repubs wanting more regulation for fannie/freddie dems defending fannie/ freddie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

I already put this in another thread, but here is the root of the problem



The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to under-served populations and commercial loans to small businesses.

The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community.

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[7] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.[4][6]

The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages."

Congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act.[16] A Wall Street Journal editorial argued that the law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them and that this contributed in part to the subprime crisis.[17]

-Wiki

I really don't care.

I am proud of the patroits that stood in the face of party today.

It is being said by some that they lacked courage... Quite the contrary, those that voted nay displayed great courage.

Those that voted for that outrageous proposal should all step aside and allow someone with true convictions to step in.

This 'crisis' won't be fixed by mo'money.

And all parties concerned need to shut up and get back to work.

Good post but if you see something wrong dont you step in and fix it...12 years of rep congress and 2 years of dem congress did nothing..Everyoneone is to blame..

didn't John McCain warn of this exact crisis a couple of years ago? and no one listened

More people than McCain warned about it and nothing done..McCain was warning a rep congress,,,go figure

I've heard that Janet Reno initiated the move to lawfully require federally funded lenders to extend loans to unqualified applicants. She was Clinton's bright idea to change America.

Whether or not it was a political party, the political machine enabled the passage of that law. The result was that loans on paper became assets, with value, which fannie/freddie bought up as the government had committed to supporting the lenders, in order to change the face of America's housing policies.

Whether the loan recipients had paid off the loans, or whether the government steps in to award the fannie/freddie outfit for buying up worthless values, fannie/freddie profit from the venture.

In my simplistic view, a business that buys up mortgages is venturing risk capital. Either they sink or they don't, on their gamble. There isn't supposed to be political involvement, or else the theory of business itself is a sham against the people who can and do pay off their bills.

the problem now is that as a result of all those bad loans, the companies that extend credit to other companies are refusing that credit. one of the things that the other companies need that credit for is to make payroll. No credit, no payroll and a lot of people in America are not gonna get paid next week

Hey oil continues to fall and one man ( I wont say who) said without the bailout will keep dropping dramatically..That will stimulate the economy...Without stimulating the economy who is going to buy the goods the companies produce..Opps was suppose to be a quote to quiet

Although I'm certain that loans to unqualified applicants is a part of the problem, I don't think it's a 'socio-economic class' thing at all. I think it enabled people all up the chain to get loans they couldn't afford.... often people that could easily have afforded a smaller home... but just didn't want to. And the banks wanted their money and had already been given the 'ok' to take it, in the name of reforms that were designed to help low income people get loans.

any business that needs to borrow to meet payroll is not being run very well.

Never exceed your means.

Lets get brutally honest.

most of the giant corporations do though

Pay for the bailout plan, and ALSO enable oil prices to rise?
What a choice.
Give me time to think....

Nah. No bailout.

But who is gonna be able to buy their products..Financing for you and me will get harder,,,

OK OK.......I did it!!!!

AND isn't it funny that McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington and work on the bill and the Democrats sneered at him and said no thanks

and now the (mostly Democrat) bill has failed due to a lack of Republican support

and I'm pretty convinced without some kind of bailout bill our economy is gonna pretty much collapse (and I'm a non-intervention person)

lol... did you overdraw your checking account again? To the tune of 700 Billion dollars?

Dang you.

Whats even more scarey if they do and it still keeps on tanking..