Back to the Roots of the Problem

(This is my first post here at The Confluence as a writer. I have to say I’m just really happy and humbled that RD gave me this responsibility.  I hope that you find her faith in me justified and I will work hard to ensure that it is.  Kat)

I feel a strong need to remind people at this time of the roots of this financial crisis. They are not found beneath Wall Street, but in Washington, D.C. with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the senators and congressman that empowered them.  

The beginning of this crisis was the subprime mortgage market and the loose underwriting standards encouraged by FNMA and FHMLC on mortgage loans.  Fannie (FNMA) and Freddie (FHLMC) are involved with about half of the mortgage loan originations in that market.  Loose standards were set up to expand home ownership to folks who couldn’t pay home loans back and to improve the odds of high compensation for its CEOs.  Before any bail-out, rescue, or whatever you want to call it,  regulation has to be put in place to STOP this from happening again.  It’s really a nice social goal to increase the level of minority ownership in the country and to move the poor into homes of their own, but you can’t force it by giving folks loans they are not prepared to handle.  The House and Senate Democrats, and specifically the Black Caucus, are squarely behind this problem.  It is folks like Chris Dodd and Barack Obama–folks expected to clean up this mess–that were the beneficiaries of Fannie and Freddie largess that created very poor public policy and lack of regulation that led to this problem.

Wall Street did buy up these loans up after they were “packaged” into securities by Freddie and Fannie.  Freddie and Fannie bonds have been assumed to be nearly as safe as Treasury bonds so no one figured there were these toxic loans stuck into the mix.  Banks are also allowed to invest in Fannie and Freddie bonds.  They can’t invest in really risky assets like equities.  Who would have thought that Fannie and Freddie would be so poorly run that what they were investing in, what they were originating and selling to Fannie and Freddie, and what was being put together by Fannie and Freddie, would be so risky as to send their capital into regulator  panicking levels?   Ask Jim Johnson.  Ask Franklin Reines.  Ask Barack Obama and the Black Caucus.  They felt prudent underwriting was basically discriminatory and worked hard to change banks into speculators.

Here’s some examples:

Credit History: Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor…. In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. For lower–income applicants in particular, unforeseen expenses can have a disproportionate effect on an otherwise positive credit record. In these instances, paying off past bad debts or establishing a regular repayment schedule with creditors may demonstrate a willingness and ability to resolve debts….

If you’d like to know more about the loosening of standards,  here’s a really good study to check out:  http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Liebowitz_Housing.pdf

Recently, there were an entirely inexcusable number of underwriting lapses allowed and in fact, encouraged  by Fannie and Freddie (including spurious sources of income and no down payments) that increased the demand for housing by allowing people that should not have been in the housing market, into the housing market.  This drove up prices and led to the bubble and increasing speculation.  Once it became apparent, that there was increasing risk popping up in mortgages,  the financial innovations of derivatives (Wall Street enters now) popped up to help banks manage the risk and pass them on to folk supposedly more able handle the risk.  These things were supposed to act as insurance and were valued based on the idea that traditional Fannie and Freddie were very risk-free and there was implied government oversight, regulation, and back-up.

It is no wonder that the FBI is now looking at Fannie and Freddie.  It should also look at the democratic appointees and the senators and congressman that enabled them.  When credible economist like Greg Mankiw came to the senate and congressional committees to warn of this problem in 2003, folks like Barney Frank yelled at him for worrying more about safety and soundness rather than housing for the little guy.  The Wall Street Journal was all over this back then. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB106851042414562400.html?mod=googlewsj

This is the same Barney Frank that is bloviating and stomping his foot about the inability of House Republicans to get with his program.  Well, Congressman, it was your program that put us in this position to begin with so why would we trust you now?

House and Senate Democrats also had a chance in 2005 to increase oversight and regulation of Fannie and Freddie.  John McCain was a co-sponsor of this bill called Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  At the time McMcain made this comment that seems almost psychic now.

“If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”

You know how Senator Obama is going around saying the Bush administration is the one that hates regulation and led to this?  As a professional economist and Puma, may I just say this: liar, liar pants on fire!

 WASHINGTON – Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to restrain Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, giving the Bush administration’s blessing to efforts to create a new regulator with broad power over the huge mortgage companies.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/business/business_nation/article_473273.php

If you read the article, you’ll see that Allan Greenspan was also in front of congress and the senate begging for more oversight.

More from that article:

“The statements by Greenspan and Snow lent support to a new effort by Republican lawmakers to tighten controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which hold or guarantee more than 45 percent of all mortgage loans in the country. Legislation recently proposed would set up a regulatory agency with the power to compel the companies to sell off any assets deemed not to be in line with their mission of making homeownership more widely available.

Notice the guarantee point.  Wall Street and Banks rely on these instruments to be low risk basically because of that guarantee.  This includes AIG and all the investment banks that just crashed.  They undervalued the risk on these instruments because of the implicit guarantee.

My point here?  Congressional republicans (who I usually find a source of great evil) are NOT the bad guys here for once.  They tried but were told they were racist and that they hated poor people if they didn’t go along with the plan of extending house loans to people that basically could not afford them.  Most of the blame for this financial crisis belongs squarely in Washington and the Democrats are relying on our extremely short memories.  Since all of this comes under my teaching and research responsibilities, I cannot have a short memory. The MSM should start asking Biden, Obama, Frank, and Dodd some very tough questions.  First Questions?  Why didn’t you support regulating Fannie and Freddie back before all of this snowballed into a financial crisis?  Why are you now saying that you always supported more oversight and regulation and Republicans and the Bush Administration did not when the record clearly shows it was the opposite?

I’d like to suggest one of the first CEOs to turn back his salary and face the FBI is Franklin Raines.

He turned Fannie Mae into a mortgage factory to get higher bonuses and was investigated for cooking the books.  He is undoubtedly one of the folks that has interested the FBI.  Another person is Jim Johnson. (You’ll recognize these names because they are both Obama friends and advisors).

In late 2004, Fannie Mae was under investigation for its accounting practices. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight released a report  on September 20, 2004, alleging widespread accounting errors, including shifting of losses so Raines and others could earn bonuses.

In June 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, James A. Johnson (1991-1998) and Franklin Raines (1999-2004) had received loans below market rate from Countrywide Financial. Fannie Mae was the biggest buyer of Countrywide’s mortgages.  Don’t forget the three biggest recipient of FNMA money are Dodd, Kerry, and Obama. Dodd also appears to have a sweetheart mortgage deal.  The Democrats are not the white knights in this mess.  They would probably like to get this deal through as quickly as possible so voters do not find out that the bailout is not just a Wall Street Mess.  It is a K Street and Washington-created mess.  There is plenty of blame and greed to go around.

The very same people that created this mess are the ones writing the terms of the bail-out.  Be afraid!  Be very afraid!  I never put a steak on the kitchen counter and leave the dog alone in the room with it.  I would not leave the U.S. economy in the hands of these folks who are deciding the fineprint in a room with closed doors either.

