I don't have much time so I'll make it short.

We all liked bubbles when we were kids. But now that we're older bubbles have become ominous markers for economic disaster.

Historical and recent examples are;


* Commodities bubble (1970's caused by the Fed pumping money after coming off the gold standard and resulting in 14 % interest rates and double digit inflation) Great lesson in the governments ability to regulate the economy.

* The Dot Com bubble (everyone knows its cause)

* The Housing bubble. (A direct result of government regulation through GSE's FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC forcing financial institutions to make bad loans under threat from the United States Justice Dept. and develop tools to cover liability. This pumped money into the housing sector artificially inflating its value.)

Now the Fed through QE1 and QE2 has done it again.The central bank buys government bonds and other financial assets, with new money that the bank creates electronically. Over $1 trillion total by the time they're done.

Pumping up the bubble. The Obama Administration with all it's deficit spending on ARRA, TARP and Obamacare and so on has accumulated to date 14.4 trillion. That is one big ass bubble!

The assumption is that the government and its policy wonks, many of whom know squat about business, are smarter at spending 14 trillion dollars than the private sector

Stifling oil exploration is really just another tax on the American PRIVATE SECTOR tax payer and it was and is unnecessary. Only one or two permits have been issued for deep well drilling in the gulf since the BP oil spill and the moratorium's lifting.

I have called bull shit on methods used by the Labor Dept. to quantify unemployment and economic data in general in the past. Now I'm also stating the obvious that our Fed Reserve doesn't know its head from its ass either.

The Feds "Beige Book" for example, http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/BeigeBook/2011/20110413/default.htm,
paints a much more optimistic economic assessment than the reality most folks see on the ground staring them in the face.

Let's take a look see at their latest April 13th summary;

"The U.S. economy continued to improve across all regions at the end of February and through March, with most of the Federal Reserve's 12 districts reporting widespread gains, the Fed said Wednesday.

In its latest beige book, the Fed said the weak jobs market was also doing better, with hiring still strong in manufacturing, a sector that continued to lead gains."

The Fed survey of regional economies, which was prepared by the Richmond Fed based on information collected before April 4, will be used at the Fed's next policy-setting meeting April 26-27. Top Fed officials have in recent days signaled they will keep credit cheap because unemployment is still high and inflation, while rising, is expected to remain subdued.

Now let's look at the BLS numbers released this morning;

"Initial jobless claims increased by 27,000 to a seasonally adjusted 412,000 in the week ended April 9, the Labor Department said Thursday in its weekly report. The prior week's figures were revised up to 385,000 from an originally reported 382,000.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast claims would rise by 3,000 in the latest week.

The four-week moving average of new claims, considered a more reliable indicator because it smooths out volatile weekly data, rose by 5,500 to 395,750 in the week ending April 9.

The claims data gave another sign of the economy's struggle to pick up the pace as it tries to recover from the 18-month recession that ended in June 2009."

The fatal error here is assuming the recession is over just because the Fed Reserve and stratospheric deficit spending since June of 2009 stopped it. Keynesian theory assumes this strategy will jump start our economy and eventually the private sector will struggle back to its feet standing on its own.

Folks I'm telling you straight up. All that has been created here is the mother of all bubbles. Higher taxes on "the rich" or anyone else for that matter will only expedite the inevitable and intensify the certain catastrophic results which lies dead ahead.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't have much time so I'll make it short.
>
> We all liked bubbles when we were kids. But now
> that we're older bubbles have become ominous
> markers for economic disaster.





This is worthy of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy.

If your political fundamentalism leads you to have an antagonistic view of private industry and a warm and fuzzy belief in government, the true problems of austerity will never never be addressed.

I am looking for some more blips in the road too, if not another very serious dip.

The recovery is superficial.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

All in favor of permanently nicknaming mcsmack "bubbles mcsmack" say aye:

HIGHER TAXES FOR THE RICH!!!

