GOPMOM Note - The Sky is NOT Falling
I know these statistics are readily available EVERYWHERE but apparently everywhere does not include NBS, CBS, ABC or CNN broadcasts.
The stock market only fell by 5% yesterday - during the Great Depression, it was 50%.
Maybe we’re at 4% of mortgages defaulting - it was 50% during the Great Depression.
Unemployment is at 6% (an anomaly based on August “returning to work” job seekers, not job losses) - 24% during the big GD.
Consumer confidence is up, prices are down.
Suck it up, already. The general public seems to be under the impression that Lehman Bros. had some vault stacked with hundreds hidden somewhere and they just recently discovered it was empty but for one nickel. The Obama campaign loves this - they’re practically giddy over the news. I think they’re just thrilled they could put a new spin on the abhorrent new ad they are running mocking John McCain’s non-use of computers - as if no one over there knew that he can’t type because of his war injuries. Pathetic. You can send your thoughts:
http://www.michaelgraham.com/post/2008/09/14/My-Email-To-Sen-Barack-Obama.aspx
I can’t believe we would jeopardize our nation’s future based on a few panic inducing false reports by the MSM. The sky is most definitely NOT falling.
Popularity: 26% [?]
Review this site
Hold on, just because something isn’t the Great Depression, doesn’t mean this isn’t a pretty disastrous situation. It was the single worst plunge in the market since 9/11, and is going to mean a pretty sizable restructuring of the American financial system. A lot of people are going to lose money and jobs (my cousin and some other friends being among the newly unemployed at Lehman, sadly) by the time this is over. Most financial analysis I’ve read said that there will be a few more major bank/insurance company meltdowns (AIG appears to be on the brink) before the economy rights itself again. It’s not the Great Depression, but it’s pretty serious business that is really going to take a toll.
On a nonpartisan note, I just stumbled across a fantastic explanation posted by the author of Freakonomics about the bank collapses and federal bailouts by two Harvard economists. Even as a former Econ major myself, I didn’t really understand what has been going on these last few weeks - these two walk readers through very clearly and in straightforward language why the banks have been collapsing, what the rationale for bailouts is, and what this means for your average consumer as well as the economy going forward.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/diamond-and-kashyap-on-the-recent-financial-upheavals/
This isn’t a depression, it’s a recession. To say that nothing is happening would be very stupid on that person’s part. But this is immediately effecting those who are making six figures +.
Watch it, Marie. You sound almost gleeful that maybe a few richies are going to bite it this time.
ATG, I read the article and it is very informative in terms of recent timelines - it just doesn’t go back far enough.
Nothing about how the Fed (Dem’s) required lenders (in the 80’s?) to qualify the “unqualifiable” - affirmative action in the financial markets, as it were. The lenders were told to go into ‘alternative’ neighborhoods and they did and they made bad loans and now the tax payers are supposed to pay. And the lenders got greedy - not just mortgage, all credit. And the borrowers got greedy and stupid. (BTW I’d like to see some statistics on how many of these bad loans were given to illegal aliens.) It’s all BS. Let them fail I say and then we can get on with it.
Oh, and as a Republican, I’m willing to accept that some of this bailing going on is political - just as political as the Dem control over Fannie and Freddie - ie DNC slush funds.
I hope McCain gets his Commission - I can’t wait to see the heads roll.
I still have some reading to do - I’ll be back.
What’s that saying? When you assume, you make an a@# out of u & me?
Why do you assume that I hate rich people? If this has hit them, of course it’s going to trickle down to us. I don’t rejoice while people go through hard times. That’s pathetic.
Random: To get a loan, you need a social security number so that they can keep track of you. Illegal immigrants do not have social security numbers, therefore, how can they get loans?
Ways to a get number.
- You can get a federal issued SSN if you have a student or temp work visa. One of the first things I did when I came to the US (with a temp work visa) was to get my SSN. My card has printed across the front: ‘VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH INS AUTHORIZATION’. You do not need to be a citizen to have a SSN. Once issued, you have the SSN for life (or until you sell it to the ‘bloke down the pub’).
- Buy a fake ID from the ‘bloke down the pub’. This bloke has been seeing fake IDs for generations. He used to peddle driving licenses but has expanded into SSN’s. He can very easily get you a SSN, drivers License and with some effort a passport.
- Know what a ‘valid’ SSN is and create one. A basic understanding of math and a google search will give you the information you need to create one yourself. If you only need the number for a short time this method is fine.
- Steal a number by dumpster diving, active theft or from the recently deceased.
So armed with a SSN, no credit history, a recently opened bank account and cash for a deposit I was able to obtain a car loan. All loan documentation requirements that are easily within reach of anyone, legally or illegally.
