Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/3/2009

If everyone was getting risky mortgages because bank and lenders were ignoring standards and repackaging them as securities instead it was because the Federal Reserve was asleep at the wheel.

Posted by: Skip |

What do you mean if? The financial institutions would buy ANY mortgage regardless of the quality.

And the regulators WERE asleep at the wheel and were financially incentivized to slumber.

Breaking:

Gallup approval of Obama (adults): 50.0%.

That's 50, as in "fifty." Gallup. Adults.

Early returns indicate that the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia are administering a savage, richly-deserved and unambiguous drubbing to the Democratic party tonight.

In other news, Harry Reid has signaled that healthcare legislation may not be ready until after the first of the year. This is a stinging setback for the president, who wanted it all done before the August recess. But that was before his polls went into a nosedive.

"It wasn't JUST the banks, lenders, CEO's and so on. It was EVERYONE involved."
So, the question remains, will this current administration follow the lead of lending to high risk individuals (usually based on minority status), and run the risk of meltdown again..."

You don't see the contradiction here? If it was EVERYONE then these high risk individuals you refer to couldn't really be a 'minority' could they? They would be a majority. Considering the size and scope of the housing bubble, it's silly to argue that it was caused by writing mortgages so minorities and lower income people could afford to buy homes [the key word is afford here. Those mortgages were written so lower income people COULD pay for them] even though there is obviously an incentive to deny special mortgages to these people so right-wingers can rent them homes instead, and pass off the blame for the economic meltdown. If everyone was getting risky mortgages because bank and lenders were ignoring standards and repackaging them as securities instead it was because the Federal Reserve was asleep at the wheel.

"Banks and lending institutions were forced to give loans to high risk individuals or face penalties."
_____________________________________

Shoe would you be able to give me a source and date for this information please.

Posted by: tierra | Nov 3, 2009 5:04:42 PM

I read a rather long but very interesting article at this address

So what works better, tin foil or aluminum foil?

Posted by: Ryan C |

Reception issues?

"Are you so far in the tank for Washington now that the Dems are in power that you can't see any potential issues that might arrise if Bernanke, Geithner, Paulsen and a few bankers and hedge fund managers get in a room and cut deals with literally 100's of billions of free taxpayer money."

So what works better, tin foil or aluminum foil?

"

On his third trip to the polls, a Hoffman supporter and poll watcher had his tires slashed this afternoon. He had a Hoffman sign in his back window.
__________________________________

Of course. And Republicans are "the haters."

Rest of the story

"Local police are not willing to confirm it was a tire slashing and say it could be that the poll watcher ran over a bottle."

Shades of Lou Dobbs claiming a stray bullet during deer season hitting his 3rd floor attic was an attack on him.

"Banks and lending institutions were forced to give loans to high risk individuals or face penalties."
_____________________________________

Shoe would you be able to give me a source and date for this information please.

Mere pawns of the shadow banker conspiracy? Do the black helicopters belong to Goldman Sachs now? At least you're a bipartisan nutter.

Posted by: jhw539 |

Are you so far in the tank for Washington now that the Dems are in power that you can't see any potential issues that might arrise if Bernanke, Geithner, Paulsen and a few bankers and hedge fund managers get in a room and cut deals with literally 100's of billions of free taxpayer money.

Google it tierra. It's very easy to find.

According to Gibbs, (by every 5th word is utters) everything is so "obviously" clear, I'm not sure why you guys even bother asking questions.

"Banks and lending institutions were forced to give loans to high risk individuals or face penalties."
_____________________________________

Shoe would you be able to give me a source and date for this information please.

Yeah we get it. When Bush was spending it. Seems you got over it though. And yeah we know, ya gotta spend it now cause of what Bush did. Snore.
Foghorn Leghorn | Nov 3, 2009 4:33:17 PM

Most people understand that if you buy a house with a leaky roof caused by the prior tenant shooting holes in it, yeah you should repair the roof even before the mortgage is paid off. Not hard logic here.

With the added benefit of eliminating GS competition. But I'm sure it was just bad luck on Lehman's part...
Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 3, 2009 4:19:55 PM
Just to make sure I'm following, you're proposing that the Bush administration and Obama administration were -what exactly? In league with GS? Mere pawns of the shadow banker conspiracy? Do the black helicopters belong to Goldman Sachs now? At least you're a bipartisan nutter.

"Yeah we get it. When Bush was spending it."
____________________________________

That is correct.

The national debt doubled under the Bush administration. During the 'good times' he left the country $10 Trillion in debt - and in very poor shape to meet the economic crash that also happened during his administration.

"Yep, and if people had used good judgement and not bought homes, cars, vacations, clothes, etc. that they COULD NOT AFFORD, maybe they could have paid down their debt during the good times-then THEY wouldn't be in the mess they're in today."
__________________________________

I agree, and the Bush administration set a terrible example.

Posted by: tierra | Nov 3, 2009 4:03:20 PM

Tierra, I get that you want to keep pushing the argument about the Bush administration. But how do you describe what this CURRENT administration is doing? We've seen the numbers of what our deficit will be in the next 5-10 years, and not all of that is directly connected to Bush's decision making.
I mentioned in the post that you posted above another important sentence. Banks and lending institutions were forced to give loans to high risk individuals or face penalties. That line of reasoning began LONG before Bush was in office. It began with the Clinton administration. I'm all for people being able to have a decent life, place to live, auto (if necessary), etc. but the problem was (and is) excessiveness. It wasn't JUST the banks, lenders, CEO's and so on. It was EVERYONE involved.
So, the question remains, will this current administration follow the lead of lending to high risk individuals (usually based on minority status), and run the risk of meltdown again, or will Obama say enough is enough...if you don't have the money to repay, you don't get the loan, no matter who you are. And how much influence will Reid and Pelosi, et al have on THAT decision? What about the black community, the Hispanic community, young singles or couples just starting out? Hitting the higher ups at these banks/lenders looks good politically, but what about the "other side" of this dilemma? It bothers me because I see that everyday I go to work, pay my taxes, and try to stay low-debt if not debt free, is just another day to prop up someone else who didn't want to play by the rules. That, in and of itself is enough to make anyone angry.

Gibbs is on the same stellar plane of intellectual prowess as Joe Biden.

Keep it up Jake.

You are the only one asking real questions.

Please start asking a lot more for the sake of the country.

On his third trip to the polls, a Hoffman supporter and poll watcher had his tires slashed this afternoon. He had a Hoffman sign in his back window.
__________________________________

Of course. And Republicans are "the haters."

Like all Americans, liberals became very concerned about fiscal restraint when the national debt doubled under the Bush administration...

Yeah we get it. When Bush was spending it. Seems you got over it though. And yeah we know, ya gotta spend it now cause of what Bush did. Snore.

Why don't you go back to attacking W for his Afghanistan dithering?