The BIG LIES: 1) the recession is over 2) housing has bottomed out 3)the stock market is solid 4) Unemployment is around 8%

The recession is far from over,,,I believe the recession will last at least 10 years,,,this is year 3. As mcsmack rightly points out, the Fed is playing games to prop up the economy and pray that it fixes itself,,,this country is in for a massive market re-adjustment and it starts with housing,,,

The stock market is meaningless, it can be manipulated by a handful of rich guys who can pull the string whenever they want,,,money in,market up; money out, market down,,,

The unemployment figures are another BIG LIE,as millions of unemployed are no longer being counted

This countries wealth has been drained,,,we need to realize it and re invent ourselves,,,starts with a massive downsizing of the military,,,we dont need 700 bases in 130 countries,,,WWII is over, bring the troops home from Europe,Japan
Attachments:

Talking about the Dot Com bubble, I was checking out the Wayback Machine, and it brought up a lot of memories about that.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

bubbles,
I don't know if raising taxes on the richest Americans will help the economic problems of this great country, but it sure would make me feel better.

Anyone remember "shovel ready" jobs or projects?


Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The BIG LIES: 1) the recession is over 2) housing
> has bottomed out 3)the stock market is solid 4)
> Unemployment is around 8%
>
> The recession is far from over,,,I believe the
> recession will last at least 10 years,,,this is
> year 3. As mcsmack rightly points out, the Fed is
> playing games to prop up the economy and pray that
> it fixes itself,,,this country is in for a massive
> market re-adjustment and it starts with
> housing,,,
>
> The stock market is meaningless, it can be
> manipulated by a handful of rich guys who can pull
> the string whenever they want,,,money in,market
> up; money out, market down,,,
>
> The unemployment figures are another BIG LIE,as
> millions of unemployed are no longer being
> counted
>
> This countries wealth has been drained,,,we need
> to realize it and re invent ourselves,,,starts
> with a massive downsizing of the military,,,we
> dont need 700 bases in 130 countries,,,WWII is
> over, bring the troops home from Europe,Japan

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Wall Street ,the stock market or whatever will take a blow to the solar plexus whether or not the Fed continues its "easing" practices or not at the end of this month. Financial institutions are making money by buying and selling notes back to the treasury at a profit. Most people realize now that this is all puff and the promised economic results will not materialize.

The only result will be a watered down economy with a weaker dollar and investors at a loss searching for the bottom of this. Further capital flight overseas is now inevitable causing an enormous hindrance to jobs creation and economic growth across the globe.

All this dire warning we hear in the press about the debt ceiling makes me sick. Do you really think the Chinese want us to continue on our present course exponential spending? The good faith and credit of the U.S. government? I think we are fast approaching the day where most of the world thinks that is a joke.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"

This country has a super short memory and a shorter attention span
Attachments:

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat
> it"
>
> This country has a super short memory and a
> shorter attention span


When the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency as a consequence of us continuing our shitty current fiscal path, this country is going to come to attention real quick.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat
> it"
>
> This country has a super short memory and a
> shorter attention span


For real, just take a look at 9/11. There's already people acting like it never happened.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

The next 'bubble' will be the 'green' bubble. Get in early and get out before it pops. All sorts of bullshit companies are going to start selling green energy products, and Uncle Sam will most likely subsidize it.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The next 'bubble' will be the 'green' bubble. Get
> in early and get out before it pops. All sorts of
> bullshit companies are going to start selling
> green energy products, and Uncle Sam will most
> likely subsidize it.

I was looking into the Green Bubble and now the Education Bubble. Bought iol instead though and did remarkably.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

The next bubble is the education bubble

Green tech isn't going anywhere

GE stock was $5 a share 2 years ago, did pretty well

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The next bubble is the education bubble
>
> Green tech isn't going anywhere
>
> GE stock was $5 a share 2 years ago, did pretty
> well

GE would be one of those green bubble companies:

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/index.htm

Of course, if the government goes bankrupt, which looks like it might happen, all bets are off. Green needs the tax credits/subsidies to make the bubble.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hatemotor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The next bubble is the education bubble
> >
> > Green tech isn't going anywhere
> >
> > GE stock was $5 a share 2 years ago, did pretty
> > well
>
> GE would be one of those green bubble companies:
>
That was my point,,,I don't think it's going anywhere
There's billions of dollars worth of solar panels and windmills already in use and more on the way

U.S. Stock Tumble as S&P Cuts U.S. Outlook

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704004004576270433180029082.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

Not a good way to start the week. The president has refreshed his attack on job creation sending Geithner out calling for higher taxes on "the rich". I guess 4 months of "certainty in the tax code" is all he could stomach.