A few years later, I got my first US sourced mortgage. They were a little stricter and wanted to see my INS work authorization (as stated on my SSN card). The bank gave me a 30 year mortgage but was I only authorized to work for 2 years. I remember thinking, that was easy and this loose lending policy will eventually cause issues, but that will be for another discussion.
The point is, it would naive of anyone to believe a SSN was not easy to fake or obtain (legally or illegally).
Unfortunately Mr. Graham’s email in defense of Mr. Obama is equally offensive: to people with disabilities. I work in education and see people with disabilities not only send email, but perform every computer related task and command as a person with full use of their arms, hands, and eyes. You see, there is specialized hardware and software that allows these brave men and women to overcome their disabilities. Never tell a person with disabilities that they can’t do something, if there is a means of overcoming it they will. Never take pity on a person with disabilities by doing something for them that they can do on their own. I don’t care if Mr. McCain can use a computer, but I don’t think he or any person with disabilities would use their disability as an excuse.
It would have been much better if Mr. Graham didn’t take this approach. A much better approach would be to point out that Mr. Obama offended thousands of people who can’t use computers or send email because they don’t even have access to them.
I would be surprised if illegal aliens made up a particularly significant portion of bad loans, for two reasons - a, they just don’t make up that large a portion of the population, and b, I would guess that the sizes of loans they’d be taking out would be pretty small given their generally limited means. If someone’s got numbers, I’d be happy to hear them. To my mind, there’s no way that some small loans to some illegal immigrants who weren’t able to pay them back could be a significant cause of a trillion dollar financial crisis - the math just doesn’t add up.
Also, I clearly said that I was posting the article because I thought it was usefully conveyed information, not to make a political statement. Trust a hardcore angry GOPer to take that and turn it into a tract against poor people and immigrants…
I will say that based on what I’ve been reading, I actually don’t get the sense that the bailing is particularly political. Most people seem to be pretty pleased with the response of Bernanke and Paulson - from what I can tell, their approach has been pretty hard-headed, pragmatic, and non-ideological, so kudos to them.
Ian, You’re going a bit overboard on the self-righteousness. The Obama campaign knows why John McCain is not an avid user of computers. McCain has spoken with humor about his inability since 2000 (and again was very public about it in 2007.) He has clearly explained how his wife assists him, which may account for his not becoming self-sufficient sooner. I suppose you see what you want to see. I saw an attempt by the Obama campaign to smear an opposing candidate that backfired.
Your work with people with disabilities is admirable, of course, but your lack of understanding that everyone deals with their disabilities differently isn’t.
Michael Graham’s campaign is a humorous way to address a ridiculous accusation.
ATG, I don’t have a problem with poor people or legitimate immigrants. Whose the angry party devotee here? I simply pointed out that today’s credit crisis is ultimately due to (a correction) Carter era economic policies. And Depression era policies. And the Liberal belief that government should save us all.
Deficit due to war - sure. Natural disaster relief - ok. Bailing out banks and investment firms that got greedy - criminal.
The article you submitted was very informative, which is why I kept it in your comment. But remember, it had ‘NYTimes” in the url - surely you must have expected a bit of bias. Economists have political theories, too.
You’ve missed the point - completely. The point is that Mr. Graham’s humor could have offended thousands of people, whereas had he been smart about it, he could have published something that would have offended no one. I’m not part of the politically correct crowd, but I’m sick of the drama both sides are bringing into this election. Mr. Obama’s ad insinuated that in order to be part of our culture you have to be computer savvy. By pointing out that there are thousands of people who don’t even have access to computers, it would have further advanced the notion that Obama is and elitist. Sure everyone deals with their disabilities differently - Mr. McCain deals with his by having his wife or secretary do his typing, that’s fine, that’s what he wants to do and I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t care if he can or can’t use a computer, I know many smart people who can’t even find the power button and I don’t think any less of them. My point is that Mr. Graham’s humor was just as bad as the ad itself AND tactless. I’m not defending the ad, it was indeed ridiculous, but why not take the high road for a change? Attack ads from both sides are deplorable, in my opinion. If this is modern politics, we might as well just make the election a reality television show.
Sorry if I’m misunderstanding again, I didn’t realize that you also work around people with disabilities - you certainly know better than I about their nuances. And you accuse me of being self-righteous! Oh and Mr. McCain is not an avid user of computers because he choses not to be. If I had a secretary I probably wouldn’t do my own typing either. People with disabilities can choose not to do something, that wasn’t what I said - what I said is that Mr. Graham was wrong in insinuating that he “couldn’t” do it. There’s a big difference.
Ian, I think ya’ gotta lighten up. If you had looked up anything on Michael Graham you would have discovered that tactful is as far from his reality as it gets. Most of what he says offends someone.
