The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Financial Crisis

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Why does it seem the GOP is desperately seeking a non-GOP scapegoat in all of this?

for the same reason steven is looking for a gop one.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why does it seem the GOP is desperately seeking a non-GOP scapegoat in all of this?

for the same reason steven is looking for a gop one.

I am thinking of more than just here in VJ. Besides, people with two eyes and enough gray matter already know the mess is not worthy of pegging on one particular person or political idiocy in particular. Non-surprising shame on those that do, and Steven is not on that list.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why does it seem the GOP is desperately seeking a non-GOP scapegoat in all of this?

for the same reason steven is looking for a gop one.

There are members on both parties who enabled this crisis to happen. However, if there is one factor that remains consistent in terms of how this crisis happened in the first place, is deregulation. Laissez-faire economics was widely popular and wholly embraced by the Republican Party. They don't want to own up to that because it would turn the whole party's platform inside out and probably end the GOP as we know it today. No longer can they scare people into thinking that the Democratic Party wants to regulate the markets to death. The market is on life support and it wasn't from suffocating under government regulation.

[mawilson 2,133]

We can't really call ourselves an Ownership Society if we don't support and regulate a financial system that allows lower income families from owning their own home provided they are credit worthy and can afford it.

Let's not call ourselves that then. If you cannot afford to buy a home, RENT! What a concept!

[mawilson 2,133]

Why does it seem the GOP is desperately seeking a non-GOP scapegoat in all of this?

Maybe because it's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to block GOP legislation

to regulate Fannie and Freddie, and then blame GOP deregulation for the financial mess

that ensued?

Edited October 7, 2008 by mawilson

[HAL 9000 96]

Why does it seem the GOP is desperately seeking a non-GOP scapegoat in all of this?

Maybe because it's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to block GOP legislation

to regulate Fannie and Freddie, and then blame GOP deregulation for the financial mess

that ensued?

Interesting singular examples you state there... I wonder if there are particular reasons that point to something within said pieces of legislation that would obfuscate any Democratic patronizing otherwise. I just wonder.

But I'll give you that much- we need to have a Congressional code of conduct when writing legislation that completely prohibits adding tidbits that say one thing and do another. Like calling 'regulation' something that has more to do with being a permissive facilitator of profitability.

[mawilson 2,133]

But I'll give you that much- we need to have a Congressional code of conduct when writing legislation that completely prohibits adding tidbits that say one thing and do another. Like calling 'regulation' something that has more to do with being a permissive facilitator of profitability.

Wouldn't that be something.

[HAL 9000 96]

But I'll give you that much- we need to have a Congressional code of conduct when writing legislation that completely prohibits adding tidbits that say one thing and do another. Like calling 'regulation' something that has more to do with being a permissive facilitator of profitability.

Wouldn't that be something.

Word brother M.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We can't really call ourselves an Ownership Society if we don't support and regulate a financial system that allows lower income families from owning their own home provided they are credit worthy and can afford it.

Let's not call ourselves that then. If you cannot afford to buy a home, RENT! What a concept!

When the average rent for a family is nearly equivalent to a mortgage payment, they'd be better off owning a home. Economic prosperity is fundamentally tied to home ownership as a home over the long haul has always been considered one of the best investments a family can make. It's ridiculous to not recognize government's hand in creating economic prosperity for corporations but to say to American families with limited income who are renters, that the government has no business in helping them become homeowners.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[HAL 9000 96]

We can't really call ourselves an Ownership Society if we don't support and regulate a financial system that allows lower income families from owning their own home provided they are credit worthy and can afford it.

Let's not call ourselves that then. If you cannot afford to buy a home, RENT! What a concept!

When the average rent for a family is nearly equivalent to a mortgage payment, they'd be better off owning a home. Economic prosperity is fundamentally tied to home ownership as a home over the long haul has always been considered one of the best investments a family can make. It's ridiculous to not recognize government's hand in creating economic prosperity for corporations but to say to American families with limited income who are renters, that the government has no business in helping them become homeowners.

It does make sense to be able to afford before actually doing so.

And yet it makes even more sense that those lending for that to become feasible, would do so with ethics and fair market practices before profitability pushes them to offer what they know could create a market crisis in the future.

[mendeleev 68]

All that babble about suspending their campaign to work out the economical bailout and yet they seem to not want to address a solution to the mess they have contributed to.

Haha. That was the biggest fcking joke I've seen yet in this election.

HAY GUYS, I'M SUSPENDING CAMPAIGN. FORGET THE DEBATES *nudges Palin*. WE NEED TO WORK FOR AMERICA NOW!

So I suppose these last few decades he's been working for.. who, again?

That dude just needs to to live out the rest of his life doing something else. Maybe playing bingo in an old folks home or something.

I heard he likes to gamble more than he likes bingo.

Wish he'd do it only with his own (or his rich wife's) money.

[mawilson 2,133]

We can't really call ourselves an Ownership Society if we don't support and regulate a financial system that allows lower income families from owning their own home provided they are credit worthy and can afford it.

Let's not call ourselves that then. If you cannot afford to buy a home, RENT! What a concept!

When the average rent for a family is nearly equivalent to a mortgage payment, they'd be better off owning a home.

No problem. Just need 20% down, sufficient income and you're one step away from becoming a home owner.

What's that, you say? You don't have money for a 20% down payment? Tough #### then. RENT!

[HAL 9000 96]

We can't really call ourselves an Ownership Society if we don't support and regulate a financial system that allows lower income families from owning their own home provided they are credit worthy and can afford it.

Let's not call ourselves that then. If you cannot afford to buy a home, RENT! What a concept!

When the average rent for a family is nearly equivalent to a mortgage payment, they'd be better off owning a home.

No problem. Just need 20% down, sufficient income and you're one step away from becoming a home owner.

What's that, you say? You don't have money for a 20% down payment? Tough #### then. RENT!

Or you could offer better interest terms instead of inflated punitive marks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why does it seem the GOP is desperately seeking a non-GOP scapegoat in all of this?

Maybe because it's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to block GOP legislation

to regulate Fannie and Freddie, and then blame GOP deregulation for the financial mess

that ensued?

That New York Times article you sited, said that Bush wanted to create a new agency within the Treasury Dept. to handle the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thus taking away Congress' power to oversee it. They are the ones who spun it as more regulation when in reality it would have shifted more power to the Executive Branch by taking it away from the Legislative Branch.

[mawilson 2,133]

We can't really call ourselves an Ownership Society if we don't support and regulate a financial system that allows lower income families from owning their own home provided they are credit worthy and can afford it.

Let's not call ourselves that then. If you cannot afford to buy a home, RENT! What a concept!

When the average rent for a family is nearly equivalent to a mortgage payment, they'd be better off owning a home.

No problem. Just need 20% down, sufficient income and you're one step away from becoming a home owner.

What's that, you say? You don't have money for a 20% down payment? Tough #### then. RENT!

Or you could offer better interest terms instead of inflated punitive marks.

Again, I have no problem with enforcing ethical lending practices. It's the "something for nothing"

attitude that I have a problem with.