President Obama started saying this weekend that folks like himself do not need another tax cut and want to "give back". Oh Really?..... Seeing that he has never created a private sector job in his life and has drawn off the public dole his entire professional/ political career this does not surprise me.

I have a hard time listening to public servants like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama flat out brag about the fact they are wealthy. Especially since their well being is derived entirely at the expense of the American private sector taxpayer.

These guys got their money and are rich because of the private sector tax payer. Then they have the gall to get up on a soap box and self righteously brag about how great they are because they are going to raise taxes on themselves....Wow! What a generous gesture! Take our money, give a little back then take it back again! and this way they "share the sacrifice". That's like writing a check to someone then canceling it.

I still believe Obama's executive branch salaries along with congress should be indexed to real economic growth and real employment. Currently the benchmark should start at the median household income in the United States which is $46,326.including benefits. As soon as the real unemployment rate drops below 5% and GDP exceeds 5% They would get 75% of their current compensation back. otherwise it would go down from there.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't have much time so I'll make it short.
> >
> > We all liked bubbles when we were kids. But now
> > that we're older bubbles have become ominous
> > markers for economic disaster.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is worthy of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy.

I liked bubbles when I was a kid. So did all of my friends. We would play with bubbles in the backyard while our parents made food for the annual July barbecue, holding contests to see who could blow the biggest ones. Then when I got older, I heard about how "bubbles" were ruining the economy and making people poor. I remembered all the bubbles I blew on those lazy summer evenings and thought, "What if it was my bubbles that caused the house fire instead of those matches?"

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> holding contests to see who could blow the biggest ones.

Mephisto's mom won this one every year....

I would have been shocked if some mouth-breathing window licker hadn't quoted that line for some sort of dick joke.

See, it's not offensive if it's so predictable.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Riiiight MrMeph. Now go wash the pooh off your shoe.You just stepped in it.

I got a big one Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > holding contests to see who could blow the
> biggest ones.
>
> Mephisto's mom won this one every year....


...until the torch was passed to him after she choked and died on some nigger's dick!

I see you are still writing fiction Mac. Of course simple fiction featuring evil government causing all the nation's economic problems is far more interesting to your loyal readers than the more complex version of events in which your fellow travellers share as much or even more of the blame than your favorite villain.

The reality is that for each of the bubbles you name the private sector was at least as responsbile, and in many cases more responsible, than the individual or collective actions of the government. Of course it is much easier to blame government fiscal policy for the inflation in the 1970s, rather than blaming workers who insisted that their pay keep pace with inflation triggered by the sudden rise in oil prices or industrial leaders who were willing to pay ever higher prices for raaw materials and labor, rather than risk production stoppages that would cost them market share. Likewise it is much simpler to blame government policies for lending practices that resulted in the spectacular run up in real estate prices in the couple of years leading up to the collapse of the real estate market. However government policies did not require lenders to make risky loans, and lenders could have made safe loans within the requirements of government mandates. The reason that lenders did not do so is that there was far more money in making those risky loans. A lender who in a 5.5% mortgage market could lend money to someone at 7.5% plus and then package that risky loan with safer loans giving an overall yield of 6% which he then sold to investors who were looking for something better than 2-3% was going to come out ahead of another lender who insisted on only making safer 5.5% loans.

When you believe that everyone acting in his or her own selfish interest will somehow produce what is best for everyone, admitting that private individuals and businesses acting in their own self interest was largely responsible for a crisis is something you cannot do.

What ever Bill> The CRA or Community Reinvestment Act is not to blame then.And I'll tell you another "myth". Further government regulations as wished by Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson proves there are more than enough idiots on the left to take up where Barney Frank and Chris Dodd left off. i don't know what part of the public sector you work for but I hope it's not the FAA because your're blind as a bat. I really don't think you believe what you write. I think you just hope others are stupid enough to fall for your agenda driven propaganda.

http://oncenter.blogspot.com/2009/09/hr-1479.html

H.R. 1479
Have you heard of H.R. 1479, the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009? This legislation, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and all but ignored by the MSM, would expand the original 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a bill that required banks to make loans in low-income areas that many lenders had ignored. The intent of the 1977 legislation was commendable – to encourage home ownership among all Americans. But the legislation had unintended and catastrophic consequences that culminated in the economic debacle the began about a year ago. Byron York explains:
The problems began in the 1990s, when Congress made it harder for lenders to do business if they had not passed the CRA "exam" -- that is, if they had not met the government-imposed standards for loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers.

