddy..blah blah blah.God sent the Comet to punish him...blah Clinton!blah blah...ugly how could she be so ugly .....blah blah blah...liberals!
  • Ive seen the Clinton Library..its a double wide trailer...empty...blue dress..comet...Clinton!
  • The phoney dot com economy..blah blah blah..blue dress...comet...liberals! Bush ( choir singing)...blah blah blah...tax cut...Clinton getting a blow job...!
  • The Democrats will surrender to the comet...if Clinton hadn't of...blah blah blah..blue dress,blah blah blah double wide trailerblah blah blah comet full of terrorist...if Clinton wasnt getting a blow job we could have... blah blah blah...Clinton!
  • Barak Obama....blah blah blahc omet..blah blah blah...Hillary Clinton! marriage...blah blah blah ...sham...Blow Job!
  • (Posts list of middle eastern countries)....comet fighters!  Clinton ignore comets
  • Clinton raped the comet people...

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 09/21/2008 01:14:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken the troll  blaming everything on Clinton?

OR

insane McCain blaming the economic melt down on Obama

by Chinese Democracy on 09/21/2008 01:29:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Google Clinton, Comet, Responsible 711,000 hits.

What more needs to be said about how Clinton is responsible for said mythical comet in your hypothetical scenario?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 09/21/2008 06:42:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You mean there really is a comet?

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 09/21/2008 09:05:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Pubs run DC for 6 straight years after Clinton? If Clinton was wrong why didn't they fix it. Did they try? or did they simply ADD to the problem?

You, of all people, should be enraged over this. Every time the Government deregulates something it cost YOU money. The laws were written to PROTECT the tax payer from the greed and lawlessness of the super rich and powerful.

Country first? NO. It should say PUBS first or really rich first.

by LORD FOUL on 09/21/2008 09:26:56 AM EST


As always, KenTX, you got it way wrong. What a surprise.

Rachel didn't "kick Rubin's ass". She simply and justly pointed out that Clinton was in charge when some deregulation happened, news flash.

Thanks for the clip anyway. 

by toosinbeymen on 09/21/2008 09:33:01 AM EST


Yeah - this is a current Republican talking point - an attempt to assign blame to Clinton, as they have in every other failed or unpopular policy in the last 8 years. (9/11 for one).

An interesting thing about the copy & pastes that Ken did is this:

1) "The legislation also contains provisions that have been criticized by Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin because they reduce his department's oversight of banks.”

2) The longer cut & Paste is an opinion essay from IBD. Ken, you're still clueless as to what an idiot this makes you appear to be. "And here's the proof. Q.E.D."

Maddow, like me, has animosity toward Clinton for signing this. I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't supportive AT ALL of a lot of Clinton policies - NAFTA and GATT immediately come to mind.

I remember this bill, actually there were several that he signed around this time, however, the others didn't pertain to deregulation. He signed these right before Congress' Christmas break, at the close of his term - the same time period that he started the pardons.

This was well covered and well documented at the time, and I was pissed about it.

But some years later, I rethought his presidency. i recognize now that he had a Republican Congress and was steeped in Real Politik. He signed this bill in return for a passage of another bill - he was trying to shove more of his agenda through before his term expired and made yet another deal with the devil. I doubt he recognized the ramifications of this kind of deregulation.

And, the trade-off in this deal was greater for him than for the Repubs. The bill was veto-proof, so it was gonna go, anyway. And it certainly would have been passed by his successsor. It was a good deal to take, or it seemed at the time.

But also, this isn't the sole reason, in terms of deregulation, that caused this, but did facilitate creating the infrastrucure for a loan market. The actual mechanics are a different deregulation issue.

It was a 100% Republican bill all the way. The Senate vote was party line.


The CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Clinton Appointees? No, don't be stupid.


They were Clintonites? Because they contributed to Clinton's campaigns? They also contributed to Reagan, HW, Dole, W. Gore and Kerry, de rigueur.


The excesses of the Clinton Era? The Clinton Adminstration turned a budget surplus, and started to pay down an outrageous national debt created by the Reagan/Bush "Don't Tax and Spend" Policy. That $1.7 Trillion debt that scared the bejeebies out of us back in the day sure looks pretty sweet now, doesn't it? Isn't that crazy?

By the way, Ken. None of this is new to anybody. We were pissed about it when it happened. ( And I guarantee that you supported it 100% at that time). It has been discussed and analyzed since Clinton left office and even more in the past year or so when these loans defaulted. And, was specifically addressed by Obama last March.

Like I said, already know this shit, and we know who authored and sponsored the bill.

