for freddy and fanny i thin Dodd and Franks ( the 2 idiots responsible for those monsters ) should do a hara-kiri.. end their silly lives in a honorable way.

Шурик, вот здесь ответы на ваш вопрос, кто виноват в кризисе. Посмотрите, не поленитесь
**
Мне нечего смотреть эти видео ролики. Республиканцы были у власти
сколько лет? Не ужели если это всё правда они не хотели это поменять?
****
The problem one hand was giving money to the other! So everyone was happy. Of course if you can make money out of thin air, wouldn't you package it and sell it?

Шурик, так вы ничего не уяснили из этого ролика? Tам же специально крупным шрифтом всё расписано. Республиканцы хотели закрутить гайки потуже на Фрэдди с Фэнни, а демократы им не дали. Ещё и в расизме обвинили. ( Ну как же, Frank Raines is black, he can do do wrong).

Мария,
республиканцы были у власти 8 лет. Чего то трудно поверить что за 8 лет
ничего не сделали (N)

Fannie and Freddie alone did not cause the financial problems. They provided the mortgages, AIG insured it,
Goldman packaged it and sold it on the open market.
It was combination of factors and of course you can blame the democrats and republicans in complacency.

First step in the right direction(Y)
AFP Praises House Republicans for Banning Earmarks. TheHouse Republican Conference voted today to ban the use of earmarks byits members. Americans for Prosperity has been educating and mobilizingthe public to fight against pork-barrel earmarks for years, including anationwide RV tour called the Ending Earmarks Express that traveledmore than 15,000 miles in 2006 visiting the 50 most egregious earmarksin 38 states.

“We congratulate Leader Boehner and the House Republicans for taking this bold step,” said AFP Vice President for Policy Phil Kerpen. “Our foundation’s recent study confirmed earmarking works all too well at buying votes for re-election, so this decision to refrain from earmarking took real political courage.
“The American people are tired of hearing about pork projects and having their taxes raised to pay for them. Even House Democrats are starting to realize this – but their ban on earmarks for corporations allows for earmarking as usual by state and local governments, public authorities, and universities. The idea that earmarking is somehow virtuous when it rewards government entities for taxpayer-funded lobbying is ridiculous.

The House Republican Conference’s historic decision to put a unilateralend to earmarking is the biggest, most concrete step away from corruptearmarking-as-usual ever taken, and they deserve enormous credit forputting principle ahead of politics.”

"Fannie and Freddie alone did not cause the financial problems. They provided the mortgages, AIG insured it, Goldman packaged it and sold it on the open market. It was combination of factors and of course you can blame the democrats and republicans in complacency."

You're forgetting the one single event that actually WAS responsible for all of the above listed "dominoes" to fall. Not suprisingly, it was not any one economic mistake, made by any of the big players.
It was a POLITICAL decision made by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Yet again, history proves that whenever a government interferes with the normal market forces of supply and demand bad things happen.
The name of this particular "bad thing" is CRA. Also known as "Community Reinvestment Act". Signed into law by Carter administration. Expanded by Clinton administration. And ignored and allowed to fester out of control by Bush administration.

I know this isn't the first time I'm posting this, but some amongst us just refuse to accept facts.
" Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.” "

"Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley"

" Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market."

" Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive <FONT color=#007cd5>survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis
in this week’s Barron’s.)"

Lina,
I recall that we had an extensive argument over this. I don't intent to re-create it again. Suffice it to say that you will have your opinion and I will have mine. And we can agree to disagree.

All I am going to add (and this will be my last post on this subject) is that the primary REASON why many of these financial institutions were even able to make these "unsupervised" loans was because they knew full well that they themselves will not have to carry these unpayable loans on their books. All they need to do is to skim a little bit of the top in loan origination fees and then turn the actual loan over to one of those "motrgage packaging" companies like Merrill Lynch or Bear Sterns, who in turn would sell it as a "derivative" (insured by AIG, no less) to a government guarranteed outfit like Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac.

This sceme was very profitable and worked as long as the real estate prices kept going up. In reality this was nothing more than a pyramid, akin to Bernie Madoff, multiplied hundreds of times.


Everyone, who participated in this scam, from bankers, to insurers to bond rating companies to real estate brokers are responsible for this collapse. But it was ENABLED by the Federal Governement by providing easy liquidity for these loans.

In the past no banker in his right mind would give you the money for 30 years if he didn't think he can get that money back. This time, bankers didn't have to worry about getting their money back because it wasn't THEIR MONEY. It was ours.

No matter who you blame, who do you think profited from the greatest financial crisis? Do you think I did?
No way. The rich profited not the middle class or the poor. My 401k and my ira suffered. Besides the fact we will have no social security money left when we retire, now even our 401k and Ira will suffer as well. You can thank the rich and the powerful!

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has beenweakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it tookoffice.
***
yes!

Shurik, how did rich profited from the crisis? Stop throwing accusations around.

Oleg,
isn't interesting that soon after the TARP money was given out
all the banks that had no money left but what they owe, started to show record profits? I can show you the first qtr 2009 results for Goldman Sachs, B of A, Wells Fargo etc. Manipulation on Wall Street where the Financial firms pushed the stock market to 20 year low to force the mutual fund redemption. Who do you think lost money there? How about your home value? Did you make money?

All I am going to add (and this will be my last post on this subject) is that the primary REASON why many of these financial institutions were even able to make these "unsupervised" loans was because they knew full well that they themselves will not have to carry these unpayable loans on their books.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which institutions? Not the CRA banks. "Compared to other lenders in their communities, banks making loans
in their CRA assessment areas (CRA Banks) were less likely to make a high cost loan, charged less for the high cost loans they did make, and were substantially more likely to eschew the secondary market and retain high cost and other loans in portfolio. Foreclosure rates were also lower in metropolitan areas with proportionately greater numbers of bank branches."

