"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 5:39 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"NewsGroups" spar@plaus wrote in message

...







"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 7:23 am, "NewsGroups" spar@plaus wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...

A word of caution....it can happen to your neighborhood.

Nothing to doo with republicans! All to do with people who spent MUCH
more than they had coming in. People ,with no commin sense, that can
only
blame themselves for the situation they are in.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wrong.

Banks are the gatekeepers...they have a responsibility to their
creditors to lend money responsibily.

When they make bad loans...and they have made MILLLIONS of bad
loans...it shows that there was no oversight...and that places the
blame squarely upon the Republican Adminstration.

Typical leftist rant !!!

The deregulation of banking that led to this debacle started under Reagan,
continued under Bush I, accelerated under Clinton, and basically was all
but
abandoned completely under Bush II. Before Reagan, those loans would have
been illegal, because banks faced an explicit regulation for "prudent risk
management practices," and against "predatory lending," which included
several of the things these loaners have done recently: Now, it's a
"guideline."

It wasn't Republican or Democrat. It was the Washington Consensus of
economic policy, which, among other things, advocates deregulation of
banking and finance. You really can't lay it on any single administration.
You CAN lay it on an ill-advised idea that banks would behave prudently,
even when money is hot and competition demands that they make lots of
loans,
just to stay afloat. It was a failure of oversight, fueled by a sophomoric
ideology.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Ed...it was this Republican Administration.

Check when the housing boom started...2003....which lies squarely in
the Bush years.

And the bust...well it hasn't ended yet, has it?

And who is the President?

TMT

================================================== ==

From today's New York Times:

"So let's go back to the beginning of the boom.

"It really started in 1998, when large numbers of people decided that real
estate, which still hadn't recovered from the early 1990s slump, had become
a bargain. At the same time, Wall Street was making it easier for buyers to
get loans. It was transforming the mortgage business from a local one,
centered around banks, to a global one, in which investors from almost
anywhere could pool money to lend.

"The new competition brought down mortgage fees and spurred some useful
innovation. Why, after all, should someone who knows that she's going to
move after just a few years have no choice but to take out a 30-year
fixed-rate mortgage?

"As is often the case with innovations, though, there was soon too much of a
good thing. Those same global investors, flush with cash from Asia's boom or
rising oil prices, demanded good returns. Wall Street had an answer:
subprime mortgages."



Which agrees with most of the sober economic analysis you'll see if you look
around. Not that it doesn't fit with the neocon philosophy, but, first of
all, Bush doesn't know enough about it to have an opinion, or to have had
much to do with it. Krugman is putting much of the whole mess on Greenspan's
shoulders, and he makes a good case.

--

Ed Huntress