Wow 600,000 jobs are gone...

[DrDan]

"Poof" "Gone" "History"

So far in 2008 that's 600,000 Americans that have no income...

That's just wonderful - Bush is doing one hell of a job!

McCain is dead meat!

[dick195252]

Economy is in GREAT shape just ask BUSH

[dick195252]

Clinton has been out of office for 8 YEARs give me a break if this administration did not like it they could have changed it!!! I know why i moved out of Wisconsin 25 years ago never to return NOW!!!!

[Doe Master]

Your side of the border or our side ,a politician is still the same belly dragging vermin . My suggestion is when they have their debates hook them up to a lie detector with a electrified collar of say oh 220 . You want to see the ratings for a show go through the roof .Everyone would tune in to see a liar sizzle a little .

[mikej]

good idea doe master i'd watch

[saxman]

Ploitic's

Poli - meaning many

Tic's - Meaning Blood sucking parisites.

If PRO is the oppisite of CON

Then CONGRESS is the oppisite of PROGRESS

[mikej]

good analogy scott thats funny

[sumner4991]

Funny . . .democrats are trying their best to blame the current mortgage and financial crisis on Bush. However, the fact is the Clinton administration did in fact start the mess.

"In 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and during a nationwide commercial bank failure and the Great Depression, two members of Congress put their names on what is known today as the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA). This act separated investment and commercial banking activities. At the time, "improper banking activity", or what was considered overzealous commercial bank involvement in stock market investment, was deemed the main culprit of the financial crash. According to that reasoning, commercial banks took on too much risk with depositors' money. Additional and sometimes non-related explanations for the Great Depression evolved over the years, and many questioned whether the GSA hindered the establishment of financial services firms that can equally compete against each other. We will take a look at why the GSA was established and what led to its final repeal in 1999."

Let me see here. . .who was in the oval office in 1999? This act was working so well, I guess Clinton decided it wasn't needed anymore. Of course, Clinton had the economy going so great, he had plenty of time for the finer aspects of the oval office. Clinton also took limits off the housing act to allow riskier mortgages.

I'm sure someone is going to say . . .well, Bush agreed with these items or he could have changed them. Well, Bush didn't have the leisure time that Clinton had in the White House. When historians look back at this era, I seriously doubt any of them will declare Clinton a great President. He seriously did little while he was in office. The reason Bush has such a low approval rating is because of the liberal media and the uneducated fools that believe everything they see on TV and/or read in the newspaper. I got news . . .the President doesn't run the country, the country runs the President.

It's way too easy to vote based on party. It's easy to say, I don't like the war and Bush started the war. Oh yeah, Bush caused the Hurricanes too. Therefore, I don't like Bush, so let's vote Democrat.

I have honestly tried to base my vote on the candidates records, their job resumes, and their conduct. I just don't see anything about Obama that is more than a dream. He has a dream he would like to share with us. He has no record of running anything. Being a city organizer isn't exactly a training course for being a President. He's a nice guy. Just too young and no experience.

You guys can talk war all you want. However, the war is over. No matter who wins, they will not have to deal with guys flying planes into skyscrapers. They will not have to deal with Sadam or Osama.

They will have to deal with local governments/citizens that VOTE DOWN Natural Gas Ports because they aren't pretty to look at and end up putting the port in Mexico. 3000 initial jobs lost plus supporting jobs that arise out of those 3000 families having a good income. Good move California. . .I guess pretty is important out there. Same thing with the windmills around the Great Lakes and Napa Valley.

[Cossack]

Once again the Republicans are blaming factors that could not have been the cause. Whether Clinton, Pelosi, "world economy" it happened on the DUBYA"S watch!! He's to blame!! No oversight and no imagination. Crony infected bureaucratic do-nothing structure resulted in the abysmal response to catastrophe in New Orleans , and now the same thing is happening in Texas. HE allowed green to drive the housing market unabated. Now he's spending money, not only on the war but to bail out big business, like HE owns it. And the reps have the balls to call the dems big spenders HA!!! Can't wait for this joker to depart before the entire county to collapses.

[Country]

Your right on the money 45gun. I try and explain this to people I know and they just look at me dumbfounded. Im surrounded by idiots. Makes me wonder if there is any hope for us. The thing that gets me is that no one will own up to their mistakes. They have all known what a mess was coming down the road and none of our representatives did anything about it. The Republicans two years ago and now the Democrats own Capitol Hill and they've had their heads stuck in the sand. They all act like derivatives and CDO just happened and it's not their fault. Obama will just be more of the same and probably put the final nail in our economic coffen. Our days as leader of the free world have come to an end.

