Thread: History and the stimulus package.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"

Oh, I get it. Bush serves as the president of the United States FOR 8 YEARS, and the blame lies with the guy who preceded him. Guess 8 years wasn't enough time to address the problem. Then let me correct my post: It was actually BILL CLINTON who left behind the current economic nightmare. Silly, silly me.

Hey Billy, my link addresses this very issue. You should check it out.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"Wait a minute. If it was Clinton who signed the legislation that dismantled the bank regulations that led to the mortgage/ bank crisis, how does G.W. Bush take credit for leaving Obama with the resulting nightmare?"

Oh, I get it. Bush serves as the president of the United States FOR 8 YEARS, and the blame lies with the guy who preceded him. Guess 8 years wasn't enough time to address the problem. Then let me correct my post: It was actually BILL CLINTON who left behind the current economic nightmare. Silly, silly me.

If the shoe fits....

(or wait...if the glove don't fit....???)


Seriously though, does it really matter at this point who's to blame? Although I'd like to see a few mortgage brokers and loan managers go to jail and pay some hefty fines.

Seems to me that the important issue now at hand is how to go forward from here, and therein lies the disagreement.


Scott

And BTW-the legislation signed by Clinton in 1999, which some have blamed as a contributing factor to the current economic situation, is given the following treatment by Wikipedia:

"The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.^[1]
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).^[2] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining) ^{[3] [4]} The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.^{[3] [5]} On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 ^[6] and by the House 362-57.^[7] This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.^"


So the bill was crafted by Republicans, and was signed into law by Clinton. Guess that means the Republicans had nothing to do with it. It's all Clinton's fault. And of course Bush and the Republican controlled congress had no opportunity for 8 years to undue this piece of dastardly Democrat-crafted piece of legislation. Oops, I meant to say Republican-crafted piece of legislation. My apologies to Phil Gramm for the oversight...

You forgot to add this little tidbit Billy

Financial events following the repeal

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 then the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. ^[14] It is therefore seen by some that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global_financial_crisis_of_2008–2009^[15]. However, such SIVs existed before the repeal of Glass-Stegall^[16]
The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just 5% of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30%.

It looks as though the mortgage lending standards started to loosen up in the mid 90's as the percentage of sub prime lending gradually increased:

From Wikipedia:

5% of total originations in 1994, 9% in 1996, $160 billion (13%) in 1999, and $600 billion (20%) in 2006

Scott

I can't find a source, but I seem to remember Clinton repealed Glass-Steagle with help from a republican congress as a concession to get sarbanes-oxley on the books. Again, I don't know how accurate that is but it sure wouldn't surprise me to find out that everyone on the hill is to blame for it.

Now here are some interesting links:

Greenspan admitting deregulation was a mistake

“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

HUD mortgage policy fed the crisis
Under Republican president and Democratic congress

Federal government stops states from protecting against the subprime mess locally
again, Republican president, Democratic congress.


Blame goes to everyone for this thing, ignoring that fact is okay because it DOESN'T MATTER NOW HOW WE GOT HERE. If a tree falls on a kid, you get the kid to the hospital. You don't yell at the kid for playing near a dangerous tree. Once the kid is better you levy your punishment as needed.


-Rob

Originally Posted by sicboater

Once the kid is better you levy your punishment as needed.


-Rob

And let us make sure the kid does not have anymore access to such trees on the way to or at the hospital

Originally Posted by JMS

Hey Billy, my link addresses this very issue. You should check it out.

Originally Posted by honedright

If the shoe fits....

(or wait...if the glove don't fit....???)


Seriously though, does it really matter at this point who's to blame? Although I'd like to see a few mortgage brokers and loan managers go to jail and pay some hefty fines.

Seems to me that the important issue now at hand is how to go forward from here, and therein lies the disagreement.


Scott

Guys please stop quoting Billyjeff since I put him on ignore my blood pressure has gone down several tens of points. Every time you quot him I end up reading his ignorant babble and it shoots back up again.

It is obvious he has a religious faith in the tenants of Marxism, let him be, until such a time as it is his turn up against the wall.

Originally Posted by sicboater

Blame goes to everyone for this thing, ignoring that fact is okay because it DOESN'T MATTER NOW HOW WE GOT HERE. If a tree falls on a kid, you get the kid to the hospital. You don't yell at the kid for playing near a dangerous tree. Once the kid is better you levy your punishment as needed.


-Rob

Rob, thats an odd way of putting it! a more accurate simile to my mind would be the rape and robbery of a young lady by a group of thugs!
I would not liken our government to a naughty but rather innocent child.

Originally Posted by JMS

Rob, thats an odd way of putting it! a more accurate simile to my mind would be the rape and robbery of a young lady by a group of thugs!
I would not liken our government to a naughty but rather innocent child.

You like to discuss the really important stuff don't you mark?

-Rob