tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post593430784266694078..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: How The Democrats Created the Financial CrisisFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-52626391247537781702008-10-14T12:23:00.000-07:002008-10-14T12:23:00.000-07:00Hello Anonymous,I do not know what other comment I...Hello Anonymous,<BR/>I do not know what other comment I supposedly didn't post you're talking about. It did not show up in the moderation screen...did you accidently delete it?<BR/><BR/>Since you're new here and obviously have a brain, the comments policy here is as follows: anyone not shilling for porn, viagra or vacations who is respectful and does not engage in racist, libelous, or other inappropriate nonsense is welcome to comment. Spam, flame wars and stupidity get filtered out at my sole discretion.<BR/><BR/>The above comment you submitted don't fall into any of these categories.<BR/><BR/>As to the issue at hand...I have 15 years experience dealing directly with the mortgage and financial services industry. I personally saw how the rot spread, how lenders were intimidated by Fannie Mae and the CRA into diluting their underwriting standards, an dhow they were 'encouraged' to make loans to people that shouldn't have gotten them in any normal banking climate, even on the notes Fannie and Freddie didn't directly handle. <BR/><BR/>Fannie and Freddie were, however, the impetus, strict regulation of them would have stopped the orgy of speculation in its tracks if democrats in congress who were getting campaign money from them ( including Obama) hadn't stopped it, and I can't understand why you can't see that. <BR/><BR/>The other financial vehicles you mention were an outgrowth of these practices and in many cases were securitized with these bogus notes as collateral assets.<BR/><BR/>Did Wall Street and the bond boys get in on the party? Sure they did, but only after Fannie and Freddie showed that the party was in full swing.<BR/><BR/>Of course, President Bush also shares a good part of the blame for not straightening this out, even if it took an executive order to do it...but then, the Bush family was making far too much money selling this crap to their Arab clients via the Carlyle Fund, and Dubbyah was probably hoping it would all just muddle through, or at least hit the fan after he vacated the White House.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-20475971719508167212008-10-14T08:31:00.000-07:002008-10-14T08:31:00.000-07:00Respectfully, this hardly constitutes fair discuss...Respectfully, this hardly constitutes fair discussion when you refuse to post opposing viewpoints or information that refutes your point of view. Hardly the behavior becoming of a freedomfighter, unless you are fighting for the freedom to censor the truth. As I stated in my last post, the default rates on loans originated by Freddie and Fannie, as well as CRA loans, are running at one-half the rate of private sector originated loans, and this includes both the ones they kept on their own books and the ones they packaged and sold. Freddie and Fannie cannot be the lynchpin of the crisis if their loans are not the most toxic stuff, and CRA could hardly be the cause of lax lending practices if other lenders made much riskier loans. Also, you fail to account for the credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, which were more responsible than collateralized mortgage obligations (the CDS market alone, at $40 trillion, dwarves the CMO market) for taking down Lehman and AIG. Again, a politically motivated account of the causes of the financial crisis is no account at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-5853802292233251932008-10-10T13:46:00.000-07:002008-10-10T13:46:00.000-07:00Talking about 'partisan goals' Anonymous!Respectfu...Talking about 'partisan goals' Anonymous!<BR/><BR/>Respectfully, you appear to have no idea about how the secondary mortgage market or the CRA works.<BR/><BR/>I'm intimately familiar with both and can assure you that Fannie/Freddie was the linchpin behind the credit crisis. You're confusing the stuff Fannie and Freddie actually OWN with the toxic stuff that was resold under their auspices..and then used as collateral for additional financing by the other companies it was sold to, both here and abroad.<BR/><BR/>Not only that, but lending and underwriting standards were decimated because the CRA was used as a club to compel lending to people that had no business getting a loan.<BR/><BR/>An example of this was a lawsuit against CitiCorp by ACORN and other 'concerned groups and individuals' as co-plaintifs (of whom Barack Obama was one)topuyshthem to do exactly that. That lawsuit was settled out of court and CitiCorp's underwriting standards were revised downwards as a result, as I can personally attest to.<BR/><BR/>President Bush bears a great deal of the blame as well. He obviously knew what was going on and even attempted to get legislation passed, but when it was blocked he had business to go to the American people, explain what was going on and if necessary issue an Executive order for an emergency goverbnment takeover and reform of Fannie and Freddie.<BR/><BR/>Part of the reason he didn't was because the Bush family was coining a fortune selling mortgage securities to the Arabs through the Carlyle group, where the Bush family has a significant part of its family money and Bush Sr. is chairman emeritus.<BR/><BR/>However the Democrats in congress, as I've shown, were the ones protecting these institutions, in exchange for sweetheart loans <BR/>(mostly from CountryWide) and campaign cash. Simple truth.<BR/><BR/>Ask yourself this: 2 years ago, gas prices were low, unemployment was at about 4.85 %, and the market was doing extremely well. <BR/><BR/>You think the change in which party took over Congress two years ago might have something to do with what's changed???<BR/><BR/>That, and maybe the fact that it's an election year and a poor economy increases their chances of taking the White House?<BR/><BR/>Ya think?<BR/><BR/>And trust me, it will gewt infinitely worse if Obama takes over, no matter what your income is. AFter he gets through playing with payroll taxes an dthe capital gains tax and unleashing an orgy of spending, you better HOPE you have some CHANGE left in your pocket.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>ffFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-83402803435386802952008-10-10T12:04:00.000-07:002008-10-10T12:04:00.000-07:00If your explanation of the financial crisis is sup...If your explanation of the financial crisis is superior to the "fable" perpetrated by the mainstream media, then please tell me why past, present and expected mortgage default rates are at least twice as high for private market entities than for the government-sponsored Freddie and Fannie (see Janet Yellen's report from the SF Fed for the data)? How does your explanation pinning blame on the GSE's take into account the toxic collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps that sank Lehman and AIG, among others? How does it account for the timing of the crisis, given that government-sponsored pooling of mortgages originated in the 1930's yet this crisis happened in the last couple of years and built up only since 2001? Your theory is pretty weak, even though it does strongly serve your partisan goals...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com