137 Responses

  1. This is a nice summary and there is even more. But how do we get this story out to the public at large? I have seen some of this on Fox news but I have not seen the Repubs jump on it. I am surprised that McCain does not read from that speech he gave or memorize it and repeat it. He had opportunity in the debate last night but he only skimmed over it. I wish a 527 would do an ad series on this. We need it now. Maybe Sarah can be prepped to take this on in her debate with Biden.

  2. This post at NQ includes video evidence of congressional Democrats blocking attempts at oversight of Fannie Mae…

    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/27/baracks-fannie-mae-buddies/

  3. Wow! Excellent summary – one of the best I’ve read so far – of the current financial mess.

    Thank you, dakinikat, for a great first post. Keep it coming!

  4. I never put a steak on the kitchen counter and leave the dog alone in the room with it.

    Great post Dakinikat! Wonderful new edition to the erudite Confluence writers.

    I’m feeling discouraged. The fox is indeed guarding the hen house. I’m actually siding with some conservative economists who are screaming “foul!” To see Chris Dodd, Barney Frank & Obama out there parading around, indignant at the “greedy CEO’s” was too much to take.

    It reminded me of Claude Raines in Casablanca: “I am shocked– shocked to find that there is gambling going on in this establishment!”

    “Here are your winnings, Sir.”

    “Thank you very much.”

  5. Jangles: I know. Why the silence from the Republicans, including the Administration? That press conference with Reid, Pelosi et. al. was nauseating, and where’s the rebuttal?

  6. Excellent work. BTW, everyone should watch that video that JohninCA posted. It is very clear that in this case, the lack of oversight and regulation lies at the feet of the Dems.

    Repubs are plenty to blame for deregulation in lots of areas causing problems. But the mortgage crisis was Frank, Dodd, the CBC, etc.

    I understand the desire to provide housing for minorities and low-income individuals. Worthy goal. But you don’t lie, cheat, cook the books, imperil the entire financial system, and line your pockets in order to do it. And sensible people cannot be AFRAID to speak up for fear of being called uncompassionate r@cists – which, I firmly believe, is why even those with misgivings went along.

  7. thank you … I’m just hoping some of this stuff gets out to Lou Dobbs or some one like that … I know some of the ACORN connections and there’s also Urban League connections down here too are being posted on NQ

  8. Since we’ve found out Bill Clinton reads Lynette and Heidi and Hillary read’s Allegre … who knows?

  9. maxine waters?!

    and meeks is pissed off … how about his competence

    watch this video

    Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

  10. To paraphrase Dr. McCoy, I’m an artist not an economist. But even I understand that the Democrats are chin deep in blame on this one. And even I can see that McCain was waaaaaay ahead of the curve on this one. It is astonishing to me that (apparently) so many people are buying Obama’s take on this. It’s ludicrous!

  11. wow, that’s an amazing video …

  12. I posted this comment below.
    On tv today is an ad about FHA giving refinancing loans The are giving credit to chris dodd for a bill he passed for low income borrowers.
    The timing is perfect. What an ad to remind people what got us into this mess.

    COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS

    PUMAS,BUBBAS, AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE

  13. and if one connects the above video with the one where

    Daniel Mudd, the Interim CEO after Frank Raines was selling his stuff to

    the Congressional Black Caucus

  14. daikinikat

    great post

    watch also the video i just posted

  15. I was relying on the WSJ’s reporting, but those videos even drive the point home further

  16. Obama just was giving a speech saying the Republicans didn’t want to regulate this mess and it was on FOX. He’s back on the campaign trail. McCain’s evidently back in washington, dc working again

  17. Dakincat: This should be on the front page of every newspaper in America.

    I’ve walked into an alternate universe. With each passing day, I feel less like a Democrat, and more like a suckered American. I don’t want corruption and incompetence from either party, I just want to help our country get back on track.

    The only way to get back on track is to clean all the ugly from our national wound, and start the healing. No more lies on either side; that will only lead to gangrene.

    must go wash hands… no, this requires a shower.

  18. I believe that this entire installation of the most unqualified candidate is underwritten by the Wall Street which pumped about 100 million into an unknown – to have their ways after W was done. Obama was paid as much – or probably more by now as the all time record: W as INCUMBENT in 2004 – 10 mill. (B0 had 9.6 mil from Wall Street in August)

  19. That video on the Dem collusion in this is priceless. The DNC ought to do a nationwide ad buy and run it 24/7.

  20. Great article, dakinikat! I hope to see more of your work here. This should go mainstream BEFORE Congress passes a bad bail-out package that will
    allow the Congressional wolves in sheeps’ clothing to continue preying on innocent taxpayers. Thank you.

  21. FOX right now talking about ACORN, and their inclusion in the bailout.

  22. let me see something

  23. good now I am a proper member of the wordpress family! yeah!

    hello all Michael P Varvel is now Fuzzybeargville I have a wordpress account!

  24. CK, part of the reason they are trying to do this over the weekend is so that people like you and I can’t be calling our Senators and Reps and SCREAMING OUR HEADS OFF.

    I will be on the phone again first thing Monday morning – already called Friday.

  25. great post, Dakinikat.

    I also wonder why the Republicans aren’t screaming and yelling foul!
    Sure hope they have a plan to get this info out and soon.

  26. dakinikat–Excellent post! Thank you for your knowledgeable views.

    And, welcome to The Confluence! I look forward to reading more of your work here.

  27. I respectfully disagree with your criticism of Barney Frank. Barney Frank is our ally and one of the best members of Congress.

    Barney Frank supported Hillary Clinton at some political peril to himself. When Massachusetts icon Ted Kennedy supported Barack Obama, Barney Frank stuck with Hillary. When Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick supported Barack Obama and was joined by John Kerry, Barney Frank stuck with Hillary. When other Hillary Clinton supporters suggested she abandon the Campaign, Barney Frank stuck with her right through the end of June.

    Barney Frank’s district, Brookline, MA is filled with undergraduate and graduate students many if not most of whom supported Obama. Barney Frank stuck with Hillary because he thought it was the right thing to do.

    Had Hillary been nominated she would have been thrilled to call Barney Frank an ally in the search for a solution to this problem. She still considers him to be a close political ally and friend.

    There are no perfect politicians. All politicians say dumb things. Barney Frank was wrong to stick up for Fannie and Fredie in 2003 but this was well before the current crisis. And it is before the SEC changed oversight regulations that are as responsible for the current problems and the Fannie and Freddie abuses are. Remember, Franklin Raines was a close political aide to Bill Clinton. You’re not disparaging Bill Clinton for appointing Raines are you? You shouldn’t hold Barney Frank to a higher standard than you hold President Clinton.

    Barney Frank is one of the good guys; regardless of who you support for President you should be glad he is working on this.

    Any American who wants their fellow citizens to prosper (as PUMAs do), should be glad Barney Frank is on top of all of this.