I don’t work with people with disabilities and I don’t know where you got that - must be a misunderstanding or, and I hope not, you were trying to be sarcastic?
I’ll concede the Graham campaign was silly if you concede the ad was a PR disaster and a lie.
I’ll concede that it was an ill-conceived ad, but it wasn’t a complete lie. Mr. McCain is not computer savvy, that much is true; however, someone on Team Obama should have known how this was going to get played out and pulled the plug on it. By the way I sometimes listen to Mr. Graham and I know his schtick. You don’t want to know my opinion of him - since I’m sure we will disagree. Let me just say that there’s a huge talent drop off before and after Mr. Severin.
One comment regarding the NY Times article. Just because it’s a NY Times article doesn’t mean it is biased. A smart reader is critical of everthing s/he reads - regardless of the source. To say that the article is biased BECAUSE it was run in the NY Times is like saying the piece that accused Edwards of having an affair is false because it was run in the National Enquirer.
Especially in this case, when the authors were two Harvard economists who wrote something for a colleague of theirs who wrote a book and decided to start a blog related to that book which happens to be hosted on the NY Times server… this was hardly the NY Times editorial page.
ATG, I found a few of the comments in your proffered article biased. Here are a few alternatives I found dating from last weekend to the present. But remember, ATG, Harvard is not exactly an unbiased institution - so anyone with a diploma just might have been exposed to a few unsavory principles, in my view. I mean, I’ve only lived here four year but I’ve met enough Harvard grads to convince me no kid of mine will ever go there - even if they paid her.
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/20/the-root-causes-of-the-financial-crisis/
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/09/19/trillion-dollar-bailout-will-lead-to-future-bubbles/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
P.S. The NYT is the equivalent of the National Enquirer in the news business.
Jay Severin once said that anyone who makes generalization is by definition a bigot. To say that because someone went to Harvard they are biased is just plain ignorant. It may be true that Harvard leans left, but so don’t most American institutions. An article is either biased or unbiased (truer or falser) based on what it says, not on who wrote it or where it was printed. To dismiss everything off-hand as biased is intellectually lazy. My philosophy - read everything critically, that means anything you read on redstate.com or in the NY Times or the National Enquirer, etc. The article the Enquirer ran on Edwards was true, was it not? And the truth of the article was in its content, not within the author or the paper itself.
Also, with this whole economy thing - there are many different opinions. Just because it’s not your opinion doesn’t mean that it’s biased. Difference is okay. Difference doesn’t always mean that the side you disagree with has an agenda. Deep breaths.
For pete’s sake, Ian. I said the article was informative but did not give enough historical information. It stopped short. I’ll concede that article was accurate in terms of the last 6 months or so but it would have been “more informative” if it had gone further. Maybe the writer just hadn’t gotten that for yet?
But come on, I’m not the first and won’t be the last to say that bias is inherent in most everything media related today. Heck, this is “GOP”mom - no doubts here.
But remember Gopmom you insinuated that it was biased twice:
“But remember, it had ‘NYTimes†in the url - surely you must have expected a bit of bias.”
“But remember, ATG, Harvard is not exactly an unbiased institution - so anyone with a diploma just might have been exposed to a few unsavory principles, in my view.”
I’ll state it simple - an article is either biased or not based on its content. It’s our responsiblity to be critical readers.
how many are writing as GOPMOM??it looks like at least two or three people,unless it is an omnipresent schizophrenic shiva of mom with Tourette syndrome.
something verrrry wrrrong with it.
GOPMOM is the only one writing with the moniker of GOPMOM.
I check every comment, no one has tried to impersonate MOM yet.
No one could come close to her anyway
wrench
truth. growing fond of the character. still for someone(if one)gifted with undeniable intellect and almost pugnacious accuracy concerning information,the slightly bitter,”of the idealist hook” tone ring out of tune.i must admit i am rather pique by person behind.
I thought 2000 and 2004 were bad… The latest with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac makes me furious.. President Bush tired to get legislation passed 5 yrs ago and then again a year ago only to have no doers in the democratic congress stop the bills that would have put the oversites in place to stop the corruption he saw in Wall St…but no… blame it all on Bush…as they have for the past eight years for they have NEVER gotten over the lost in 2000…and never will. McCain’s record has had many times BOTH sides singing his praises for years. Or when he believes what is right he will go for it even if it means IT ISN’T A REPUB IDEA HOW MANY POLITICIANS can say that? That’s because he is NOT a career politician, but a career SENATOR. only the uneducated and mudslingers who don’t bother to LOOK at the total picture will say otherwise. LET’S LOOK AT THE NY TIMES of all places at an article from 5 years ago..facts Bush tried to get oversights in place DEMS STOPPED IT COLD. WHO IS IN BED WITH THE TOP GUYS WHO LEFT FANNIE AND FREDDIE with the second highest contributions with such a short time in the Senate and then they made millions, bolted out of Freddie and Fannie and oops 40 some odd days before the election everything collapses… seems odd to me…especially when BARACK seems to be following in Kerry’s footsteps and has trouble pinning down an opinion of HIS own and then will criticize his opponent for having THE GUTS for having one and stating IT. AND THIS WILL KEEP US SAFE? Don’t think I want to find out….