Progressives and most Dems are constitutionally (small 'c') opposed to deregulation. I've spent my entire adult life being called a socialist, communist, anti-capitalist, etc by people who don't know even know what these words mean, because I oppose deregulation and support government regulation and over-sight in many areas. 

And now, these same people are saying that I'm responsible, that I supported it, that it was my idea?

As Cheney said to Leahy on the Senate Floor -  "Go fuck yourself."


by perdido619 on 09/21/2008 09:39:38 AM EST


You're not really that stupid.  Clinton had to sign the bill or else it was about to get an override.  He just used some leverage to get some benefits for minorities.  I know it was the Democrat's fault that these companies made so many bad loans and not the fact that they were so greedy.  The Democrats and black people I guess I should say..

by schmoab on 09/21/2008 09:50:20 AM EST


I didn't watch this clip of Reich on Maddow's show yet, but I did see Robert Reich being interviewed on another show earlier last week.  At that time, when the interviewer presented him with the accusation that the Clinton Administration had a hand in these deregulations, Reich was more than happy to dissociate himself from that and say it all happened after he left.  From his perspective, that seems like a good way to go. I am curious to actually watch this Maddow clip rather than read KenTX's summary.

David

by yturks on 09/21/2008 11:28:28 AM EST


Turns out this was the clip I had seen before, and yes, KenTX's characterization is far from accurate. You can't trust anything he writes.  Reich was fine in this clip, no squirming at all.

I didn't like Rachel in the opening minutes of this clip. Some of the things she said didn't make sense, and she was too snide and sarcastic in a way that isn't effective.  She ran a clip of Bush saying he believes the flexibility and resiliency of the markets will save us, then she tried to take a shot at Bush which didn't make much sense.

David

by yturks on 09/21/2008 01:07:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"KenTX's characterization is far from accurate. You can't trust anything he writes. "

No more need be posted on the subject.

by Chinese Democracy on 09/21/2008 02:32:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It has very little to do with "point of view" and much more with attempting to spin this national crisis in to a refurendum on race.

What we have is another futile attempt to link "multiculturalism" ; ...Republican codeword s for black people and minorities...and the banking mess...to Obama.

That fact is indisputable, and it lies at the very heart of this financial meltdown

That statement plus everything else you posted isvery disputable , factually challenged, to say the least.

Im wondering how a Republican majority and President for 6 out of the last 7 years managed to overlook a financial meltdown you're now claiming was brought on by the Democrats...Far from it, in the  the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money? 

I think we all know the answer to that, you were hooting about how wonderful the economy was since I can remember. An economy built on the housing bubble. Are you saying that the great free market, new idea conservatives who are so economically savvy andwho  incidentally controlled the Whitehouse and Congress during the meat of the problem, missed this?

 Bullshit.

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 09/21/2008 05:23:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I ask you to review my polite, thoughtful words at the header of this thread, and then compare them juxtaposed to your vicious, hateful words in the comment section. What kind of people are you liberals?

All I did was link a few articles and videos from the New York Times, Investors Business Daily, Wikipedia, and the Rachel Maddow Show. There are very few editorial comments of my own expressed in the header. I simply cut and paste and linked words from the sources.

In fact, here is the only comment I added to the links: Bill Clinton wanted to make sure that poor people could receive loans, even if they were nowhere near credit worthy.”

That fact is indisputable, and it lies at the very heart of this financial meltdown. But rather than discuss the issue in a rational manner, you liberal choose to personally attack the messenger.

I challenge you to go back and read what was said about me, and then think about it. Are you able to understand why an opposing point of view and different perspective is good for this forum?

You people are really going off the deep end.

by KenTX on 09/21/2008 04:42:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It has very little to do with your "point of view" and much more with the Republicans attempting to spin this national crisis in to a referendum on race.

What we really have is another futile attempt to link "multiculturalism" ; ... and other Republican codewords for black people and minorities...to the banking mess...and ultimately to Obama. ( Psst Obama is a black man...pass it on)

That fact is indisputable, and it lies at the very heart of this financial meltdown

 

That statement plus everything else you posted is very disputable , factually challenged, to say the least.

Im wondering how a Republican majority and President for 6 out of the last 7 years managed to overlook a financial meltdown you're now claiming was brought on by the Democrats.

Far from it, in the  the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

I think we all know the answer to that, you were hooting about how wonderful the economy was since I can remember. An economy built on the very same housing bubble.

Are you saying that the great free market, new idea conservatives who are so economically savvy and who  incidentally controlled the Whitehouse and Congress during the meat of the problem, missed this?

Bullshit.