  28. Why have the last 10-15 comments suddenly disappeared???

  29. Barney just made a big mistake with this thing … but he needs to make sure there are no more big mistakes with this bailout

  30. ck, i’m not sure … was trying to figure that out

  31. I was trying to delete a troll comment, I may have accidently nuked a few more comments by mistake is all I can figure (me very bad, sorry)…

  32. I thought we were being erased for being OT. Dakinikat the teacher flexing her muscles!

  33. This is a really important and comprehensive essay. It clearly shows that we now have two Parties which are dominated by interests inimical to that of the middle class,; particularly, I am sorry to say, the White middle class. The Republicans, as we all know, subscribe to theirpernicious Reaganomics, supply side,, let the corporations make immense profits with no oversight, philosophy. This has never benefitted the middle class, except by a fluke, for a few years, before making it worse for them. Why people ever bought into it is always a source of amazement to me. But the Democrats, once the Party which represented middle class working people of all ethnicities, have become increasingly dominated by limousine liberals who look down upon middle class working people, and who feel gratified and ennobled in practicing their form of noblesse oblige, concentrating upon the urban minorities, and internationally, Third World countries.

    And because the strange bargain instituted in the South between conservative Republicans and Black Democrats gerrymandered seats so that there are less overall Congressional Democrats from those states, but more Black Congresspeople, in absolute guaranteed safe districts, certain Black congresspeople have risen to positions of high seniority. Now, this might be a nice thing in the abstract, but the effect is disproportionate. And it directly had a good deal to do with this disaster, as Dakinicat effectively illustrated above. And all of this about much of the bailout money possibly going to ACORN, is related to how the Democratic Party is presently aligned; away from what Obama has described as “bitter people clinging to guns and religion,” or most tellingly, the Clintons, whom the elite Democratic liberals always saw as declasse intruders. I am pretty well convinced that an Obama administration will concentrate its social policy on the inner cities, with unfortunately nothing left for suburban middle class or union people. This may be unfair to say, but I have this nagging sense that the disavowal of “middle-classedness,” which we have read about as part of this campaign, goes along with an attempt to neglect and punish the current middle class, by turning them into workhorses whose earnings and taxes end up in the hands of the poor, as opposed to the rich, which is where the Republicans always direct them.

  34. catarina, on September 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pm Said:
    great post, Dakinikat.

    I also wonder why the Republicans aren’t screaming and yelling foul!
    Sure hope they have a plan to get this info out and soon.

    I agree great post but WHY isn’t the MEDIA chasing this information down???
    oh wait……. never mind

  35. nah, dakinikat the human being who makes mistakes … making mistakes

    but i did get rid of the troll, comment …

    i just overdid it (sigh)

  36. No worries dakinikat ….. congrats on being a new poster here !!!! Awesome first post !!!

  37. And dakinikat,, your post is right as far as it goes, but in my opinion you are exagerating the importance of Fannie and Freddie in all of this. You are right that they are a big part of the problem and you are rignt that Democrats are responsible for alot of Fannie and Freddie’s abuses. But you left alot out.

    1)The passage of Gramm/Leach/Bliley which eliminated Roosevelt era restrictions between commerical banks and investment banks is a root cause of this problem, Gramm has been a key advisor to McCain; Leach is Chair of Republicans for Obama. A republican House and Senate passed the bill with a veto proof majoirty so Bill Clinton reluctantly singed it.

    2)Mark to market accounting rules signed of fon by the Bush Administration is a root cause of the problem we are now facing, Requiring companies to mark to market securities for which there is no liquid market is dumb.

    3)The SEC under Chairman Chris Cox, a Republican, allowed naked short selling to continue unabated despite the fact that it was illegal. This is partially responsible for the fall of Lehman, Bear Stearns and AIG.

    I could go on and on. Your post is right. But it only tells half the story.

  38. Is ACORN still part of the package?

  39. Apology accepted, dakinikat. Do want to remind everyone, however, to continue calling and e-mailing members of Congress in opposition to the bad bailout bill throughout this weekend. I’m asking:
    – to know exactly why this bailout is necessary (no sweeping generalities or panic-stricken warnings)
    – complete transparency (post the bill on the internet BEFORE it’s passed)
    – NO EARMARKS, including those in the previous bill for ACORN, La Raza, Urban League
    – nonpartisan/citizen oversight to ensure the money ameliorates/addresses the problems and does not perpetuate them
    – guarantee that this ‘investment’ will provide some sort of concrete benefits to taxpayers at a given point
    – thorough investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and punishment of those who gamed the systems

    If we can’t have those things, then perhaps we should simply demand the government allocate each taxpayer their fair share of that nearly trillion dollar bailout and allow us to stimulate the economy with it, by paying off our credit cards, paying down our mortgages, investing it, etc., etc., etc.

  40. true wigwag, but the original contagion was the subprime lending crisis … it’s been worsened by a lot of stupid moves

    The credit default swap market should not have been left unregulated either … but much of the 2005 legislature and the new regulator that would have been created in that would’ve watched some of the mortgage derivatives market

    We don’t have any standalone investment banks any more … so that problem has sort’ve been solved, but the Fed’s powers over those functions in Bank Holding companies needs to be strengthened and should’ve been…

    the Republicans were completely overlax on that side of the problem, the Dem’s on the mortgage side… plenty of blame to go around for both

  41. CK: Barney’s great on a alot things I care about

  42. “…the Republicans were completely overlax on that side of the problem, the Dem’s on the mortgage side… plenty of blame to go around for both.”

    I agree with you 100 percent. And by the way, congratulations of a smart and provocative first post!

  43. Interestingly enough, two IMF economists have just come out with a study that shows that governments pumping emergency loans into failing banks or guaranteeing thie liabilities, as well as regulatory forebearances: like relasing banks from capital restrictions generally don’t work

    they studied 42 banking crises in 37 countries between 1970-2007

  44. I like Hillary (and Barney’s) suggestion that we put together a new agency to buy troubled-mortgage back securities from any one that has them to put a floor on the market… they can manage and write down the underlying mortgages.. that way you can help some of the homeowners stay in their houses if they can also

    just an fyi

  45. Well probably the world’s leading expert on bank failures and mistakes made during the Great Depression is Bernake. He wrote seminal papers on the subject when he was Chair of the Economics Department at Princeton.

    Appointing Bernake may be the smartest thing Bush ever did.

  46. CK: great points … the citizen oversight would be great, that would the politicians can’t bully the agency around … Fed oversight may work also

  47. yeah, about the only one I have faith in is Bernanke

  48. dakinikat,

    This is an amazing summary. It should be submitted to every major newspaper across the country. If every Conflucian investigates their hometown paper and gets the necessary information, out of all the submissions there will hopefully be a few that will actually print your article. I know, it would be hugely time consuming for you. But in case it’s a project you want to take on, here in San Francisco, it can be submitted to the Chronicle in 2 separate areas, Open Forum and Insight (although Open Forum would necessitate major editing, as they limit to 650 words):

    Open Forum
    650 or fewer words is the going length (about two pages), double-spaced, in 12-point type. With rare exception, we won’t run a writer’s work more than once every six months. There are lots of voices out there and we’d like to hear as many as possible.

