Highlights from the article…
1)
“There is a great irony that Washington will now lead the way in imposing new, stricter standards, including a tougher income-to-payment ratio, because it was Washington, prodded by affordable housing advocates, which pushed mortgage lenders to dilute their traditional underwriting values in the first place.”
2)”The movement to water down underwriting standards grew out of claims of some housing advocates and elected officials that mortgage lenders were ‘redlining,’ or avoiding, certain urban neighborhoods,”
3)”One group that led the way was the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, ”
4)”Under pressure from Washington, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin purchasing mortgages under new, looser guidelines.”
5)”Prof. Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas uncovered a 1998 sales pitches by Bear Stearns, the leading private packager of mortgage-backed securities, in which a managing director of the firm assures banks in language remarkably similar to that used by government regulators that these loans were safer than traditionally thought and that investors were ready to buy them, if only banks would make more of them. “Do we automatically exclude or severely discount …loans with [poor credit scores]? Absolutely not,” the eager investment banker tells his audience. Bear Stearns, of course, was eventually sunk by such loans.”
6)”The Department of Housing and Urban Development under President Clinton, for instance, threatened to introduce legislation to make non-bank lenders, that is, mortgage finance companies, subject to CRA if these firms didn’t sign on to affordable lending goals. HUD even crafted an agreement with the Mortgage Bankers Association, the industry trade group, which pledged that the group’s members would aid in affordable housing goals. One of the first members of the MBA to take up the pledge was Countrywide, which pledged to introduce low-down payment loans with high income-to-payment ratios for low-income borrowers. Countrywide and its co-founder, Angelo Mozilo, ultimately became infamous as one of the first major mortgage lenders to melt down under the weight of its bad lending, but before it was notorious Countrywide was celebrated for its low-income efforts.”

And this from Obamas new 75 billion dollar boondogle…
“And, the government will continue to keep prevailing mortgage rates low by buying mortgage-backed securities issued by the agencies. This effort expands a $500 billion purchase plan announced in November that prompted mortgage rates to fall nearly a percentage point.”

Why are we going to continue the same policies thqt got us in this mess in the first place?

How many people here know this…

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/07/news/companies/bank_failure/index.htm...

“Franklin Bank, a Houston, Texas-based bank and Security Pacific Bank, a Los Angeles, Calif.-based bank were shut down by state regulators Friday, marking the 18th and 19th bank failures this year. …
Ironically, Lewis Ranieri, the 61-year-old co-founder and chairman of parent Franklin Bank Corp., is credited with inventing mortgage-backed securities two decades ago, the AP reported, back when he worked at Salomon Brothers, where he is a former vice chairman.”

So Obama and his Banking leaders, Dodd and Franks still think it is a good idea to let Fannie and Freddie deal in mortgage securities. Unbelievable.

FNC outdraws The Daily Show, but not by much. Look people just have to understand what’s been said above by a number of folks… Fox offers news commentary with a significant slant. That’s all there is too it. It goes to credibility.

“With the gold standard constraint removed and the banking system stabilized, the money supply and the price level began to rise. Between Roosevelt’s coming to power in 1933 and the recession of 1937-38, the economy grew strongly.”

My parents lied to me! They said money doesn’t grow on trees.

A gold standard is imperfect, but printing money is far worse IMO.

We’ve (at least) doubled the money supply in the past year. How does that not impact the price of goods?

Bernanke claims he can withdraw his fake money from the system expeditiously. But didn’t he and Tim “I oppose banking transparency for national security reasons” Geithner make similar claims of heroism about the failed Bush / Dodd bailout?

You mean, as united as Democrats were behind President Bush?

Um when W. passed the bailout it was the House Republicans, not House Democrats, who were the thorn in his side. And what about the Iraq war? Or the Patriot Act? Or Alito and Roberts? Or Condi? Dems voted with the GOP many a time during W’s term.

The congressional Republicans are bankrupt and out of ideas and the only thing they can do is oppose the stimulus and pray that Obama fails so they can capitalize on it politically because they know they cannot take him on issue-to-issue. It’s sad. Very sad.

I never suggested the New Deal was an overnight phenom that saved the US in 24 hours. The New Deal, like Obama’s stimulus, is going to take time. But there can be no denying that both the New Deal and the stimulus created jobs in the short term but, perhaps more importantly, were created with the intention of boosting the entire economy in the long run. Unemployment may have remained rather high for several years despite job creation but the sustained economic growth in the post-crash years was the real intent of FDR’s policies.