[sumner4991]

Cossack . . .you are joking, right? Because that is funny.

It's not republicans that are pointing the finger, it's New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy_bloo ... eadpNv24cA

Bush spent most of his time in office putting out Clinton fires. Add in the guys that flew planes into our buildings and it was a mess. Sure, it's easier to blame one person, however, they are all to blame. One party isn't any better than the other. The only thing I can say in Bush's favor, he had his hands full . . .lots of issues. Clinton, however, had nothing better to do than fool around, ended up spending the majority of his time keeping himself out of jail, a big time waste of tax payer money.

Everything I see from the democrats is trying to say McCain is Bush, Bush is bad, vote democrat. Sorry, but, I would like to know which person is best for the job. Forget the parties, they have both failed. We should kick them all out.

Show me something Obama has done that I should be proud of seeing done . . .just one thing.

***Edit. . .DrDan . . .I love your "the sky is falling thread", loss of 600,000 jobs . . .take a look at this and tell me how many jobs we have gained since Bush took over. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyO ... E_cesbref1

Then take another look and tell me how many we have lost since the Democrats took over Congress.

[LV2HNT]

Your are right Sumner, both paries have failed and they should both be kicked out, but that won't solve anything because it is the bankers that control the parties and they will just go and buy the next party so that they can continue their quest for global domination, which will be accomplished soon.

JH, Country, and everyone else who thinks this is a Democratic or Republican issue. You are poor, missguided, brainwashed, slaves to the sysem and I pray that you will one day wake up and stop destroying every hope I have for happiness and true freedom.

Jobs are dissapearing faster than they can be counted. Banks are closing left and right, and neither party has yet to admit why we are realy about to go into a world wide depression. Both parties and their bosses are responsible yet all they do is point fingers and play stupid. If you believe that one party or one president is solely responsible, than I believe you are truly a moron.

You are all entitled to your opinions as I am mine. It aggrivates me to no end though to see the sheer and blatant denial that most people are exhibiting.

JH, you are a prime example. Based on your comment from another thread where you called 9/11 conspiracy theorists idiots, you showed that you are truly the biggest idiot here. You can call me one all you want. I will sadly return the favor. For you to express such an opinion shows your ignorance loud and clear. It proves that you have not looked at any of the evidence what so ever. If you had looked at the evidence, you would atleast admit that it is possible that the official version of what happened is in error and the conspiracy nuts may be on to something. So continue to wear your blinders and worship the main stream media if you want. It's your right, but don't expect me to just believe anything you have to say and don't expect me to be sympathetic when your world comes crashing down around you. From now on, will you please look at all sides to a story before you go peddling your opinions? You owe it to yourself, your friends, your country, and your god, if you have one.

Everyone should watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2583451279

[Woody Williams]

Analysis: Reckless Mortgages Brought Financial Market to Its Knees

Thursday, September 18, 2008

By John R. Lott, Jr.

The stock market has fallen dramatically from its peak a year ago. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has declined by about 25 percent, a significant drop, though not anywhere near as large as the 36 percent drop that occurred over two months from August to October 1987. Few would argue, though, that the financial market is not in a mess.

Meanwhile the economy has kept growing. In the second quarter of this year from April to June, GDP grew at a fairly fast 3.3 percent. For the first half of this year GDP has grown at about 2.2 percent, near the historical average. Obviously some sectors of the economy have been doing well, while others, such as housing, have been in a real mess.

With the government takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as other bankruptcies in the financial sector, there are a lot of questions. The strangest fact is that the housing sector is having such problems when the economy otherwise has been doing well. Why have there been so many defaults when the economy has not been in a recession? Defaults have been at historically high rates despite reasonable economic growth and a relatively low unemployment rate of 6.1 percent.

Some, such as James H. Carr, the CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, argue that the high default rates are a result of "unfair and deceptive practices, steering customers to high price loans . . . High upfront payments made it so that they couldn't later pay their mortgages."

Surprisingly, research done by economists a decade ago in 1998, particularly by Professors Ted Day and Stan Liebowitz at the University of Texas at Dallas, predicted the current problems and tried to warn people of a different cause. Starting during the early 1990s, mortgage-underwriting standards have been consistently weakened. Many of the names involved in the forefront of those changes, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as Countrywide and Bear Stearns, have been the most prominent financial entities to become insolvent.

Others did not share these economists' concerns. The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than ‘concern about housing.'"

The changes in underwriting standards were pushed to accomplish what many called a "noble goal" -- an increase in home ownership among poor and minority Americans -- but the changes created a time bomb that was set off as soon as property values began to decline. The new rules involved eliminating verification of income or assets, little assurance of the ability to pay the mortgage, and virtually eliminating down payments.