    E-mail is best. Send to forum@sfchronicle.com and put “For Open Forum” in the subject line.

    (Please paste the text into the e-mail; do not send attachments, our virus-detecting software will delete e-mail with attachments.)

    On all submissions, please include your:

    Name
    Mailing address
    E-mail address
    Telephone number (home and office)
    Fax number

    Insight
    Insight, a Sunday commentary section, aims to provide a forum for the area’s best minds, shake up conventional wisdom and provoke fresh thinking. Have a piece about an issue in the news that’s unusual in its approach and uncommonly well-written? Cover articles run from 1,200 to 2,000 words. Other pieces can run up to 900 words. Send them to Insight.

    By e-mail: Insight@sfchronicle.com
    By fax: (415) 536-5198
    By post: Insight
    The San Francisco Chronicle
    901 Mission Street
    San Francisco CA 94103

  49. Lori again.

    This is great article – your voice is a welcome addition to this topic.

    People owning their home is a good thing. It provides for stable housing costs that allow us to get ahead, participate in our consumer economy more fully and get the kids through college. Then you retire, and your home is paid for. You got repairs and taxes and that makes it a lot easier for the family to contend with aging parents.

    I say all of this because you cannot expand the number of people who own homes by building new houses at the high end of the market. You can only dramatically expand the amount of home ownership by building to the bottom of the market. Most of the people over 30 who can afford to buy a home, do so. The people who don’t own homes, usually can’t afford to buy them. Use new technology to build low cost homes, and you can increase our nation’s economic stability and fire up a huge round of investment – but that’s not what we did.

    I’m angry that low income people got seduced into buying homes they couldn’t afford thinking they’d be forever priced out if they didn’t move now. I’m angry that we don’t do anything in the higher priced markets to create more affordable housing that can be purchased by people who are paid local market wages.

    It’s been a bullshit economy since 2002.

  50. I actually disagree with CK about the bail out although I admit that far more Americans (PUMAs and non PUMAs) agree with CK than with me. I think passing the bailout is the progressive thing to do.

    The tax code is still very progressive with the bottom 40 percent of income earners paying no federal income tax. If taxpayers did have to pick up the tab for the bail out, 40 percent of Americans will be exempt from the get go.

    On the other hand, without a bail out, shareholders will have to bear the burden. Stocks will plunge and everyone who owns shares will suffer.

    Hypothetically if the stock market drops 50 percent, that means a billionaire with a 500 million equity porfolio would lose $250 million. But s/he would still have $250 million left.

    A small business owner who made good might have a stock portfolio of $30 million. If stocks lost half their value, s/he would still have a portfolio of $15 million.

    But take your average worker who has scrimped and saved; who by being prudent may have amassed $80 thousand in their IRA or 401(k) after 30 years of saving. They need this money in retirement to supplement their social security income. If they don’t have it, they can’t retire. If the stock market declines 50 percent and their $80 thousand becomes $40 thousand they can kiss a comfortable retirement good bye. They are damaged forever. And all they ever did was work hard and play by the rules.

    It is far more progressive to let the top five percent of income earners who already pay 36 percent of all federal income taxes bear the burden instead of the worker who needs his 401k to retire.

    If necessary, raise the top rate; make tax rates more progressive so top earners pay an even larger percent.

    But this populist cry that the taxpayers shouldn’t pay, is a conservative trick. PUMAs and other progressive people shouldn’t fall for it.

    Having the taxpayer bear the brunt of the problem is the progressive thing to do. It’s what Roosevelt would have done. He would have saved the system and taxed the rich to pay for it.

  51. I understand, dakinikat; however, in this election year as in perhaps no other, I believe voters must look at the much bigger picture — who can we trust, based on track record and based on character, to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and our democratic form of government? That is what I believe is at stake in this election as perhaps never before. Those who’ve corrupted the democratic principles and processes on which our country was founded (at whatever level and by whatever means, including the FM and FM fiascos), in my opinion, cannot be trusted. They must be held accountable by those of us who value our basic freedoms in this democracy. They must be held accountable by insisting that they, our ‘elected representatives’ truly represent the best interests of ‘we, the people.’ If they do not, they do not deserve the salaries our taxes provide them, and they certainly do not deserve our trust.

  52. Perhaps they should put small fees on some trades to pay for it for awhile … Let me think on that one for awhile

  53. Dak, you can nuke me with your fairy wand if this is just too out there.

    Why can’t legislation benefit the citizens who will be hurt by this crisis instead of rewarding the bad behavior?
    How’s that for progressive?
    Why does Wall St. get bailed out, execs and all?

    Wig
    40% of income earners includes minors who worked a little, seniors with pt jobs, etc.
    Right?
    So many middle income full time workers may indeed help fund the bailout.

  54. Well, they could also put a slight excise tax from any one with a threshold income that has shown income from trades in certains assets the last few years … you’d try to exclude the pension plans, iras, stuff like that …

  55. catarina: nah, i wouldn’t nuke you for that … the only one I was trying to nuke was an Obamabot … really! I promise!!!

    i don’t think we need to bail the execs out at all …

    buying up the assets then selling them later at a profit could benefit the taxpayers … it did when we bailed out Mexico, Russia, and Chrysler …

  56. I’m looking at the 2007 tax return of a client.
    Family of 4
    AGI 69,500

    Total federal tax paid $ 2,983

    why??

    This young couple can barely pay their mortgage and grocery bill. He works nights and she works days because they can’t afford child care. They called me the other day to ask if they should pull all the $$ out of their 401k to pay their credit card bills off before winter and heating bills!

    They will help bay for this bailout.
    Is this fair?
    Anyway, I just can’t support the big mystery bailout. If Barack
    Obama doesn’t know what it looks like then wtf does?
    I mean, Acorn??
    No. Need more info, sorry.

  57. I dunno, dak-it might have been fun and stress-relieving to beat up the obamabot!
    (-;

  58. I like your ideas, catarina!

  59. oh, i’d hope that take out those earmarks for the likes of ACORN, i think they need a regulator to buy up the bad assets … not bail out the companies …just the opposite of that kind’ve tactical thing …

  60. Catarina, it is far better for your client for the tax payers to pick up the tab for the bail out then for shareholders to pay.

    If tax payers pick up the tab, they probably won’t pay more than a few hundred dollars more in federal tax (at most). Compare that with how much their 401k will plunge in value if the bail out fails and share holders pay.

    And those mortgage payments they are struggling to pay won’t be paid any easier, if the equity in their home plunges more than it already has. If the bail out fails, home values will fall even more.

    Your clients are the perfect example of why it is more progressive for taxpayers rather than shareholders to pick up the tab for the current criisis.