Many highly educated people disagree. A survey conducted by the Economics Department at Wake Forest in the mid 90’s concludes:

“the profession has not reached a consensus about the causes of the Great Depression, nor about the impact of the New Deal on economic growth.”

51% say good effects 49% say bad.

So, it is not a fringe belief, even in academia, as you and scooper are trying to portray it.

I also think you may have missed the point with Bernanke’s speech. His point is that the primary policy change that saved the US (and UK for that matter) was ending the gold standard (don’t shoot the messenger Ron Paulites). Thus it was primarily new monetary policy that laid the foundation for economic growth, and as he said, the war that caused unemployment to fall, and primarily not the New Deal.

Also, you appear to contradict yourself when you say that the unemployment rate was high even though jobs were being created. How does that work? Were the unemployed simply not taking those newly created jobs? The fact is that while the New Deal did have a few positive impacts on the economy, far more money was spent employing people for the war than on creating jobs through the New Deal. That is why once the war started the unemployment numbers plummet. After the war, New Deal era government controls were relaxed and real economic growth (not government sponsored growth) continued.

The pro New Deal argument I am most sympathetic to is that it kept the bottom from falling out between the crash and the war. The debate then becomes was the cost (which we are still paying for) worth the debatable benefit? The ironic thing is that we can never really know because we simply don’t know what would have happened otherwise.

It’s unfortunate that the GOP wouldn’t stand with the President on the stimulus package. On the American economy, as with waging war, we should be a country united behind our Commander-in-Chief.

You mean, as united as Democrats were behind President Bush?

It’s unfortunate that the GOP wouldn’t stand with the President on the stimulus package. On the American economy, as with waging war, we should be a country united behind our Commander-in-Chief.

Yes, much of the stimulus package is about restoring consumer confidence. It sends a message that at some point the government will step in to tame unemployment, and it’s meant to allay fears of job losses. (those fears can result in a consumer spending crunch, which can lead to more job losses, more fear, etc. in a vicious cycle.)

The Republicans should have expressed their disagreements, but the leadership should have been their with President Obama when he signed the bill.

Sadly it looks as if ideology and partisan politics were more important to Congressional Republicans than standing together to save the American economy.

Please note that Republican governors, almost across the board, sided with Obama against McConnell and Boehner’s DC leadership.

I read the Bernanke piece and in it he talked about the role of monetary policy with relation to the Great Depression. I didn’t see much about the New Deal, nor fiscal policy. What were you referencing?

In terms of the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times, I might trust the bulk of the reporting, even with the bias, but some of the opinion pieces they run can be ludicrous. Theories get put into play as long as they serve the political agenda, regardless of whether they pass the sniff test.

Third, perhaps you should check out the speech given by the former professor and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, in which he states:

But, further down in the speech, Bernake says something that is perhaps more important:

“With the gold standard constraint removed and the banking system stabilized, the money supply and the price level began to rise. Between Roosevelt’s coming to power in 1933 and the recession of 1937-38, the economy grew strongly.”

I never suggested the New Deal was an overnight phenom that saved the US in 24 hours. The New Deal, like Obama’s stimulus, is going to take time. But there can be no denying that both the New Deal and the stimulus created jobs in the short term but, perhaps more importantly, were created with the intention of boosting the entire economy in the long run. Unemployment may have remained rather high for several years despite job creation but the sustained economic growth in the post-crash years was the real intent of FDR’s policies.

But I forget with you ‘wingers I’m dealing with people who are eager to believe. Like the current noise that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Really, I read in a scientific sounding piece on the WSJ’s opinion page.

Scanman, Scooper:

You don’t like the Wall Street Journal, fine. It does lean right and focus more on economics than The Times so if you had to choose to read about economics or financial matters I would still think WSJ (or the Financial Times for the gurus out there) would be the choice publication. However if you would like other sources, they are most certainly out there. Ben Bernanke’s major body of work is actually on this precise subject. SO, without further ado I will repost something I posted in a previous forum that you guys didn’t seem to have an answer for:

Scanman, Scooper:

Before you hurl insults please attempt to be at least slightly intellectually honest. First, I am not a Republican party man and no leadership of any party leads me or my beliefs.

Second, Gene Smiley (Professor of Economics at Marquette University) wrote a book called, “Rethinking the Great Depression” is an accessible print version of what is being taught today by economics professors across this country.