***********.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS135259+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107

In addition, remember how they fed or Timothy Geistner re evaluated the debt? so instead of being valued up to market they
counted the debt above the market value? So they bank were able to sell the bad loans and bad real estate deals at market value and get more money. For example if you try to go to the bank and ask to get your loan reduced you wouldn't be able to do it or do it as easily as the bank were able to do it. So the rich and the powerful profited on the crysis and we ended up holding the bag.

The article you're citing is relying on the study conducted by Traiger & Hinckley LLP Study.
Here is a statement from the web page of Traiger & Hinckley LLP:
"Traiger & Hinckley LLP offers a wide range of services to assist banks with their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) responsibilities. Partner Warren Traiger is a nationally recognized CRA authority, who has testified on CRA before Congress and the federal banking regulators. For over fifteen years, Mr. Traiger has counseled retail, wholesale, and special purpose institutions throughout the country on CRA compliance and has represented banks before regulatory agencies and in court."

Unbiased, objective source indeed.

Shurik, don't you realize that you contradict yourself all the time?
You are upset that your 401K is not performing well, and in the same time want to lynch all the rich and powerful as if they are not the ones whose companies are invested into by your 401K.(md)

A nice (and absolutely correct) opinion about Fox (Entertainment) News
***********.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102523.html?referrer=emailarticle

:-) Howell Raines is a former executive editor of the New York Times and the author of "The One That Got Away: A Memoir."
mmm..and people from the NYT know what the integrity and journalistic standards are?? ... obviously people who read such material written by someone who work for an organization that's been discredited not once, but numerous times, have no idea what the journalistic standards should be...the NYT is just jealous of the success..but the American people are not stupid, you lie to them, and they stop reading it or even watching liberal mouthpieces..

It is true that, after 14 months of Fox's relentless pounding ofPresident Obama's idea of sweeping reform, the latest Gallup poll showsopinion running 48 to 45 percent against the current legislation.

funny.. because Obama can't sell to people something they don'twant, it has to be Fox's fault..how many views Fox has even with allits success?? 5, 10 million...there are much more people in the countrythan that...

Расскажу вам одну мансу.
Вчера пошел с моими друзьями в Бистро
Гамбринус, в Сан Франциско. Глассный
Русский паб. Сидел с моим другом Скоттом
и его женой. Говорили про жизнь пили пиво
с раками! Смотрю у Скотта зуба переднего нет
и спрашиваю, Скотт что с зубом, у тебя вроде есть
страховка? Он мне знаешь даже после страховки
надо будет платить $800. Я когда в Мехико поеду летом
поченю. Там дешевле и доктора лучше.

Зато на Гамбринус у бедного Скотта деньги есть. И на билет на самолёт в Мексику.

NO Dear Maria, I said the rich and powerful caused the collapse.
With this I agree with you ! Nancy Pelosi is one of the richest and most popwerful women in America. Diane Feinstein is a millionaire too, so is Barack Obama.

Yes, Maria women and blacks caused all the problem in USA.
just like Adolf G. used to say that Jews caused all the problems in the world.

Let's think about some more rich and powerful who caused all the problems in US, including rich and powerful women ( but I think Pelosi is the most rich and powerful).
A lot of Hollywood characters come to mind...
Let's see, James Cameron made $500 mil on one movie...

Эх, Шурик, вы наверное были любимым учеником у ваших преподавателй Марксизма-Ленинизма и политэкономии.(ch)

i would love to hear comments on this recent Texas Board of Education ruling:
********news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100312/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_schools_social_studies

i still stand one the fact that those guilty the most in this crisis is american people..
those who over-leveraged themselves, buying homes they could never afford.. taking all the credit card debt..
everyone is responsible for their own well being.
those of us who lived shrewed life only benefited from the collapse.

Mike, I agree totally that everyone is responsible for their own finances, but - how is it that those who overspent collectively responsible for banking collapses? I really don't understand this well at all, aren't banks responsible for screening their applicants based on their paying ability, history, and shouldn't lend to those who can't pay? I always thought , for example, that I shouldn't buy a house valued more then X2 of my early income. And never would... But people were allowed to buy much more expensive properties...

Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christianinfluences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the separation of church and state.Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic,"rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study thedecline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of thegold standard.
finally the kids, at least in Texas, will learn something relevant about our history and heritage, and not the liberal interpretation of it..way to go Texas!! (Y) (Y) (Y)
btw, does any of the "enlightened" liberals here know how this expression "separation of church and state" came about??
It was used by T Jefferson for the exact opposite purpose as the "intellectual" left has us believe - to protect churches from the government's influence - preaching something the government want them to..

in reminds me of this tv show I recently watched on Russian News TV that they will be teaching orthodox religion in most Russian schools now but because they don't have enough rabbi's but in large cities they will not going to be offering any Jewish or Buddhist studies outside. That's exactly where they are coming to in Tx. Way to go!

Julia,
Banks are responsible for their own collapse, of course!! People are responsible for their own defaults..
But the crisis itself is a combination of over-leveraging by everyone. However for those who were not leveraged crisis was in fact a golden opportunity

not true mike,
tell that to millions of unemployed and
what about those of us who lost 401k and IRA
values?

not true mike,
tell that to millions of unemployed and
what about those of us who lost 401k and IRA
values?
----------------------------

Yeah! Right!
8oI8oI8oI8oI8oI