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 09/21/2008 05:49:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
people aren't just going to like you overnight.  You've offended a lot of people, and some are beyond forgiving you, and i completely understand.  I don't personally have anything against you anymore, although the racism makes sense, because historically people of hispanic descent and blacks haven't gotten along all that well, so i can understand you harboring some prejudice.  name calling gets us no-where, but you have to realize that people still harbor some resentment for you for good reason.  just give it time.  I gave you and bobo time.

chris

by chrisandyasemin on 09/21/2008 10:39:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Chris, if I wanted to hang out with people who like me, I certainly wouldn't choose this place.

I'm here for the same reason as bobo and Twba. I enjoy debating topical issues with liberals.

As far as time goes, I've been here more than four years. The only guy who has me beat is Tim, and he's been here a few months longer. We boyeeez. In fact, I'm friends with a lot of liberals in this forum, but I don't want to give their names away, because it might hurt their reputations.

But the newbies always want to brand the conservatives as bigoted, racist, sexist, pro-life, pro-religion, homophobes. Its the old playbook, and it really doesn't apply. (Well OK, I guess I am "phobic" of Tiny, but that's because he bites, and he has rabies.)

You and I might disagree on politics, but its not going to determine the outcome of the election. Just consider it a chance to dialogue with the opposition and sharpen your debating skills.

By the way, I was just faking that my feelings were hurt for comic effect. I could give a rat's if you guys want to be mean to me. It's fun for me, and fun for you.

by KenTX on 09/22/2008 12:04:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 "The only guy who has me beat is Tim" 

I've seen you that you've been absolutely humiliated time after time in every issue you've argued - including this one.

You're a clueless nutjob to think any differently.


by perdido619 on 09/22/2008 12:31:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Would you like to keep running your mouth? How 'bout it mutherfukker? You enjoy gettin the shit kicked out of you?

I got lots more where this is coming from, and racism ain't got nuthin to do with it. This is about the abject fukking stupity of liberalism!

by KenTX on 09/22/2008 12:59:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
admit it, you DO want to be friends with us, why else would you spend the last 4 years of your life trying to convince people here that your way is right?  Because we offer you insightful conversation, and we think outside the box.  You said it yourself, but in a more "southern machismo" type of way.  I stick by my words.

I gave you time, and you now treat me with respect.

Give it time

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 09/22/2008 01:40:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How do you know I'm not trying to kill you with kindness buddy?

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 09/22/2008 01:43:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How can I fight against kindness?

How can I argue with kindness?

How can I be rude to kindness?

Kindness is indeed a killer.

I'm dying.

I'm dying.

(I'm dead.)

by KenTX on 09/22/2008 02:00:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the witch is dead...

by chrisandyasemin on 09/22/2008 09:13:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
this forum is fun

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 09/22/2008 10:39:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The more polite KenTX is, the less you should trust what he is saying.  He's not going to undergo a grand conversion or anything.  Am I right Ken?  You have to give him a break though--he makes so much money that Obama really will be raising his taxes.  Poor Ken. 

by desertpear on 09/22/2008 01:05:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
that can will listen to him, and not call him racist

by chrisandyasemin on 09/22/2008 09:29:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, Clinton was stupid to sign it.  Cenk has already pointed that out.

But take a look at the senate vote on it.  Scroll down to where it says "grouped by vote position".  Look at the YEAs - all republican.  Look at the NAYs - all democrats.

 

by bfaul on 09/21/2008 11:37:35 AM EST


Ken says the Bush administr. tried to "reign in the excesses" of Clinton, but the democrats "wouldn't have it" and links an article from fall 2003. Am I missing something? Didn't the Republicans at that point have countrol of all 3 branches and both houses?

by hazmat on 09/21/2008 02:49:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I wanted that link but you did the hard work for me, I think I might print that page out and mail it to a few people.

 

by Maverick on 09/21/2008 05:21:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I just watched the Maddow-Reich clip from your link, Ken. Granted, the guy has a small derriere, but there was no evidence of ass bruising there. Reich did appear to assume a small bit of early responsibility, but in response to Maddow's questioning the Clinton administration's culpability, he clearly blamed it on practices by the administration after he left his post, and upon Greenspan. And I didn't hear any challenge from Maddow on his finger-pointing.

by Verified1 on 09/21/2008 12:20:53 PM EST


Warning This blog requires an attention span greater that George Bushes to read and comprehend.

Kens Spin: Financial Services Modernization Act.

Real Name; Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Bliley (R)Financial Services Modernization Act

You will notice how Ken conveniently cuts out the name of the Republicans who crafted the bill...idiot in Chief Phil Gramm , McCain's financial adviser.

Heres the truth, unvarnished by right wing spin that we have come to enjoy. I used kens references sans the cherry picking.

 For the last two decades, legislation to help modernize the banking system has had a perils-of-Pauline sort of story line, occasionally passing one chamber, only to fail in another, often...