Mary Ann,
Here are some facts: over the past 10 years Freddie Mac has given 57% of its lobby dollars to republicans, the other 43% went to democrats. I can’t verify the figures for Fannie Mae, but it’s something like 52% democrat 48% republican over the same time frame. Now, before you argue that in recent years democrats like Obama received a larger slice of the pie - remember this: the democrats are now the majority. If the republicans were still the majority, the money would have continued to go in their direction. These corporations are smart and they’re not going to buy influence from those who don’t hold sway. They want to make money, stay unregulated, and have government protection when they collapse - no matter what party is in power. Neither party has said “oh no, please stop giving me money.” Even John McCain, who took in a paltry amount from these companies in the past couple years didn’t say “stick it” - which he should have done on principle, not to mention it was such a small sum that he really could have gone without it - but he didn’t he’s just as greedy as the rest of the politicians and will take whatever he can from whoever is handing it out.
McCain did try to take some initiative for regulation, I agree:
“I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If CONGRESS does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”
However, the original bill S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, that McCain cosponsored stalled in the 109th congress (which was republican), specifically the last action taken on the bill was on Jul 28, 2005 by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs - which was at the time chaired by Richard Shelby (R). Democrats aren’t wholly unresponsible, but the power did lie with the republicans and stalled in a republican chaired committee.
The bill was reintroduced as S. 1100 in April of 2007 and is still active; however, John McCain’s is not one of the cosponsors this time around. This time Democrats are the party in power and I fully expect the same thing to come out of this as came out of the republican congress: nothing at all (besides it a moot point now).
The last piece of actual legislation that people point to as part of the blame is the COMMODITY FUTURES MODERNIZATION ACT of 2000. “This important new law creates a flexible structure for regulation of futures trading, codifies an agreement between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission to repeal the 18-year old ban on trading single stock futures and provides legal certainty for the over-the-counter derivatives markets.” Certainly this piece of deregulation didn’t help things out and it was sponsored by republicans and passed by a republican congress, but and signed into law by democrat Bill Clinton.
The truth of the matter is that we don’t really have anyone willing to stand up to these companies. Both sides are making bad decisions and we’re getting stuck with the bill - as usual.
Interestingly the bill that you’re touting to be McCain’s great forsight was written by Sen. Hagel (R) (who is also the sponsor of the new version) - who travelled to Iraq with Obama and was in the same meeting where Obama supposedly broke federal law, i.e., the Logan Act. Ah, the world is a small place - both parties are in the same tank.
It was unfortunate timing that the CFMA was signed in to law when the credit markets were already in such a bad shape.
The CFMA accelerated the exposure and ultimate collapse of the market. BUT the CFMA did not cause the issue, lax consumer credit processes are the root cause. These processes are based on federal policies enacted during previous administrations. The rot started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Jimmy Carter).
The goal of these liberal sponsored acts was to increase home ownership to people who would normally be rejected. (Rejected for GOOD reason - inability to pay)
The problem with these (and the root cause of the collapse) is they placed more importance on the entitlement to own a house, overlooking the ability to pay the mortgage. These soft lending practices, while initially aimed at home ownership, spilled over into other lines such as credit cards and auto loans.
[...] The SKY is not falling a2a_linkname=”GOPMom Note: you heard it here first”; a2a_linkurl=”http://www.gopmom.com/2008/09/gopmom-note-you-heard-it-here-first/”; Popularity: 1% [?] [...]
I agree, the CRA of 1977 was ill thought out and don’t forget the changes made under the Clinton administration that effectively made the situation even worse. Unfortunately Bush I had a good chance at enacting change before Clinton even took office, with a republican congress, but failed to do so. But that’s neither here nor there. The point is, you’re too quick to say that there’s a single “root” cause. The CRA doesn’t even apply to most financial institutions. Sure it’s a part of the problem, but not the singular reason for the problem. Both parties, the banks, and those who took out bad loans are to blame for this. It’s so complex and convoluted, to even say that there’s a single moment in time that causes this whole problem is just silly. I’m sick of Dems saying it was Republicans and vice versa or those that would blame just minorities or the poor. That’s just more bureaucracy that I just have no tolerance for.