  61. if you look up about 1/2 hour ago … i don’t actually support giving the individual banks/brokers loans or money … we can soak up the bonds, break out the loans, renegotiate where possible for the folks being foreclosed on using a federal agenecy

  62. if we give ANY money to individual bank holding company, we need to get preferred stock in return

  63. whatever happened to Mccain’s idea of putting the plan online
    for the American people to read?
    I heard it’s gone from three pages to hundreds of pages.
    and why the hell is all so top-secret?
    and ohgoddess why don’t they announce a special committee
    headed by HRC to oversee the whole package?
    and if anyone gives me crap for pining for Hillary after that stupid and sucky debate last night I warn you I will throw the blog-nutty to beat all blog-nutties!
    :twisted:

  64. i don’t think any of the bailout should come from taxpayers on the lower ends of the income levels

  65. The idea of a nonpartisan regulator to buy up the bad assets is an intriguing idea, dakinikat, instead of bailing out the failed companies. How would that work? How could such a regulator be selected to ensure both expertise and impartiality, and how would this person’s activities be overseen to ensure the taxpayers’ best interests are being represented?

  66. Wig, I just can’t agree.
    Those poor kids are a dollar away from defaulting on their own mortgage, they need help.
    This does not make sense to me.

    How can there be any justification for hurting those who can least afford it when Obama took about 200K from FM??
    And how much did all those other fuckers get?
    And you want these kids who are afraid they wont’ be abel to heat their little house this winter to pay?
    Excuse me while I smash something.

  67. The plan isn’t out there … it’s still behind closed doors as far as I know …maybe some brave congressperson will put it out there on the web

  68. People are being squeezed so hard right now. I know many here in MA that are using credit cards to pay for their now-mandatory health insurance.
    (I will not go there, nosir!)

  69. dak
    they all suck
    the people should be getting more info, this is lame.

  70. Catarina, the median federal tax paid in 2005 (the most recent year I could find statistics for) was about $8,000. Even if that median tax payer saw their federal tax go up by 20 percent (which almost certainly won’t happen) to pay for this mess, their taxes would only go up from $8.000 to $9,600, an increase of $1,600.

    That same median taxpayer if they are 50 years old or older probably has an IRA, 401k or defined benefit pension plan worth $50,000 or more. If they own a home, their equity is probably one of their largest single assets.

    If the bailout doesn’t go through, their equity in their home will fall far more than the $1,600 they might pay in higher taxes. And the value of their retirement plan will fall be thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

    That’s why they are better off if tax payers pay for the bailout instead of shareholders.

    If you want to punish the fat cats who caused this mess, the right way to do it is to tax the s#*t out of them.

  71. CK: we’ve actually done it twice before … The RTC during the S&L crisis, and the Depression Era Home Owner’s Loan Corporation — ti bouth and restructured defaulting mortgages …

  72. The idea of Hillary heading a special committee to oversee the bailout is GREAT, catarina! Also, I second the idea of putting the plan online for all taxpayers to read (that’s part of what I’m requesting when I contact members of Congress). How do we move forward on these two ideas beyond this blog?

  73. Wig
    this is punishing more than just the fat cats
    this is ME, and many of my clients
    (ok, am a little fat, and people do call me cat..)

    but ONLY $1600??
    that’s a lot of money who tf has an extra 1600 lying around raise your hand!

    It’s like MO saying now don’t spend that stimulus check on $600 earrings!
    people are still paying last year’s heating bills in my state!
    folks are dirt broke!
    1600 is a lot to them.

  74. CK
    I don’t know.
    Hillary put forth a plan and it seemed largely ignored.
    Gotta love her she chugs on like nobody else.

  75. Maybe those nice FDR folks (previous post by RD)
    will take up the case for Hillary taking over :-)

  76. i” don’t think any of the bailout should come from taxpayers on the lower ends of the income levels”

    It won’t, the bottom 40 percent which does include part time and seasonal workers pays not taxes anyway. Remember, the tax system is progressive. Rich people pay more; much more. Having the taxpayer bail out the system means rich people pay more for it than middle class or poor people (poor people actually pay nothing).

    If Catarina’s client sees their 401k cut in half by a stock market plunge, they can kiss college good bye. If they have kids who want to go to college but they can’t afford it; they can kiss that goodbye as well. After all colleges pay for scholarships and other financial aide out of their endowments. If the markets plunge, the endowments plunge. What does that mean? No financial aide for the kids of people who Catarina advises.

  77. One question, Catarina, how does that $1,600 compare with the decline in their 401k and the amount of equity they will lose in their home without the bailout?

  78. agree with all you said on that last post WigWag … that’s why I wonder if we can put an excise tax on something specific that use the generic income tax to pay for it …

  79. that was the one at 3:39, WW …

  80. Wig, I do no advising or planning. I do taxes and payroll, mostly for small biz..
    Those kids moved their 401k away from stocks into a safer fund that won’t grow but they won’t lose principle.

    And poor people do pay taxes. They get no deductions.
    Middle class were whacked the past few years by the Alt. Min.

    and as for college-nobody qualifes for FAFSA money any more.
    I see peoples apps get rejected more than approved. there is no college money available. it’s really sad.

  81. dakinikat, why not just raise the top rate for the top one percent (people who make over $305,000) to 45 or 50 percent?

    Another option would be an excise tax on all securities transactions but I like this less because it is a regressive tax. Middle class people and wealthy people pay the same percent.

    One of the greatest gifts Franklin Roosevelt ever gave us was a profoundly progressive tax system. Since Reagan, the progressivity of the system has eroded. Why not return it to it’s progressive roots?

  82. Raising the top rates would do it just fine!

  83. Wig

    People live paycheck to paycheck. It hurts to watch.
    The sacrifices people will make this winter will be really sad.
    Seriously, some people are on a string. Expenses have gone up, their paychecks have not.
    Where will they get that extra money? Out of their grocery budget? Skip Christmas? Turn off the heat completely?

    We can’t take it from them. It’s cruel.

  84. Excellent post dakinikat!

    I was reading a lot on the Dems’ responsibilities in this mess and they are not blameless. That proposed legislation back in ‘05 may have helped avoid a lot of this mess, from what I understand.

    It is noble and good to help lower-income citizens try to become homeowners, but in hindsight, that entire thing needed more scrutiny.

    And, there’s no way in hell I support any proceeds going to Acorn, the Urban League or any other non-government organization. If the taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for this mess, there is no way any monies should be going to those groups.

  85. Catarina, if the bailout plan were not to pass, I would even worry about money in a bank account. And I would have no confidence in FDIC protection.

    The FDIC currently has $50 billion in assets protecting trillions of dollars of deposits. Runs of the bank were once a common occurrence in the United States. We haven’t had a serious one since the 1930s. If the bailout doesn’t pass, I believe we could easily see another bank run. With the TED spreads we have now. banks won’t be able to borrow from other banks to allow people to withdraw their money. People like your clients could easily show up at the cash machine only to find it isn’t dispensing any money. Their deposits will be frozen.