 Heres the real bottom line.

...because of the competing lobbying by the three powerful industries and struggles over authority among regulators.

This has been attempted before, but it did give the banks enough 'freedom"

Last year, the House adopted comprehensive banking legislation by the narrowest of margins, only to see it die in the Senate when it was blocked by Mr. Gramm. 

 That pretty much sums it up. No, Clinton did not create the legislation. Contrary to claims otherwise:

President Clinton has threatened to veto the Senate legislation, and his aides have expressed a decided preference for most of the provisions in a competing version that has been moving quickly through the House.

By a 54-to-44 vote along party lines, the Senate adopted a measure sought by the three industries and written by Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas and chairman of the banking committee.President Clinton has threatened to veto the Senate legislation, and his aides have expressed a decided preference for most of the provisions in a competing version that has been moving quickly through the House.

Why did Clinton prefer the House version? The Democrats attempted to put more controls in place:

Senate passage came after the White House, which has repeatedly been losing votes on the legislation, lost another vote today that had threatened to derail the bill. The ( Republican) Senate voted 53 to 46 to table an amendment endorsed by the White House and proposed by Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, and by the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, that would have restored greater authority to the Treasury to regulate financial conglomerates.

The Republican majority killed it.

The Shelby-Daschle amendment, which mirrored a provision in legislation that was passed by the House banking committee, would have permitted the new conglomerates created by the legislation to operate securities underwriting and merchant banking units as subsidiaries within the banks rather than as separate institutions under the umbrella of a bank holding company.

The provision was killed...lead by Gramm being the cheerleader in chief for the financial groups and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which sponsored the Act.

After he got the legislation through... he later joined UBS Warburg, at the time the investment banking arm of the largest Swiss bank. Gramm registered as a UBS lobbyist in 2004 and began advising John S. McCain as his top economic adviser and general co-chairman.

 

 It would repeal the core provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and later laws that industry executives say have made it increasingly difficult to compete with foreign conglomerates unhindered by similar laws.

Whaa we cant compete...whaaa...the same whine we get from all the Republicans...if we have rules..we cant compete...but this passage sums it up

Mr. Greenspan has responded that by putting securities underwriting and merchant banking within a bank, large financial conglomerates would gain an unfair subsidy by having access to deposit insurance and the Federal clearinghouse system.

Seizing Mr. Greenspan's argument today, Mr. Gramm said that the Shelby-Daschle provision would politicize monetary policy.

''Do we really want a President to have the ability to use banking policy as a political tool?'' he asked rhetorically. Transferring such authority to the Administration, he asserted, ''would be a disaster for America.''

Now about the " social engineering" and multiculturalism....codewords for minorities..spin and revisionism and refutes Kens borrowed racist spin:

The Blame-CRA theme bounced around the right-wing Freerepublic.com. In January it figured in a Washington Times column. In February, a Cato Institute affiliate named Stan Liebowitz picked up the critique in a New York Post op-ed headlined "The Real Scandal: How the Feds Invented the Mortgage Mess." On The National Review's blog, The Corner, John Derbyshire channeled Liebowitz: "The folk losing their homes? are victims not of 'predatory lenders,' but of government-sponsored -- in fact government-mandated -- political correctness."

But like most things "conservative"... the devil, and the truth, is in the details

Most analysts see the sub-prime crisis as a market failure. Believing the bubble would never pop, lenders approved risky adjustable-rate mortgages, often without considering whether borrowers could afford them; families took on those loans; investors bought them in securitized form; and, all the while, regulators sat on their hands.

I apologize that to get to the real target. we had to wade through all of the right wing obfuscation, here it is:

The revisionists say the problem wasn't too little regulation; but too much, via CRA.

See...the problem is obviosly to much regulation. If we had let the banks go unfettered, nothing would have happened is the spin. But why was the CRA enacted?

The law was enacted in response to both intentional redlining and structural barriers to credit for low-income communities.

This goes back to the " I have a right not to serve you argument. " Little difference between whites refusing to serve blacks at the lunch counter...or refusing loans because they lived in minority neighborhoods.

One last bit of spin crushed. The CRA was passed by the "Contract With America" crowd in 1995...well before the Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Bliley (R) Financial Services Modernization Act.

Why was CRA compliance so important?

CRA applies only to banks and thrifts that are federally insured; it's conceived as a quid pro quo for that privilege, among others. This means the law doesn't apply to independent mortgage companies (or payday lenders, check-cashers, etc.)

The law has teeth because regulators' ratings of banks' CRA performance become public and inform important decisions, notably merger approvals.

To borrow a phrase from Limp Biscuit...they did it for the nookie...The question is really simple

In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?

 I think we all know the answer to that.