"From 1995 on, there was an incredible push by the Clinton and Bush administrations in every way they could -- CRA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other ways -- to increase the homeownership rate," says Russell Roberts, a professor of economics at George Mason University. "What that did was to push up the price of housing, and that made it imaginable to lend money to people you never would have lent money to, on terms you wouldn't have done before."

In particular, Fannie Mae began to aggressively promote homeownership using the Community Reinvestment Act to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. Fannie went to bankers and said, make as many CRA loans as you can; we'll buy them and take them off your hands. "Our approach to our lenders is 'CRA Your Way,' " top Fannie executive Jamie Gorelick told the Mortgage Bankers Association in 2001. "Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination. ..."

Fannie promised to buy billions and billions of dollars worth of CRA loans because it was under pressure to do so from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which in turn was under pressure from Congress, which set ambitious quotas for low- and moderate-income loans.

The policy ended in a lot of people losing their homes.

The seemingly innocuous CRA legislation, coupled with irresponsible and greedy Wall Street firms, incompetent rating agencies, poorly crafted or non-existent federal regulation, and government “watchdogs” like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who refused to recognize the growing storm, led to the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

And now, in the words of Byron York, “Democratic majorities are pressing hard to expand some of the very policies that led to the reckless home lending that in turn helped lead to the great financial meltdown.”

Has the Democratic Congress gone completely mad? In their quest for “social justice” are they willing to set the stage for still another debacle down the road?

Sometimes you can only shake your head in amazement at the utter stupidity of those who purport to lead us.

"Those who repeat the past are doomed to forget it"

Macky, you can make good loans to low income people and you can make bad ones. The CRA did not force, or even encourage, lenders to make bad loans. It merely required that they make certain types of loans. The problem came from the fact that lenders were not satisfied with the profits they could make from making good loans in those areas, but instead chose to make riskier loans at higher rates in order to make greater profits.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Macky, you can make good loans to low income
> people and you can make bad ones. The CRA did not
> force, or even encourage, lenders to make bad
> loans. It merely required that they make certain
> types of loans. The problem came from the fact
> that lenders were not satisfied with the profits
> they could make from making good loans in those
> areas, but instead chose to make riskier loans at
> higher rates in order to make greater profits.

Actually you're wrong Bill. I'm not going to go to the trouble of posting all the info (again) from the outright heat and pressure put on banks by the Clinton justice Department an namely horrible actions by one Jamie Gorelick , but it primary result and intention was to create affirmative action lending under the threat of punishment by Janet Reno and company. The damage is done. And it is the direct result of government regulation. There was a reason Gorelick and Franklin Raines were put in charge of FANNIE in Clinton's 2nd term and it wasn't to run the GSE responsibly.
Again I believe you know these facts and have a personal political agenda to advance irrespective of the truth. Historical ignorance of events on your part would have to exist to believe otherwise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2011 05:13PM by mcsmack.

Am I pushing a personal agenda or are you? My agenda is simply this: Both the private sector AND the government have roles to play in the economy.

The experts quoted in the oncenter blog you referenced, professor Russell Roberts and journalist Byron York are both known for their right of center views. That does not mean they are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that their views may be biased. Now look at what they said. Prof. Roberts states CRA efforts to boost home ownership were what drove home prices up. Silly me. I thought the primary factors that drove up home prices during the Clinton and GW Bush administrations were (1) unusually low mortgage interest rates which made it possible for home buyers to pay more for homes without increasing their monthly payments (Sure the price is higher, but the monthly payments are less.) , and (2) the growing perception that the trend of increasing home prices would continue into the future (Buy today folks because you won't be able to afford it tomorrow.). Now it is fair to say that there was pressure on lenders to lend to those who lenders would not have lent money to before, on terms they would not otherwise have offered. However that is not the same as saying they were telling lenders to make bad loans likely to default. The purpose of the CRA was to force lenders to make loans to those they did not lend to before, not because the borrowers were bad credit risks but because there wasn't ENOUGH profit in it for the lenders (note the emphasis on enough not profit). As for terms they would otherwise have offered, and here I assume they mean to bad credit risks, it is true that bad credit risks had never been able to borrow at 7.5% or 9.5% for 30 years. However they had been able to borrow before at much higher rates. And when in recent memory were good credit risks able to borrow at 5.5% or less? So this statement may be true in absolute terms, but not in relative. There were banks that were able to fulfill their CRA mandates by making good loans. They didn't sacrifice underwriting criteria for temporary economic or political benefit. This article would have us believe that it was the CRA loans that brought about the market collapse. However a very substantial portion of the loans that defaulted were with supposedly good borrowers. It would therefore appear that its agenda is to use the industry's own failure to follow good lending practices in order to rid itself of an obligation to engage in an activity it does not like because it is NOT SUFFICIENTLY profitable.