    And as I say, the FDIC will be useless if this happens on a big scale. It doesn’t have adequate capital (another Republican caused problem). The only way to recapitalize the FDIC in an emergency will be by printing money. Do you know anything about what happened to the value of money in Weimer Germany in the 1920s or Zimbabwe last year?

  86. I just heard a Dem congressman from CA say the Acorn subsidies are still in the bill …

  87. “We can’t take it from them. It’s cruel.”

    I agree, save the system by taxing the rich.

  88. I have to agree with catarina regarding the onerous burden on middle income taxpayers represented by the proposed bailout. I’m over 55 and have been a self-employed professional for many years. I never grossed more than $85K in any year, and without fail wound up struggling to pay a huge tax bill as a single person. I finally had to decimate my individual retirement (as small as it was) when high tech tanked, and I currently have absolutely no retirement of any kind. I certainly don’t have a spare $1600 lying around to bail out Wall St. companies who played fast and loose with the rules, lined their executives’ pockets, failed and now cry to the taxpayers to be bailed out so they can do more of the same. I’m no economist, but I do know firsthand that any hike in federal taxes for a middle income taxpayer can mean the difference between meeting the mortgage or not, paying the heating bill or not, paying the credit card bill or not, having Christmas for the kids or not, and (especially today) keeping sufficient gas in the tank or not. That’s an unfair burden, no matter how you look at it, particularly for families or singles with kids.

  89. With ACORN gobbling up 20% of the bailout it just isn’t going to be my cup of tea – ACORN does not belong in there – take it out NOW.
    WMCB is right we need to all jump on those phones first thing Monday AM and let them know how we feel – what we think and how we’ll vote. Sending a few emails and letters wouldn’t hurt either.

  90. CK, I’m not being snarky, but if you think the bailout shouldn’t pass, I suggest you go to the bank Monday morning and do one of two things: (1) take out any money you have and put in in your mattress or (2) use 100 percent of your money to buy gold coins.

    Without this bailout thousands of banks may fail. Banks will stop dispensing money.

    If that sounds like a scare tactic to you, please remember that from the time of the industrial revoulution to the enactment of the New Deal, this type of bank run occurred scores of times. The reason Paulson, Barney Frank and others are panicked is because they know there is a fair chance it could happen again.

    And as for your job, whomever your clients are will find their accounts frozen too. There is a serious question about whether they will be able to pay your fees.

    That’s what depressions are all about.

  91. I think the government has to step in a do something. I just don’t want it to include earmarks to more of the folks that created the problem and I think the financing needs to cover taxpayer’s backsides …

    None of those earmarks for ‘affordable housing’ should survive. We also need to insure that taxpayers don’t pay for any golden parachutes. It stil it just set up an agency to buy up the trouble assets and wind them down and that’s about it.

  92. There is no way this bailout should be approved so long as earmarks are still there for organizations such as ACORN. This organization is under investigation for election fraud. BO was their attorney. BO has paid megabucks to this organization and its subsidiaries for campaign ‘advance’ work, etc.

    P.S. to WigWay: You are being snarky, but I suppose that’s what mob hysteria does to people. I get by whatever way I can these days, my work having dwindled as a result of ageist/sexist practices in the corporate world.

  93. dakinikat, I agree with everything you said. All those add ons make the bill much worse not better. But I think the tendency by lots of people on the left, right and in the middle to underestimate the seriousness of this crisis is a mistake. And I think people don’t understand they very terrible effect on them if the Paulson plan (as revised by Barney Frank) is not passed.

    You may not like Paulson and his ilk; neither do I. But you have to admit that they are not stupid, They are not freaking out because they are afraid of a crisis that will cause their assets to drop by 50 percent. If Hank Greenberg (AIG) or Paulson (formerly of Goldman Sachs) lose half of what they have they are still tremendously wealthy.

    What they see is the prospect of a complete financial meltdown that approaches that of the great depression. That means unemployment rates north of 25 percent; bank failures on a scale that few living Americans have ever seen; tent cities where people who lost their homes now live.

    Those who forget history, tend to repeat it.

  94. Wig
    One big fat problem here.
    we don’t even know what ‘this bailout” is!

    And nobody is telling us. How can you possible sell it?

  95. CK,, so you would rather see tens of millions of people lose their jobs; hundreds of thousands of people lose their homes and millions of people lose their bank accounts and other assets because earmarks for Acorn piss us off?

  96. possibly i mean

  97. WigWag
    tell us, are you really Hank Paulsen?
    ;-)

  98. mybad sorry

  99. catarina, we do know alot about the plan but not everything. We know that it permits the government to buy “toxic” assets that are hard to value so companies (which have to mark these assets on their balance sheets at their market value) can remove these assets from their balance sheets. We know that this will add tremendous liquidity to the system. If the government overpays for the assets, it will also add capital to the system. To prevent a financial collapse, we need to inject both liquidity and capital.

    We also know that Barney Frank has done a great job of amending the original Paulson plan so their is far more oversight of the Treasury Secretary than there origininally was in the plan.

    And we also know that the plan contains ridiculous earmarks that while terrible, are basically a sideshow.

    If at the end of the day yif ou had to accept the earmarks to prevent a depression, only an idiot would say they would rather let the bill go down to defeat.

  100. Catarina, I would be happy to have one tenth of one percent of Paulson’s wealth.

  101. Wig

    Call me an idiot.

    The earmarks are theft.
    Stealing.

    It’s a sad day when government gets a pass to steal money from it’s citizens and call it “earmarks”.

  102. Wig, it’s been a pleasure and I mean that.
    Dak, thanks again for the provocative post.

  103. Me too, thanks Catarina. And dakinikat,, I look forward to many other great posts from you!

  104. ACORN deal just discussed on Fox.

  105. I only have one small caveat to offer up here. In a post I did on my site, I offered up the opinion that from watching HGTV, anybody could have seen this coming years ago. Not only poor people were getting “sub-prime” loans, it seemed like everybody was, across the board. With everybody buying more house than they could afford, at inflated prices due, in part, to “flipping,” at 100% financing, defaults on loans are not limited to the poor. If that loophole had not been so egregiously exploited by the greedy lenders, none of this would have happened, imho.

  106. What did they say about ACORN?

  107. If you watch this video link at Crooks and Liars it will be obvious to you that this is the greatest of train robberies and it is in progress as we speak in broad daylight. A senator asks the obvious question, bizarro world ensues.

    Sen. Schumer: One of you mentioned that you will use about $50 billion dollars a month. If that’s the case, and you’re certainly not going to use all $700 billion immediately, and as you can see there are a lot of questions about whether this will work, we understand you’ve done your best and you think this will work best, but it’s clear we’re in uncharted waters. But what about doing this in tranches? Why couldn’t you ask us for $150 billion, and on January 15th or January 20th we would come back, we would assess how this worked and grant some more money if it’s really working?

    Paulson has no answer: yes, he’ll only be spending $50 billion a month but the market wants to see the full $700 billion committed right now. Come on folks, isn’t it obvious what’s going on here?