"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 09/21/2008 12:45:53 PM EST


In 2003...when in Kens words 

The Bush Administration tried to reign in the excesses of the Clinton Era, and their policy of easy loans for everybody. But the Democrats would have none of it.

 Is simply a lie. Remember, controls where originally proposed by Clinton...

The Republican majority killed it.

The Shelby-Daschle amendment, which mirrored a provision in legislation that was passed by the House banking committee, would have permitted the new conglomerates created by the legislation to operate securities underwriting and merchant banking units as subsidiaries within the banks rather than as separate institutions under the umbrella of a bank holding company.

The provision was killed...lead by Gramm being the cheerleader in chief for the financial groups and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which sponsored the Act.

 And here, Clinton attempted to exert greater control in 1992:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve.

Who were these allies?

McCain in 1992 voted against imposing stricter controls on Fannie and Freddie during Senate debate on a broader housing bill,

 Who controlled the House and Senate in 2003?

  On November 5, the White House's investment paid off "big time;" Republicans made broad and historic gains, taking back control of the Senate, picking up a few seats in the House, faring better than anticipated in governors' races, and making gains in state legislatures.

They did it for the nookie...

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 09/21/2008 01:40:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This racist son of a bitch having no clue about actual data blames the entire economic crisis on the darkies and darky lovers.  This is the type of lizard brain fucktard racist logic that has this country in the shit hole it is in today.  I wonder is Mr. Hater has looked at the fact that huge percentages of credit worthy minorities were pushed into subprime loans (which generate more fees) even though they were qualified to get traditional thirty year loans?  Does Mr. Black it on the "other" know the demographics of who actually made the most money on these deals.  Clearly is this dirty sheet wearing sombitch had actually looked to see who voted for the bill it would negate his Klan logic. 

by kylewis on 09/21/2008 12:52:04 PM EST


Right, and one of the really unjust things about this talking point bouncing around the Conservative Air-Waves, Right-Wing Blogs, etc, is that these people that are getting blamed are victims.

Even before the first of these waves of sub-prime defaults, there were exposees of the prctices of a lot of the sub-prime originators. this was years ago.

The tactics were hard-sell and deceptive. Many of these people could have qualified for traditional loans, but were steered away. Many RE-FINANCED with sub-primes.

Almost all of these people lost, or will lose their houses, that equity - the payments made on the note, their credit, various fees, moving expenses, future job opportunities due to their now terrible credit rating (which is a really evil practice that I don't understand).

These people got hosed. They're already difficult lives have been, not ruined, but severely impeded, let's say.

And then someone - one person - one guy - submits this idea in a staff meeting about how to spin the blame, and all of a sudden you have a million assklowns spreading the word.

Bad Bad people.


by perdido619 on 09/21/2008 01:41:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]

 

Yassir, massa please lemme me finance my 75,000 house...
High risk loans...loans " multiculturals " couldn't afford....wow We aren't talking expensive properties here either , in those" minority" areas. Doesn't say a lot about the wonderful Bush economy, based on the very housing bubble he is now trying to hang on Clinton.

 

 

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 09/21/2008 02:45:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
When I went to refinance my mortgage for an lower interest rate.  I explicitly, repeatedly, and heatedly stated that I would not accept anything but a 30 year fixed.  These people tried to cajole me in every way to get me into a ARM.  They literally tried to make it seem like I was stupid for wanting a 30 year fixed loan.  While on vacation they fed ex'd me the loan papers.  After reading the fine print my eyes popped out.  The mofo's after all of this back and forth sent me papers for a 2 year fixed adjustable.  When I called them the bastards told me that it was fixed "for two years."  After threatening to go to the state attorney general, I ended up getting an even lower rate for my 30 year fixed.  This happened hundreds of thousands of times all over this country.  They locked people in on mortgages they could afford at the time and conned them into thinking the rate would drop when it was time to get a fixed mortgage.  There are legitimate programs that help low income people obtain homes.  The one consistent aspect of a legit program is that the interest rate is fixed and it is fixed at a even lower rate than the market average which allows people to actually stay in their home.   They have a lower default rate then the national average.  It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear these ass-clown house slave wanna be conservatives carrying water and licking the boots of moneyed interests.  The motherfuckers were able to do what they did because a certain group of fucktards that exist in our body politic consistently vote identity and not economic interest.  Its funny how the number one suckers in America point to the victims as the problem when it is really the sucker ass broke ass conservative wannabe capitalist who does not have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.  They remind me of the antebellum white dirt farmer who is angry at the slave for taking all the good jobs.  The same ass hat joined the confederate army to fight for a system that insured he would be living in peonage ad infinitum. 

