[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by Packo

Neil.....Gimpy is my dear friend. We differ on things but can discuss them as gentlemen...SOUTHERN STYLE. If you gotta problem with that...I'd be glad to discuss it in person. Don't bring me into your squabbles with my friend. And, I'm one intelligent ol' Paratrooper. I'll believe what ever the hell I want to. Scout is also a dear friend but he doesn't bring me into his squabbles with Gimpy. Thanks and butt out. You can argue with him when ever you want.

Pack

That's just ONE of the reasons I luv ya Brother!


Pay no attention to the "caterwalling" you hear frum New Jersey. It's a LOST CAUSE. I gave up a long time ago. I just like ta phuck with'hm a little eva now an again.


But, back to the discussion at hand.


I think our mutual frand frum Texas needs A Brief History of Crisis and Crime.


During the1990s, a trend emerged in the mortgage industry. It was the rise of the subprime mortgage loan, a term we are all painfully familiar with right now. While subprime loans have been around for much longer, they became extremely popular during the aforementioned time frame. Popular in a bad way, mind you.


Most of these loans were adjustable rate mortgages with low "teaser" rates for the first few years, and then a ridiculously high interest rate later on at the "reset" point. But many of the big subprime lenders had a habit of downplaying the risks when dishing out record numbers of these loans to Americans.


For most of the late 90's and into 2000's, (while the Republicans held most control of Congress.....1994 thru 2006) many economists (liberals AND conservatives!) in this country warned that the out-of-control subprime market would lead to serious financial problems in the near future. Many of them even predicted a financial crisis would occur within the next decade or less. When you consider that their warnings began more than a decade ago, you can see that they were right on the money!


Later, sometime in 2004, we had additional warning bells. During the annual housing policy meeting, Edward Gramlich (a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve at that time) stated that: "the relatively high delinquency rates in the subprime market do raise issues ... For mortgage lenders the real challenge is to figure out how far to go. ... If lenders do make new loans, can conditions be designed to prevent new delinquencies and foreclosures?" He was basically ASKING for MORE REGULATION, in 2004......when George W. Bush was President AND had a MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.......What did they do???

Not ONE DAMN THING!


How far to go, indeed! Everyone knew that subprime lending had gotten out of control, and that it would fuel foreclosure rates like nothing we have ever experienced before. Red flags and warning signs were plentiful along the way. So why didn't somebody do something? Why did the federal government turn a blind eye for years, up until recently?


Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. And this is why I warn you against voting republican on November 4th. Here's the big "secret" that many Americans don't seem to realize...


Make no mistake about it, folks, my friend James (exlrrp----thanks, James)was right on the money. George Bush is on the side of the lending industry and financial giants whose greed is a primary cause of our financial crisis. They helped him get elected, because they knew they would need an advocate to ward off regulation. That way, they could continue the very practices the economists (liberals AND conseravtives) were warning us about.


But it's hard to crack down on somebody who gave millions of dollars to your campaign. For example, during his 2004 presidential campaign, Bush received $7.8 million from Ameriquest (a giant of the subprime mortgage industry). They also helped pay for his inauguration.


Ameriquest's financial "love" didn't stop with the president. They contributed money and gifts to many legislators at the federal and state level. According to the Wall Street Journal, "[Governor] Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaigns received at least $1.4 million, along with stacks of tickets to a Rolling Stones concert that were used to lure big donors."

Due to the financial contributions outlined above (among many others), along with the old conservative "mantra" of the "Free Market will take care of itself " without any "regulation" from Guvment.........there was very little regulation AT ALL of the subprime industry during George Bush's fist and second terms.


And, what SuperSleuth from Texas FAILED to tell you was that the REPUBS had a chance to FIX THIS SHIT long before the "DEMS" took over the House and Senate......way back in 2005........All they had to do was "negotiate" some "protections" for consumers into the bill to get Democrats on board, but they WOULD NOT DO THIS.


He failed to tell you that Freddie Mac Paid $2M to Republican Consulting Firm (the DCI Group) to Kill Regulatory Legislation in 2005.......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??? Wonder WHY?


Details of a secret campaign by Freddie Mac to defeat a bill that would have provided for more stringent regulatory standards and trimmed the size of their programs have been just been revealed. DCI targeted 17 Republican senators to defeat the bill.


The bill was sponsored by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the Senate, then dominated by Republicans, in July of 2005. Shortly afterward, Freddie Mac began its secret payments to DCI. From the AP article of October 19, 2008:
"DCI never filed lobbying reports with Congress about what it was doing because the firm was relying on a long-recognized gap in the disclosure law."


In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September. Nice guy, huh? Just asking.


Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005.


In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.


In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it, but NOT because of the "regulatory" issues.......the Democrats wanted to add in "protections clauses" for home owners and consumers and did not have enough votes to get them in, and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.


So then, he wants to put the "blame" onto the Dems when they were just wanting to get protection for taxpayers/consumers, while all along the REPUBLICANS hired by Freddie & Fannie were doing the dirty work to defeat the bill??


Some people , mostly republicans, will beat their fist on their chest and say, "Government should never regulate business. It's Un-American!"


To these people I say: Wake up and smell the reality all around you. This whole argument is equally simple-minded and dangerous. Let me ask you this. Why is it okay to regulate the actions of people (with laws), but not the actions of corporations? What's the difference?


In fact, I would argue that it's even more important to regulate financial entities that have the power to bankrupt millions of Americans and wreck the U.S. economy. If ever a set of rules was called for ... it's with Wall Street, the Banking and Mortage Indudstry.


And that brings us back to the present. In about a month, we will go to the polls and choose one of two men to be our next president.


On the one hand, John McCain is vehemently opposed to government regulation of big business. In other words, he wants to continue most of the policies that caused our current financial crisis. But then, why should McCain be concerned about the current crisis? It doesn't affect ultra-rich Americans like him. While millions of Americans are losing their homes, John McCain can't even remember how many houses he has for Gods sake! Talk about being out of touch with economic reality!


On the other hand you have Barack Obama, (and the Democrats) who are advocates of sensible regulation -- the kind of regulation that could have prevented the financial mess we are in now. Obama, who only recently paid off his student loans, is very much rooted in the reality of the current financial crisis in this country.


So the question is this:


Who do you think will be better equipped (and motivated) to get us out of this financial crisis? An ultra-rich de-regulator like McCain, whose staff is largely made up of lobbyists? Or Barack Obama?


Seems simple to me. But, then again.............I'm just an ole "citified" South Carolina/Jawga country boy..............what do I know? Evidently a LOT more than many folks frum New Jersey OR Texas!


Luv ya Bro,


Gimp