  108. Who’s hear about Gov. Blunts statement from Missouri. The Obama camp has gone too far. He is not a happy man.

    Missouri Gov. Blunt: Obama needs to grow up

  109. Great post and here is a fantastic video covering the root of the problem as well:

  110. [...] see economist dakinikat’s excellent analysis, Back to the Roots of the Problem, at The Confluence. She concurs that, although we’ve always been on the Democratic side of [...]

  111. Kat — This is a really good explanation.

    There has to be a way to get this out there.

    It needs to get out there: Bush ought to be fighting back, but has rolled over. McCain is not in the trenches, at least not yet. The Dems are running away with this. And the msm is studiously ignoring the situation too.

    Ideas, anyone? Put it on TM and then use that broadcast function? Or can that broadcase function be used independently?

  112. Kat- I’ve been a fan of your blog for awhile. I’m glad to see you have a great post up here. It is a great way for your work to reach a wider audience and it gets more stuff about economic policy on this blog.

    I’ve read the comments with great interest. While I don’t doubt that this is a serious crisis, all the economic blogs I follow are seriously critical of even the Democrat-amended version of the bailout (to the extent we know details about oversight, equity warrants, yada yada). It still has the stench of a high stakes poker game were a lot of big money on the sidelines is waiting for Congress to blink first.

    Regarding the meat of your post, I wasn’t following real closely, but I do remember the uproar about trying to reform Fannie & Freddie in the past, and my recollection is that the Dems always framed this as the Repubs trying to privatize them. Since I have since become far more suspicious of the Dems, I now wonder if there was any truth to that charge? Or were they simply on the gravy train? Your view?
    Thanks again for focusing on this.

  113. Those who are trying to explain how the whole sub prime mess started and turned into the horror it is today are already being called racists. The perpetrators are already screaming that poor and minority people are being blamed. Anyone with two functioning brain cells can see that the poor are not to blame for wanting to be part of the dream of owning their own home, it is the politicians who push these programs for the benefit of contributors (the poor cannot donate hundreds of thousands to one congressman) and business which includes financial, realtors, home product and building manufacturers, builders and developers, etc. The poor are the victims as are the rest of us. I am tired of the most guilty parties screaming the loudest.

  114. Wig Wag

    I disagree. A few additional days spent removing earmarks directed at organizations which commit fraud, and are working towards bringing Obama the presidency are worth it. Wall Street will not crash in those few days because too many in power have too much to risk. I work in this industry and it knows no one will allow it to fail to the point of risking another depression.

    An Obama presidency would hurt us economically to such an extent that we may not recover. There is no way to cover the costs of this bailout (which will become much more than 700B) and all of the spending plans he has planned including the Poverty Bill which is already going through the process of approval.

  115. the inclusion of ACORN in the bailout is tantamount to a CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION to BO. What BALLS!!

  116. looking for integrity, I don’t like the earmarks in the bill either, But they are a side show, They are immaterial to to the purpose of the bill. It’s better if they are removed but it is essentially non consequential if they are not.

    I’m not saying the open of the NYSE on Monday is necessarily a hard deadline. But if the bail out is not passed in the next several days, the risks are high that between 25 and 30 percent of the people who read this blog will lose their jobs. People who read this blog who have retirement accounts will see them wiped out. Students who read this blog will never get a job in their choosen field or even dispensing coffee in Starbucks or bagging groceries in the supermarket.

    Paulson’s panic is not a gimmick. He sees liquidity in the system disappearing. If it disappears, the inevitable result will be a bank run like we haven’t seen in 75 years. We won’t be witnessing a recession, we will be witnessing a depresion.

    Unless you’re at least 75 years old, you don’t know what that’s like. If you work in the financial industry or banking (as you imply) the chance that you personally will lose your job is very high. Most of the people you know will also suffer.

    These are not scare tactics. This has happened numerous times before in US history.

    People who are focusing on the earmarks in the package because they hate Senator Obama or because they are angry at the Democrats are taking the risk that the US economy will literally collapse.

    That’s not smart; it’s not clever and it’s not patriotic.

    And by the way, it doesn’t show alot of integrity.

  117. excellent analysis…thanks

  118. Nice summary dakinkat, thanks.

  119. WigWag, on September 27th, 2008 at 8:52 pm Said:

    … I don’t like the earmarks in the bill either, But they are a side show, They are immaterial to to the purpose of the bill. It’s better if they are removed but it is essentially non consequential if they are not.
    ________________________________________________________

    I am not yet ready to buy this as if it were a fact. WigWag are you an economist? I am not asking this to be provocative or to dismiss your opinion out of hand if you are not. The thing is i have read a statement by numerous learned, educated economists, of the first rank in the field of economics, that at least gives me pause to doubt that your views are quite as firm in substance as you suggest.

    I DO feel that it is very consequential that ACORN ends up with a large chuck of the taxpayers change. You surely know the recent history of ACORN discussed on this site, and their connection with BO. Your doomsday scenario o the economy is not shared by many economists who see the recent problems in the financial sector as just that – a problem in the financial sector and not, necessarily, a problem with the economy as a whole. Rupert Murdoch’s interview with Neil Cavuto in Fox (Murdoch’s TV station) seemed to me to indicate that Murdoch also shared this view. So am I to dismiss these successful economists and Murdoch and believe you that the sky is about to fall, therefore we should stop worrying about a piddling several hundred million funneled to the corrupt ACORN group? Many thoughtful people have drawn attention, on this site, to the Democrats culpability in these financial sector failures, and their connections with ACORN.

  120. William, this is good, me too:

    “I have this nagging sense that the disavowal of “middle-classedness,” which we have read about as part of [Obama's] campaign, goes along with an attempt to neglect and punish the current middle class, by turning them into workhorses whose earnings and taxes end up in the hands of the poor, as opposed to the rich, which is where the Republicans always direct them.”

  121. I’m going to remind you that Barney Frank was not the chairman until 2006. The Republicans owned Congress (Senate had 55 Republicans and the House 229 Republicans) and the WH. The Republicans passed whatever bill they wanted and GW signed signed. There is no excuse that the Republicans can come up as to why they did not act.

    The Democrats also sat on on their hands from 2007 to today knowing full well that the shit would hit the fan and spray the taxpayers with force.

    The pointing of fingers, especially by the Republicans is just plain CRAP.

  122. William, on September 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pm Said:

    … I have this nagging sense that the disavowal of “middle-classedness,” which we have read about as part of this campaign, goes along with an attempt to neglect and punish the current middle class, by turning them into workhorses whose earnings and taxes end up in the hands of the poor, as opposed to the rich, which is where the Republicans always direct them.
    ___________________________________________________

    Yes, and when these newly impoverished middle class people – these “shrill whiners” – begin to complain and organize, BO and his goons will set the police on them. Is a group of people – the middle class, being made scapegoats for the poor in society?. Are the middle class the new Jews of the Weimar Republic of the United States in BO’s brave new world ? (Wow, some metaphors got mixed there!)