To give the article credit it does also put the blame on greedy Wall Street firms, incompetent rating agencies, and poorly crafted or non-existent federal regulation and regulators. With this I would totally agree. Had each of these done their job whatever damage was caused by improvident lending would have been minimized. Banks that had engaged in these risky lending practices would have seen their stock prices collapse and would have been stuck with portfolios of unsellable risky loans. Instead each of these chose to advance their own short term interests to the long term detriment of all of us.

This whole business of central planning by the Federal Reserve and the meddlesome gosplan congress has caused this whole mess, and it needs dismantling like in the former Soviet Union.

Bill you're pretty close to having it right here. It's just that I can't emphasize enough how the government was almost entirely responsible for creating the environment and resulting instruments that got us to this point.

I brought up this gal up and i'll expound just a bit.Her involvement in many of the major tragedies and high-profile American scandals of the past two decades has led some in the press to dub her the "Mistress of Disaster." And she is on Obama's short list for the Director of the FBI believe it or not.

Jamie Gorelick;


Jamie Gorelick, a former Clinton administration official who reportedly has made the Obama administration's short list to become the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was paid more than $26 million in total compensation as a top executive at Fannie Mae--before taxpayers had to bail out the mortgage giant.
Gorelick, who left the Clinton Justice Department in 1997 to work for Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, was paid $26,466,834 in salary, bonuses, performance pay and stock options from 1998 to 2003, according to the Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae (2006), conducted by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
Gorelick served as vice chairman of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) when the government-sponsored enterprise was bundling subprime loans into securitized financial instruments. Prior to that, she served as deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department under then-Attorney General Janet Reno from 1994 to 1997.
Raines had served as Clinton's budget director before assuming the top post at Fannie Mae.
In 2001, Gorelick announced that Fannie was buying subprime loans encouraged by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and bundling them as securitized financial instruments. Securities made from bundles of guaranteed mortgages were to contribute to the banking crisis later in the decade.
“Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities,” she said in 2001. “This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products.”
In remarks before the American Bankers Association on Oct. 30, 2000, Gorelick explicitly how the procress would work and what Fannie Mae would do to make it feasible for banks to lend to low-income applicants.
“We will take CRA loans off your hands--we will buy them from your portfolios, or package them into securities--so you have fresh cash to make more CRA loans,” she said. “Some people have assumed we don't buy tough loans. Let me correct that misimpression right now. We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals.”
By 2008, securities containing subprime loans were causing problems for financial institutions that had them on their balance sheets. Ultimately the federal government bailed out banks with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Fannie and Freddie were taken under direct conservatorship by the federal government when Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. In exchange for injecting $100 billion of liquidity into each government-sponsored enterprise, the government took an ownership stake of 79 percent in each, leaving the taxpayer with an unknown liability dependent upon future performance.
Gorelick left Fannie Mae in 2003.

I could show you reams of evidence showing how she threatened financial institutions while at the Clinton justice Dept. Not satisfied with that she went to FANNIE MAE herself to make sure her directives were followed.

It wasn't all her and I'm not saying that but she sure as hell had the blessings of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton and primarily the majority of the Democrat party.

So your statement that "Instead each of these (financial institutions) chose to advance their own short term interests to the long term detriment of all of us." is not accurate to say the least.

If the justice department starts pushing you around, and then one of their thugs shows up in charge at FANNIE telling you how it is gonna be, your going to listen my friend.

I like her statement;
“We will take CRA loans off your hands--we will buy them from your portfolios, or package them into securities--so you have fresh cash to make more CRA loans,” she said. “Some people have assumed we don't buy tough loans. Let me correct that misimpression right now. We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals.”
Jamie Gorelick