September 30 1999 New York Times article explains how we got in

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

Cathy_H

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
0
Last edited by a moderator:

Irish Hills Farm

Irish Hills Farm
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
4,937
Reaction score
0
Location
Baxter, TN
And lets not forget the 5 out 6 mortgage companies that went against their own polices by giving illegal aliens mortgages. SMART MOVE!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cathy_H

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
0
Sheryl,

LOVE your pumpkin. That should be an icon!...................... Edited to add that the illegal alien topic is enough to make ones blood boil - why are we giving our Country away!!!

It's no coincidence that the areas hardest hit by the foreclosure wave - Loudoun County, Va., California's Inland Empire, Stockton and San Joaquin Valley, and Las Vegas and Phoenix - also happen to be some of the nation's largest illegal alien sanctuaries. Half of the mortgages to Hispanics are subprime.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2090141/posts
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Irish Hills Farm

Irish Hills Farm
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
4,937
Reaction score
0
Location
Baxter, TN
I got the pumpkins in an email and laughed so hard! Those pumpkins were out all night partying hard from the looks of it!

Edited to add that the illegal alien topic is enough to make ones blood boil - why are we giving our Country away!!!
Got me. I surely don't understand it, at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crabby-Chicken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
18
Sad that the president that has been in there for almost 8 years wasn't able to clean that up if it was such a mess. Nope, bad Clinton bad.

And I don't know how an illegal person coming into the country can get a mortgage. Both my husband and I work, we had to prove where the down payment came from. In case we were drug dealers I guess. And still hardly was able to get our first home.
 

Cathy_H

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
0
And I don't know how an illegal person coming into the country can get a mortgage

I found this one article by googling " how did illegal aliens get mortgages"

Citibank has been offering illegal aliens mortgages by using Taxpayer ID numbers instead of Social Security numbers to bypass the fact that these people are illegal aliens. On top of this they are actually giving these illegal aliens special treatment they wouldn't even extend to US citizens. This is an outrage. To the millions of Americans who cannot afford a home this is simply indefensible.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001610.html

Sad that the president that has been in there for almost 8 years wasn't able to clean that up if it was such a mess
... Perhaps because he did not have much cooperation and dozens of democrats with their own personal agenda's!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crabby-Chicken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
18
Hmmm that is called predatory lending. And you think Clinton forced them to do that????

As for the democrats,,, they have only be the majority for what, the two years??
 

littlesteppers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,392
Reaction score
0
Yes, it was the Clinton Administration changes of 1995 to the Community Reinvestment Act. However, republicans let it pass as well. Both parties are at fault, but the Clinton Administration urged for it. The revisions, went into affect on January 31 in 1995 and they were to increase the number of loans to small businesses and to low and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Word for word. There it is.

Then, in 2003, Bush tried to reform the Act by implementing his own changes to correct Clinton's screw up but it was turned down. Bush's change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. Then again in 2006, McCain urged Bush and the Congress to pay attention to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac however the Congress failed to implement McCain's plea for regulation.
 

littlesteppers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,392
Reaction score
0
MaryLou..I would agree with you IF we had NO house and senate
default_rolleyes.gif
 

littlesteppers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
1,392
Reaction score
0
A veto, Latin for "I forbid", is used to denote that a certain party has the right to stop unilaterally a certain piece of legislation. In practice, the veto can be absolute (as in the U.N. Security Council, whose permanent members can block any resolution) or limited (as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation.)

Gotto be hard to VETO a Democratic majority SENATE and House
default_rolleyes.gif
 

C G Minis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
Location
Derby,Kansas
There is plenty of blame to go around. To totally blame one party is total nonsense. Now that we are in this mess and have passed the bill to bail it out there needs to be a investigation into this whole mess. In the meantime we the regular people will suffer,its a scarey time now for our country but I hope we can all rise above this and be the better for it.
 

tagalong

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,179
Reaction score
28
Location
Washington
Good article on who is to blame... they discuss Clinton signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as well. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wh...mic_crisis.html

Here is the closing section....

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role."
Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.

Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.
Bolding mine... I like the screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation part...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Danielle_E.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2002
Messages
2,575
Reaction score
0
Here Bassett

MEDIA RELEASEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 20, 2008

Canadians Reject McCain’s NAFTA Plea

Continental Movement for Renegotiation Grows

Ottawa – On Friday, June 20 the Council of Canadians held a mock press conference and protest outside Ottawa’s Chateau Laurier, where Republican Senator John McCain spoke to an elite audience of Canadian corporate executives. The action featured the “NAFTA-saurus”, a representation of unjust trade policies that are facing extinction.

“We have lost democratic control of energy under NAFTA and we may lose control over water, if the NAFTA-SPP agenda is allowed to proceed unchecked,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, who highlighted the fact that Barack Obama has committed to renegotiate NAFTA, if he is elected president, and over 50 members of Congress in the US are currently supporting the recently introduced TRADE Act (the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act), which calls for renegotiation of NAFTA and a slew of other unfair trade agreements. The Council of Canadians is calling on Canadian parliamentarians to support similar legislation.

Barlow adds, “NAFTA has destroyed hundreds of thousands of jobs and given corporations unprecedented power to override local democracy.”

“Senator McCain’s visit to Ottawa is an act of desperation aimed at stopping the increasing opposition to NAFTA in the US, Mexico, and Canada. While McCain would have Americans believe that Canadians support the reckless trade model embodied by NAFTA, the opposite is actually true,” continues Barlow.

It’s time to renegotiate NAFTA, stop the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), and reject the Bush-McCain agenda of putting corporate profits before people and the planet,” concludes Barlow
 

Carriage

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
503
Reaction score
74
Yes, it was the Clinton Administration
who also signed NAFTA and sent a lot of our jobs and businesses overseas.
Good point Basset,

Many "dems" forget this little factoid. How did this happen when "free trade" was NOT a "dem" desire in the first place and many voted against it? I do recall 80% of Americans were vehemently opposed to free trade just as a similar percentage were against this most current bail-out. Having read the Toffler's book on free trade and what it was designed to do, we did our best to coulcil folk on its ensuing destruction of our language, culture and border. Even in the face of its readily appearant destruction of same, the neocons (them whats in power now) are still singing its virtue's.

So if it was not a "dem" desire, how is it that a "dem" president executes (signs) it into law rather than follow his "party" (and in this case the Constitution) and veto it? Truthfully answering this question brings you right back to the same wolves that have taken us to the cleaners not just in the last few weeks but for decades.

I always try to ask my self " Who has the most to loose here". The answer is always, follow the money (and power).

Let them who have an ear.........
 

Danielle_E.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2002
Messages
2,575
Reaction score
0
I agree, Canadian don't like free trade either! We have lost on this deal and our oil is tied into it and I don't like that and our water which could be a major problem later. Also the problems we had with the softwood lumber and the monies that were never returned, we were basically robbed!!!
 

AppyLover2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
4,945
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Missouri
Good article Tag. I really think it's time to quit pointing fingers and acknowledge the fact that dozens if not hundreds of people are responsible for this mess. We should instead be concentrating on the future and what it will bring.
 

Pepipony

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
0
Location
Donie TX
MaryLou..I would agree with you IF we had NO house and senate
default_rolleyes.gif

Ummmm it was a Rebuplican house and/or senate for 7 of those years. Cant recall if they had both houses. But, I know. The buck stops here when its 'the other' guy in office. But if its 'your' guy, the buck just goes right on by.
 

Danielle_E.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2002
Messages
2,575
Reaction score
0
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2924fannie_mae.html

'

In 1982, the disastrous Garn-St Germain law, which deregulated the banking system, was approved, removing the wise and longstanding restrictions which had severely limited the amount of money the S&Ls could invest in commercial real estate. Advised to invest in commercial real estate to make up the losses that Volcker's policy had created in housing, the panicked S&Ls lost more than a quarter of a trillion additional dollars. The bailout of these losses in the mid-1980s, became known as the S&L debacle.
This S&L took place during the Ronald Reagan era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Top