by kylewis on 09/21/2008 06:07:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"blame the darkies" is exactly how he thinks.

by Chinese Democracy on 09/21/2008 02:33:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It was obviously due to Operation Darkie

fabian 

by schmoab on 09/21/2008 06:36:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

First, Do you still love Bill Clinton

Then,  A true history of "Trickle Down Reaganomics"

As stated there, Clinton kept the snowball rolling, no doubt about it, but he in NO WAY started it. That was YOUR boyZ

 

by MedfordTim on 09/21/2008 02:22:42 PM EST


NAFTA thing..  boy that's worked out really great.  That combined with the conservatives strip mining the middle class and the anything goes as long as you make me money deregulation has really had a positive result. Ask McCain.

by Chinese Democracy on 09/21/2008 05:57:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
<h5>RISMEDIA - ComplianceTech, a provider of technology and business intelligence for consumer lending institutions and government agencies, has released an industry report indicating that the majority of subprime-rate loans originated in 2006 were made to non-Hispanic Whites and upper-income borrowers (conventional, 1st lien, 1-to-4 family, owner-occupied, home purchase and refinance).The findings are contrary to the way subprime-rate lending has been portrayed. Frequent media portrayals and congressional dialogue refer to subprime-rate lending as a minority and low-income issue. Findings in the report are based on data submitted by lenders under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) analyzed with the data-mining tool LendingPatterns(TM).</h5> <h5>The report concluded that a disproportionate share of loans made to minorities and low-income borrowers were subprime-rate loans, but the majority of subprime-rate loans were made to non-Hispanic Whites and upper-income borrowers. Of the 1,917,809 subprime-rate loans originated in 2006, non-Hispanic Whites had 70.82 percent of the loans, and 56.23 percent of the subprime-rate loans. Upper-income borrowers had the highest share of the subprime-rate loans at 39.37 percent, followed by 27.55 percent for middle-income borrowers and 20.99 percent for moderate-income borrowers.</h5> <h5>Contrary to popular belief, low-income borrowers had only 149,173, or 7.57 percent, of 2006 subprime-rate loans. The report also concluded that the majority of subprime-rate loans were originated in predominately-White geographic regions (areas representing census tracts less than 30 percent minority).</h5>

by kylewis on 09/21/2008 08:39:57 PM EST


I don't know anything about you and your race, and you don't know anything about me and my race. For the record, I have Hispanic ancestry, as if any of that matters in this discussion. But before you accuse me of racism, you better damn well have your facts straight.

I never brought up race as part of this subject. In fact, I don’t think the race of subprime borrowers is the least bit important.

What is very important is that the entire goddam world understands and recognizes that the Clinton Administration forced the financial marketplace to make loans to low income people who were not credit worthy. That’s what got us into this huge problem.

You want to talk about race and subprime lending? OK, here you go. Debate with these guys:
New York Times
Boston Globe.
Washington Post

You guys are always accusing conservatives of racism, because you want to deflect attention from the facts at hand. This is just another liberal social engineered catastrophe.

by KenTX on 09/21/2008 09:12:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All he knows about you is what you post here. From those posts he garnered that you are a racist. Its simple.

All the links in the world are not going to change that one little fact.

by Chinese Democracy on 09/21/2008 09:26:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Ken said:

"What is very important is that the entire goddam world understands and recognizes that the Clinton Administration forced the financial marketplace to make loans to low income people who were not credit worthy. That’s what got us into this huge problem."

Did you read or understand  any of the replies in your own thread?

Did you even read or understand any of the links you posted? Judging from the past, probably not.

NY Times Link

A bigger reason may be that in recent years many subprime loans were not sought out by borrowers but actively sold to them by brokers and telemarketers, said Calvin Bradford, a housing researcher and consultant. A majority of the loans were refinance transactions allowing homeowners to take cash out of their appreciating property or pay off credit card and other debt.
Lenders made the risky loans, then often sold them to Wall Street investors. Many borrowers appear to have been swayed by brokers and lenders offering to look out for their best interests even when they had no obligation to do so.


CBS LINK

     “Some community bankers believe there is a racial component to the subprime mortgage crisis, a belief supported by the Federal Reserve report which shows that 55 percent of black borrowers versus 17 percent of whites were steered to subprime loans, even when they qualified for lower interest rates,” Pinkston said.

The racial component referred to here is that these people were steered to sub-primes even though they could have qualified for traditional loans. This is what ALL of these links is about. These people were scammed. THEY were victims. The Sun link was about Wells-Fargo being sued by Baltimore for Reverse Red-Lining. And ALL of them were about mortgage scams, not low-income people causing the crises by defaulting on their loans.