Third, perhaps you should check out the speech given by the former professor and now Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, in which he states:

“The economy improved after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inauguration in March 1933, but unemployment remained in the double digits for the rest of the decade, full recovery arriving only with the advent of World War II.”

He goes into greater detail in the speech and outlines the points made earlier by Milton Friedman about the apparent effectiveness of CERTAIN New Deal provisions (despite the harmful effect of others). The speech is on the FED’s webpage. You’ll find the link below:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200403022/default.htm

As for ideology, I believe I am the one that is admitting the success of certain aspects of the New Deal and the utter failure of others just as this “stimulus” will likely have similar results. It’s not ideology it’s just common sense.

Of course, if you think this “stimulus” will do all that Obama says it will, then you’re a great candidate for “Are You Smarter than an Eleventh Grader?”

What can you say? Reality has a strong liberal bias….

But I forget with you ‘wingers I’m dealing with people who are eager to believe. Like the current noise that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Really, I read in a scientific sounding piece on the WSJ’s opinion page.

Do you have any proof to contravene it? Yes or no? I’m still waiting for you to tell us about “all of the economists” who say that the government must spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now.

Of course, if you think this “stimulus” will do all that Obama says it will, then you’re a great candidate for “Are You Smarter than an Eleventh Grader?”

Yeah, it’s hard to believe someone could watch Fox and Friends, even you ‘wingers. I mean I had a hard time listening to Air America, (except for Al Franken). Randi Rhodes makes me want to barf.

But I forget with you ‘wingers I’m dealing with people who are eager to believe. Like the current noise that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Really, I read in a scientific sounding piece on the WSJ’s opinion page.

ACR, commentors were thinking that nobody in Connecticut watches FoxNews because its entire delivery is that intellectually dishonest.

Do you believe what you write?

The “news” channell is propagandistic to a degree which you’d only expect to find in totalitarian countries. Almost every segment is loaded with political slant, and hosts like Doocywill go to almost any length to please their masters.

Fox News is not supported, and has never been supported, by the government, so there is really no way you can compare it to totalitarian countries.

As far as biased media is concerned, most foreign countries have very biased print media. Outside the opinion magazines here, the bias is much more subtle, and when it is there, the newspapers won’t really admit to it (everyone knows the WSJ is right of center, and the NYT is left of center, but the newspapers don’t consider themselves this way. Furthermore, the WSJ editorial page may be right of center, but the news sections are not). In Europe, the newspapers are much more biased, particularly in their actual news articles. In Denmark, for instance, Jyllands Posten freely admits it is a independent liberal newspaper (liberal in Europe means liberal as in free markets, nothing like what it means here). This was the paper that published the cartoons about Islam. The main left-leaning paper is Politiken, and they also freely admit that (what’s really bizarre, however, is that the two papers, the two largest in the coutnry, are owned by the same company). Bias in European papers is much more overt than most major city newspapers in the United States. And much more biased than Fox News.

As for TV stations, most European countries tend to have major government ownership of their primary channels (BBC, ARD, etc) so aren’t as overtly biased as their print publications.

Essentially, whether you like Malloy or don’t like Malloy, it’s pretty clear that you’re partisan if you’re criticizing his performance in that interview. The guy was simply well prepared and wasn’t going to put up with any guff or misrepresentation of fact. Good for him. He’s not going to let some pretty face with a script walk all over him. That’s what a good politician does. Malloy was simply doing his job in that interview. He did his homework, he didn’t look down at a sheet of notes, he was ready. The Fox face and his twit producer failed to prep. If they didn’t know Malloy was going to come at them, then they’re morons.

Thank you for making my point when you say “That’s what a good politician does.”

Any “good politician” knows how to be prepared, handle a potential hostile interviewer, and control an interview.

And that is why I said…..”What’s the Big Deal?” So does that make me a “partisan” because I am calling a cigar a cigar?

You Malloy apologists are making this interview out to be more than it is. The fact remains….he’s at what, 14%, statewide, his name ID sucks (even after having run 4 years ago), and he was scared out of running for re-election for Mayor this year because of his almost loss 4 years ago against a no-name GOP candidate.

As for FAUX GNUS, what’s left to say that’s not already been said?

The “news” channell is propagandistic to a degree which you’d only expect to find in totalitarian countries. Almost every segment is loaded with political slant, and hosts like Doocywill go to almost any length to please their masters.

But please answer back and tell us all what a stand up guy Steve Doocy is…