Making it possible for otherwise unqualified people to buy homes increased demand and increased the price of houses. As long as housing prices rose, the problems inherent in not requiring down payments or relaxing other standards were hidden. While prices rose, no one had to default. Instead, if someone was unable to pay the mortgage, the obvious option was to sell the house at a profit. As long as prices continued to rise, people could accurately claim that the new standards did not have an appreciably different default rate than the old standards.

The federal government gives all sorts of subsidies to encourage home ownership. The mortgage deductibility in the income tax is a big subsidy, but that is not the only one. The Federal Housing Administration guarantees mortgages against default. Subsidies given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allow them to charge less in repackaging private mortgages that are then sold to financial institutions.

There are also subsidies to certain types of mortgages. The Community Reinvestment Act bans so-called "red lining" -- requiring banks to offer mortgages in the entire geographic area in which they operate, not just to do business in suburbs. Loans in profitable areas were then used to subsidize loans in areas where banks were losing money.

Yet, there was another major change that has gotten little attention. Back in 1992, a Boston Federal Reserve study claimed to find evidence of racial discrimination -- claiming that minorities got denied mortgages at higher rates than whites even after important factors such as creditworthiness were accounted for. The data used in the study were riddled with typos and other serious errors. For example, of the 3,000 mortgages studied, 50 of the loans supposedly had the banks paying interest to the borrowers, 500 of the mortgages were not even in the data set from which the data was supposedly obtained, and some mortgages were supposedly approved for individuals who had negative net worth in the millions of dollars. When those mistakes were corrected, no evidence of discrimination remained.

Professor Liebowitz told FOX News that Lawrence Lindsey, then a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, "was warned about these errors in this study but the Fed ignored them."

The Boston Fed still used the study to produce a manual for mortgage lenders that said: "discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower–income minority applicants."

So what were some of the "outdated" criteria?

Credit History: Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor.... In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. For lower–income applicants in particular, unforeseen expenses can have a disproportionate effect on an otherwise positive credit record. In these instances, paying off past bad debts or establishing a regular repayment schedule with creditors may demonstrate a willingness and ability to resolve debts....

Down Payment and Closing Costs: Accumulating enough savings to cover the various costs associated with a mortgage loan is often a significant barrier to homeownership by lower-income applicants. Lenders may wish to allow gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies to cover part of these costs. . . .

Sources of Income: In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part–time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, welfare payments, and unemployment benefits.

Accepting these new criteria was hardly voluntary. The Fed warned the banks:

"Did You Know? Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor’s net worth in class actions."

And mortgage lenders followed these rules. Liebowitz explained to FOXNews.com that these changing financial standards "encouraged speculation -- potential homeowners could gamble on the price of homes going up without using any of their own money. Remember, 25 percent of homes being purchased were purchased for speculation."

Others dispute Liebowitz's claim that these changes in rules mattered. For example, James Carr notes that it "may seem on paper that these are a curious thing to count [welfare and unemployment benefits] as income, but they simply didn’t matter."

One lender singled out by Fannie Mae for special praise for following these new criteria was Countrywide:

Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under [Government Sponsored Enterprises] and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the [Government Sponsored Enterprises] programs. When necessary — in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for example — Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice now accepted by the [Government Sponsored Enterprises].

Or take a 1998 sales pitch from Bear Stearns, which also followed the Boston Fed manual:

Credit scores. While credit scores can be an analytical tool with conforming loans, their effectiveness is limited with [Community Reinvestment Act] loans. Unfortunately, [Community Reinvestment Act] loans do not fit neatly into the standard credit score framework… Do we automatically exclude or severely discount … loans [with poor credit scores]? Absolutely not.

Given these lending practices mandated by the Fed and encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the resulting financial problems for financial institutions such as Countrywide and Bear Stearns are not too surprising.
Liebowitz told FOX News that "such reckless behavior by [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] has lead to their financial meltdown and to the financial problems for the whole country. During Franklin Raines' chairmanship of Fannie Mae, they were a major proponent of relaxing standards."

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

[TPM]

"Poof" "Gone" "History"

So far in 2008 that's 600,000 Americans that have no income...

That's just wonderful - Bush is doing one hell of a job!

McCain is dead meat!

You mean to tell me that the entire population of the USA was gainfully employed before Bush came to power?
First of all the the total number of unemployed is close to 9 1/2 million. The 600,000 is just the increase this year. Having said that, the unemployment rate when Bush took power was around 5.8%. It remained that and lower until recently. It now stands at just over 6%. Hardly a disaster on Bush's part.

[mikej]

sounds like another topic for a michael moore movie