  123. This is a great post dakinikat. I have not had a chance to come up with new graphics for the other bad actors but have one for Chris Dodd – aka Dozo the Clown. Check it out when you can

    http://olbynocchio.blogspot.com/

  124. I have zero genes on economy, so this whole thing is way over my head, but I diligently read this post to educate myself. I have a question.

    The article leaves me with the impression that Wall Street has minimal, if any, accountability in all this. Are the Wall Street banks and investors really that “naive” and lacking in insight and expertise (there must be a better word for what I’m trying to describe) that they were not able to properly evaluate the risks in the Fannie/Freddie loans until it was too late? I find this hard to believe. Are not Wall Street people supposed to be extremely savvy? But, like I said, I know nothing of these things.

  125. [...] Live Blog: Thread 2Barack Obama flaps arms, clucks like a chicken, wins debateSaturday: TumbleweedsBack to the Roots of the ProblemOn the Lighter Side…Obama and EV: A Play in One Unrequited Act.Scratching Post Friday Night – [...]

  126. urgetocompute, the source of my knowledge is not academic. I have witnessed a bank run first hand. And I know what a depression is.

    Trust me, you don’t want to experience it. It is so bad that you don’t even want to take a five percent chance of experiencing it.

    Don’t think you could lose your home or your job? Don’t know what it’s like to compete with a million other people for the privilege to bag groceries?

    Take my word for it, you don’t want to find out.

  127. An excellent summary. Thank you.

    But I might add…..info from my MBA/Economics husband (I’m just an English major):

    Once Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed these suprime mortgages into “investment packages,” the rating agencies like Moody’s gave the packages a AAA rating (making huge fees themselves) for investors to peruse.

    What the banks/investors around the world didn’t know, was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had fraudulently packaged 40% junk rated crap with 60% AAA rated, but Moody’s gave the whole package AAA.

    Banks, investment funds, pension funds, mutual funds, etc, around the world assumed they were worthy investments because Moody’s rated them AAA and because the federal government “guaranteed” them.

    Many of the international banks to whom these “packages” were sold had no idea that 40% of their investment was total junk .

    It’s a large part of why China’s central bank has cut back on, if not eliminated, investing in American banks or investment firms.

    And a large part of why the German Financial Minister discreetly said that America will probably NOT be the center of international finance anymore. Too many international firms got finagled by the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “packages,” and no longer trust our financial system.

    And all that, because the Dems in Congress wanted more unqualified minorities to be able to buy homes, and because Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd’s Senate Banking and Urban Housing Committee resisted imposing better regulations in 2005.

    Anyone who questioned Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (see the video above) were accused of racism and disregard for poor people.

    Bill Clinton even admitted on Good Morning America that HE tried to reform Fannie & Freddie, and regulate them more, but the Democrats blocked all of his efforts to do so.
    HIS words, not just mine.

    This “bailout” is cover for the poor choices made by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, which were fraudulently packaged and sold to national and international banks and investment firms as AAA investments, guaranteed by the federal government.

    We sold this crap ALL OVER THE WORLD as worthy, quality investments in America.

    And we did it willfully and fraudulently.

    So says the spousal unit, and he’s one hell of a CPA.

    I think McCain and the House Repubs know ALL of this, but if they say so publicly, they’ll be called racists, AGAIN.

  128. [...] Back to the Roots of the Problem [...]

  129. The article leaves me with the impression that Wall Street has minimal, if any, accountability in all this. Are the Wall Street banks and investors really that “naive” and lacking in insight and expertise (there must be a better word for what I’m trying to describe) that they were not able to properly evaluate the risks in the Fannie/Freddie loans until it was too late?

    No, there’s plenty of blame to go around…if you give Wall Street and banks a good reason to exploit a situation they will take it … but they did under evaluate the fannie and freddie loans due to the implicit gov. guarantees AND they were paid to churn out a lot of loans which they did with glee. Plus, in order to give loans to poor folks and adjust for risk, they stuck them in loans that could explode in their face if the market turned…

    With Wall Street, it’s all about the short run profits … they’ll take them anyway they can–even if though know its from something that will eventually implode… that’s why they invented the credit-risk shifting instruments like credit default swaps … this was basically to insure themselves and pass the trash … only, that caught up with them too ..

    as I said, plenty of blame to go around for Dems, Repubs, Greenspan, SEC, Fannie, Freddie, and Dubya …

  130. Well, except that even Bill Clinton admitted on ABC’s Good Morning America that the Democrats resisted, even when HE tried to reform Fannie & Freddie.

    And in 2005, Alan Greenspan urged at hearings that Fannie & Freddie regulations be tightened up, but the Dems/CBC completely blocked any action.

    Clinton, Greenspan, and the Repubs, including John McCain , TRIED to reform Fannie & Freddie. All Dems voted against it, Repubs for, it got out of committee.

    But that reform legislation was never allowed to come to the floor of either the House or the Senate, once the Dems got control in 2006.

    Those are the facts, dakinikat.

    And here we all are.

  131. Great post, but it goes even further. Look at Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, to Bill Clinton’s amending it twice, to Phil Gramm and the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, to George Bush and the American Dream Downpayment Act and the Zero Downpayment Act of 2003. The timeline extends all the way back to the seventies and involves a whole host of characters, both Democrat and Republican. It is a very interesting time line.

    If you are interested check this out.

    http://politicsandcriticalthinking.blogspot.com/2008/09/ct-following-up-on-last-post-obama-fact.html

  132. Thanks, dakinikat. I appreciate your reply.

  133. Excellent post. Thanks for making the effort. I knew all that, but was too lazy to write it up.

  134. I would like to see this write up as an op-ed in every major newspaper in the USA. Can I sign my name to it here in Santa Barbara, CA? Steve AKA Plagiarist Numero Uno. (I really won’t do it)

  135. Obama-All talk!
    Watch this CSPAN video. Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and democrats are definitely to be blamed back in 2004 for stopping the regulation of Fannie and Freddie and the mainstream media do not even care to report. Obama is part of the problem and not solution.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w

    Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the “Family” and “Conscience” of Fannie Mae
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn2ODtyIH0o

    Franklin Raines, the former Clinton budget director who went on to serve as chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified that the mortgage-related securities of these two organizations, which have now rocked the entire financial world, were “riskless.” During his tenure, Raines criminally led Fannie Mae to falsify its books so that he would qualify for excessive bonuses and compensation eventually totaling $90 million.
    The following year John McCain was one of three co-sponsors of legislation to impose such regulatory supervision and controls over Fannie and Freddie. The Bush Administration supported this as well, in one of its four attempts to win legislative approval for such expanded regulatory authority. But the Democrats shouted these proposals down as an assault on affordable housing for the middle class and the poor.
    I can understand if Senator McCain is frustrated because the media is so biased.
    I believe that Sen. McCain and Gov. Sarah will fight for the people and cleanup Congress.

Comments are closed.