And, I know Ken, you probably think that the above copy & paste means that more blacks than whites got sub-primes, right?  And you don't know why that is incorrect, do you? Not a clue.

Incidententally - all of these links had "RACE" in their titles, not "LOW-INCOME". I think you probably googled "race" as one of your search terms.

You are a racist AND a liar. I don't know if you're incredibly dishonest or just incredibly stupid.

by perdido619 on 09/21/2008 10:38:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"What is very important is that the entire goddam world understands and recognizes that the Clinton Administration forced the financial marketplace to make loans to low income people who were not credit worthy. That’s what got us into this huge problem."

Stop saying this once and for all. It's complete bullshit.

GLBA does NOT force anyone to make loans to low-income people.

by perdido619 on 09/21/2008 11:09:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Stan Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith professor of Economics in the Business School at the University of Texas at Dallas.

February 5, 2008 -- PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mort gage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.

At the crisis' core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment.
 
Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness?
 
From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
Yet a "landmark" 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.

That study was tremendously flawed - a colleague and I later showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.

Yet the political agenda triumphed - with the president of the Boston Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the currency seconding the motion.

No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: "discrimination may be observed when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants."

Some of these "outdated" criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant's ability to manage debt.

Sound crazy? You bet. Those "outdated" standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

Who was that virtuous lender? Why - Countrywide, the nation's largest mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward bankruptcy.

In an earlier newspaper story extolling the virtues of relaxed underwriting standards, Countrywide's chief executive bragged that, to approve minority applications that would otherwise be rejected "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." He's not bragging now.
For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage caused by relaxed lending standards.
This damage was quite predictable: "After the warm and fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off, we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that lead to bad loans . . . these policies will have done a disservice to their putative beneficiaries if . . . they are dispossessed from their homes." I wrote that, with Ted Day, in a 1998 academic article.
Sadly, we were spitting into the wind.

These days, everyone claims to favor strong lending standards. What about all those self-righteous newspapers, politicians and regulators who were intent on loosening lending standards?

As you might expect, they are now self-righteously blaming those, such as Countrywide, who did what they were told.

by KenTX on 09/22/2008 12:55:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Again, yet another opinion piece by a third party that neither addresses the argument nor refutes my statement from the preceding raply, in fact it doesn't address these at all.

You continue to embarrass yourself and you don't even know it. All these third party opinion posts are blatant argumentum ad verecundiam. They'll always be meaningless And it's not even authoritative, as it's obviously an opnion essay.

But again, it's meaningless as it doesn't address ANY previous argument and doesn't support your assertion at all. Or maybe you just don't understand the article.

by perdido619 on 09/22/2008 03:14:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Walter E. Williams is the head of the Department of Economics at George Mason University. He is a respected economist and thinker. Here’s a picture of his smiling head.

fuck you perdido! (Love Walter) 

Here is Walter’s explanation of how America got into the current subprime crises.

“A subprime lender is one who makes loans to borrowers who do not qualify for loans from mainstream lenders. It's a market that has evolved to permit borrowers with poor credit history and an unstable financial situation the opportunity to get home mortgages. The catch is they pay a higher and typically an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM). Encouraged by the housing bubble, easy credit, along with the expectation that housing prices would continue to appreciate, many subprime borrowers took out mortgages they could not afford in the long run, particularly if interest rates rose and housing prices depreciated.

As with most economic problems, we find the hand of government. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton administration, is a federal law that mandates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. In other words, the Community Reinvestment Act encourages banks and thrifts to make loans to riskier customers.

According to an article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (11/04/07) titled "Black Atlantans often snared by subprime loans," by Carrie Teegardin, a national study of credit scores, not just mortgage loan applicants, found that 52 percent of blacks have credit scores that would classify them as subprime borrowers compared with 16 percent of whites.

Many lenders did make loans to people who had no realistic ability to pay them back. But that doesn't qualify as fraud, although there might have been a bit of exuberance in the repackaging of the mortgages into securities and selling them to investors. Some argue that many borrowers defrauded the banks by misrepresenting their income, the so-called "no doc" loans or "liar's loans".”

by KenTX on 09/22/2008 12:37:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Requiring banks to make (reasonable) loans to risky demographic groups is different than making risky loans to risky demographic groups.

David

by yturks on 09/22/2008 01:10:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
When Wells Fargo makes a loan to a guy with poor credit who is trying to buy a two bedroom house in Compton, CA for $700,000, that is the definition of a risky loan.

The bank employees were able to justify this crazy bullshit to each other in approving these loans, because the federal government had a gun to their heads. They had to make a certain percentage of loans to low income people who were trying to buy houses in low income neighborhoods. Otherwise the government agencies would be up their asses.
 
Furthermore, nobody ever considered the possibility that a two bedroom house in Compton was worth about $90,000 in the real world.

All of this worked until the real estate bubble popped.

by KenTX on 09/22/2008 01:33:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly.


There is no language whatsoever in GLBA that requires lenders to make ANY loans. GLBA has absoultely nothing with this. This was Ken's original assertion, as per his link to a GLBA wiki article.

CRA was from 1977.

CRA doesn't require lenders to offer loans to anyone. It only eliminates red-lining, which is when a lender refuses to offer credit based on geographic location. It does not require that lenders offer loans to borrowers who don't qualify.

There is no gun to any lenders head forcing them to make loans to those that didn't qualify under the lenders' own standards.

by perdido619 on 09/22/2008 02:03:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Stop embarrassing yourself. You're shifting arguments only serve to support your own pysychological need to believe that it was poor blacks (the bad guys) that caused this, and not rich, white Republicans (the good guys).

Your instistance on making a series of shifting assertions, is preventing you from any real understanding of this issue.

You're deluded.


by perdido619 on 09/22/2008 02:19:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
and everyone knows it.

by KenTX on 09/22/2008 02:25:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"I win"  That's the whole of your argument?

You're a fucking nutcase.

by perdido619 on 09/22/2008 02:41:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Except for all the people who always disagree with you when you say "everyone knows it," and that covers pretty much everybody.

All talk and no fireman's helmet, this guy.  Consistently.

by OneHitKill on 09/22/2008 05:34:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My reply title "Exactly&qu ot; was exaggerated. Your statement is true, but not exact.

CRA doesn't require lenders to make loans to anyone, it curbs red-lining.

The issue of red-lining doesn't refer to demographic groups, it refers to geographic groups - neighborhoods.

The idea was to prohibit refusing loans to qualified borrowers just because they lived or wanted loans for properties in red-lined neighborhoods.

CRA is what induced gentrification and stemmed urban decay. That's the point of CRA. The massive gentrification of the 80s and 90s are the direct result of CRA.

And, yeah, I know a lot of liberals opposed gentrification , as it displaced poor residents in favor of rich yuppie types in a lot of cases.

I'm not trying to make a pro-gentrification argument, just explaining the outward effect of the law, and how that law benefitted developers. It was a urban-decay issue, not a welfare-type thing. If a borrower didn't meet the lenders qualification, he stil wouldn't get a loan.


by perdido619 on 09/22/2008 02:38:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK - yet another opinion piece by a famous conservative columnist, straight from a conservative blog. Again, the SAME Talking Point.

This piece also doesn't support the argument, because it can't, it's not supporting a valid assertion - it's propaganda.

-GLBA doesn't require anyone to lend anything.

-CRA only requires prohibits lenders from red-lining. It also does not require lenders to grant loans to unqualified borrowers.

These points stand, as does the refutation of your original assertion.

Overall, Ken, a fucking pathetic attempt at argument - an EXTREMELY pathetic attempt at supporting your assertion.

Walter Williams, incidentally is EXTREMELY deregulation and a long time Conservative columnist.. So, is Liebewitz. The Liebowitz copy & paste that you posted was an op-ed piece for the Ruppert Murdoch-owned New York Post, by the way.


This entire argument, and your support of it, is klassic ken. You might as well have just supported this retarded piece of shit Talking Point by simply saying, "I saw it on Fox" this would have saved everyone a lot of time, you limp-dicked loser.









by perdido619 on 09/22/2008 03:35:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Like most racist, you blow by the facts and hard numbers.   You are emotionally wed to the idea that you are better than "the other" so you are incapable of dealing with reality.  Reality attacks your identity and to admit you are wrong on all levels is to question the very basis for your ego.  Facts will not penetrate your emotional/self-esteem issues because your issues are not factually based.   Somewhere in your actual life you feel so inadequate that like a drowning man you grasp at your sinking sense of worth by latching on to the mirage of  being a member of a group that you think is "better" then some made up stereotype about people who you  perceive to be members of another groups. 

by kylewis on 09/22/2008 10:52:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
To make such a post regarding this bill then we can assume Republicans think this bill was the cause of most of the mess, am I correct?

So thanks to a post above here are the vote counts to pass that bill which you claim was Clintons fault:

YEAs ---54  (R-53  D-1)
NAYs ---44 (R-0  D-44)

So Ken PLEASE confirm for us that the passing of this bill was the cause of the current problems.
(Lets suppose that the current administration is not responsible for any oversight during their first 6 years in power, we'll give you that, if Bush touched it then it may have been worse)

by Maverick on 09/22/2008 06:11:12 AM EST


You're take on this clip was Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy off!

by pictman on 09/22/2008 03:34:13 PM EST


 Display: