I've heard the CRA argument and the facts might suggest otherwise.

...most subprime loans were made by lenders that aren’t subject to the CRA.

....something like 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to federal regulation and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations as a result of deregulation.

...given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans.
-----Added 30/9/2008 at 02 : 00 : 19-----
McCain's 2005-06 Fannie/Freddie bill? The one written for the most part by the Fannie/Freddie lobbyist who is now his campaign director and whose firm received $hundreds of thousands in lobbying fees from Fannie/Freddie?

It wasnt blocked by the Democrats...it never got out of committee in the Republican controlled Senate.

I'm still baffled that there were people who actually supported this...

one of the interpretations that you are starting to see floating about is that the defeat yesterday was a kind of "popular revolt"---which is absurd on the face of it---an article in the always-questionable "time" magazine argues that this is the case, and that it is a culmination of the undermining of credibility in the political system as a whole as a result, in significant measure of 8 long years of the bush people and another 20 of free-marketeer idiocy as the dominant lingua franca. most of us have been fucked by "globalizing capitalism"----but in america land of the free blah blah blah, there seems to be no way for this kind of dissent to register at all.

let's say that time and others in the major media who are speaking in terms of what should be a legitimation crisis for the regime as a whole are correct.

if it's true, then the best move would be for the government to resign en masse and call for new elections across the board at the earliest possible date.

Which presumably is why Republicans were attempting to increase regulation of the industry. Do you not intend to address the support voiced by Barney Frank and Charles Schumer for the disastrous policies of Fannie and Freddie?


If receiving more than $100,000 from Fannie or Freddie indicates a problem, the Democrats are going to need a new presidential candidate, because Obama falls into that category. So does Chris Dodd. And yet, one of the people circled below wants to lay the entire blame at the feet of the Republicans.

OpenSecrets | Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers - Capital Eye

http://my.photodump.com/uploads/Gues....JPG?514394956



It most certainly DID get out of committee, in spite of the united (as in unanimous) opposition to it by the Democrats on the committee.

The Republicans saw such a united Democratic front on the floor that they never brought it to a vote.

Edit: I am still unable to find the "control" of the Senate which is so frequently referenced. A reference to a bill that passed over the united objection of every, or even most Democrats during that period would be helpful.

I don't think deregulation (or its opposite) is the domain of either party. Neoliberalism is an ideology, not a party.

exactly, charlatan. there are different levels of talking in this thread, as in alot of them, which work past each other. if i write "neoliberalism" i refer to an ideology that encompasses both of the right wings of the single party state that it the united states. fundamentally, i do not care about divisions between republicans and democrats because to my way of seeing things, they're minimal. i support obama in this election not because i think he's actually much different from a moderate republican, but rather because he **appears** to be different from a moderate republican, and in that appearance lay the possibility of a momentary break in the trajectory of implosion that the bush people have solidified, but which is just as much the result of reagan, bush 1 and clinton's slight opposition to the same logic--which set up the bush2 reaction (in the strongest possible sense of the term reaction, and with all forms of the word reaction in play)...i do not particularly care about whether republicans or democrats are responsible for the breakdown of such agreement as there was about the first Big Rescue Plan involving the creation of the Magical Debt Absorption Machine--but tactically speaking, it seems pretty clear that it was the right of the republican party that played the role of wedge that resulted in the breakdown of the agreement. and it is of no particular consequence to me whether you can lay a given legisilative action at the feet of nixon or carter or reagan--to my mind, they're all steps along the way to a consolidation of a debilitatingly stupid ideological monoculture.

the problem is the monoculture itself.

there is no meaningful political diversity in mainstream politics in the united states--so far as i am concerned, the american live in a soft authoritarian system that exchanges positions amongst factions of more-or-less the same idiot thing every 4 years--the quirk is that positions fight amongst themselves across the language of "democracy"--but the sad fact of the matter is that the american system is not democratic, that is was set up in opposition to democracy--the system claims for itself the term when in fact it is not oeprational in any way--the american system prefers a type of "stability" that is entirely out of phase with the speed at which the capitalist order for which it stands operates--and it is showing itself structurally and ideologically incapable of managing even the system that it set into motion.

i won't get started about the enormous exploitative joke that is "globalizing capitalism" and its idiot twin "free trade" because it'd go on too long and i'm already sure that few are reading now. but the simple fact is that the problems that the american-dominated (to this point) capitalist system is facing are a demonstration of the fact that the ideology which enabled that system to develop has been outstripped by the system itself, and that unless it can adapt, and adapt quickly, to a different world than it has allowed itself to see for the past decade, but which in the empricial world it has created in significant measure, that the united states is in a situation the result of which will be irrelevance.

obama to me represents a bump in the trajectory that otherwise--and with mc-cain--is inevitable.
personally, i would prefer the bump.
because i live here too, and so does my family, and so do alot of people whom i love, and it would be a a shame to see people that i love suffer because the system as a whole, backed with the docile consent of people who like to like what they are told they like to like in the way they are told to like it, are too mired in their own idiot investments to see that the only way out of this farce is a different one than they are used to thinking about.

i guess this does kinda piss me off.
i should learn to watch sports.

Obama's main economic advisers are from the Chicago School (the cradle of neoliberalism). I am not so sure that Obama is the man you are looking for...

like i said, comrade, he *appears* to be different.

but maybe i'm too optimistic.

if you read the whole of that last post, though, you'll probably not think that.

The Republicans were not attempting to increase regulation of the industry. The 05 bill that you keep referencing provided a bit more oversight of Freddie and Fannie but had nothing to do with re-regulating banking and investment practices that resulted from earlier deregulation.

And yes support of Fannie and Freddie was across the board.

Yep...the influence of money is also across the board. One small differences is that the Dems money is more from individuals and the Repubs more from PACs


Nope...I dont think it did....and w/o looking at the Record, it is reasonable to assume that of the opposition on the committee was from borth sides of the aisle or it would have been reported out.

But you know there was unanimous Democratic opposition on the committee, how? do you have the committee vote?

Status:
Occurred: Introduced Jan 26, 2005

Last Action: Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

i dont know where you got the idea that "the Republicans saw such a united Democratic front on the floor that they never brought it to a vote". The logic defies me. Remember, this was when the Republicans had a 55-45 majority in the Senate.

I also think, but dont know for certain, that McCain could have stuck his name on the bill as a co-sponsor after it was DOA in the Banking Committee. He was not an original sponsor.

Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mrs. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Afairs

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=s109-190

It is curious that when the same bill was introduced again in 2007, McCain is not a co-sponsor. Was is because he was in "campaign" mode by that time?

Just for the record it was under the Clinton administration when Fannie and Freddie were allowed to get into the "sub-prime" market big time. Fannie and Freddie were also allowed ridiculously high leverage ratios, 2.5%. Meaning for every dollar of debt, they only needed $.025 in cash. By 2007 Fannie and Freddie accounted for $6 trillion of the total $12 trillion dollars in US market exposure. All it took was a 2.5% drop in the value of their assets for them to become technically insolvent. We have know they were insolvent a long time. The reality is that a certain percent of the loans were based on inflated appraisals or loan to value ratios 100% or higher, which means their leverage was in fact higher. Those who tried to address the issue could not, due to politics. Fannie and Freddie drove the market and lead the excess. People who suggest private sector banking deregulation is at the root cause of this mess are misinformed or are misleading.

$700 million is about 5.8% of the total US mortgage market, a drop in the bucket.

thank you.

Again... pointing fingers at either party is counter-productive. What we really need to do is address the ideology behind the thinking that deregulates and makes the market *more* laissez-faire. Neoliberalism is a scourge of *both* the Democrats and Republicans.

From where I am sitting, this looks like a play to keep the more left leaning Democrats (who are increasingly likely to win this coming election) from implementing the worst of their policies (and by worst I mean those policies that will have a negative impact on the economic system the neoliberals have brought about). There is nothing like a crisis to bring about new calls for "fiscal responsibility," "austerity," "cuts in public funding," and "privatization."

If you look back, you will see that there was a big shift in Bill Clinton's policies on the campaign trail and what he implemented a few months later once he took office. I suspect the same will occur with Obama if he wins. The leader of *any* country only has so much power. Those who control the economy are the real power brokers.

And no... it's not a conspiracy. It is an ideology. There is a big difference.

sooner or later, folk will figure out this ideology thing, i think. not yet, apparently.

So will student loans be next?

I believe they are run similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and I know for the past 10+ years there has been talk on how many cannot repay because wages are not enough for people to pay.

Could we see another bailout for the industry if they start looking at the losses from the student loans also?

Look, all of this crap is ENTIRELY based on a 'capitalist' system that knows, without doubt, that if its entity is in trouble it will, most likely, be bailed out in one form or another.

Markets are fine, so long as risk is REAL.

The only thing that this bailout will do is delay the inevitable meltdown, by months.

EDIT:

Oh, please, let me just add, as asides, that I've just been discussing the candidates with a Republican girl from Chicago (we got into the discussion because i unthinkingly asserted that she must be voting for Obama) who, after telling me that McCain knows what is right for America (*cough*) took another toke on the joint I passed over.

The hysterical laugher she provoked caused her to leave the bar.

The almost violent inability to accept reality that is palpable next to any US-ian i've been near in the last ten years is EXACTLY the reason why no reasonable action will be taken in the face of this crisis, there'll be no end to the culture of debt and there'll be carnage in America and the rest of the world while Pax Americana dies.

Sorry.

(I might be a tad extreme here, I've just fought off a couple of muggers - after walking through a heartbreaking market of people selling their heirlooms to pay off debts. I stopped to ask. I'm not joking.)

By the way, the joint i passed her had not been raised to my lips, nor inhailed. Just makes me sleepy.

If I recall, this was my point. I felt that Nancy Pelosi was being very counterproductive, which was no surprise. That word sums up her entire career.


I'm still confused as to whom you mean by "neoliberals." Obama? Franklin Raines?
(See video below)

Yes, I remember Bill Clinton campaigning on a middle-class tax cut, and magically converting it into a tax increase once he was elected. Considering that Obama is still promising a tax cut for 95% of Americans, nay, a tax CREDIT for some of them, it is safe to assume he is lying. Any other interpretation would mean he is not the brilliant man he is portrayed to be. Unfortunately, a great many naive twenty-somethings can't see through these lies, and they are happily anticipating their tax cuts.

The video is below. I wish they hadn't added the plea at the end, but it definitely shows why the Republicans couldn't get regulatory reform, and it shows the kind of man Obama chose for his economic advisor.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf...s=1&fs=1&hl=en
-----Added 2/10/2008 at 02 : 38 : 30-----
If the board was composed entirely of Democrats, you are correct.


Another difference is that in only four years, Obama collected more money than anyone except Chris Dodd. More even than John Kerry.


The bill did made it out of the committee on July 28th 2005.

It was "reported on" (which means it passed through the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee) to the Senate's Republican conference chair - at the time Rick Santorum - who never placed it or moved on the agenda for a floor vote. Because they did not have the 60 votes required for cloture, he and the Republican leadership let it die.


That statement has popped up from time to time. Actually, he signed onto it after about a year of the Dems stalling it in committee. As is pointed out above, it was never DOA.

He also said the following:

Senator John McCain
5-25-2006

No...the bill was ordered to be reported out on July 28,2005...with an amendment in the nature of substitute. It was never reported out (do you see a check in the box - Reported by Committee ?)...perhaps because the Repub chair didnt like the substitute amendment....I really dont know

And the rest...about Santorum and cloture... is simply your revisionist history....since you have no idea how the vote broke out in the committee or what it might have been if it ever was brought to the floor. (unless you have source information that I am not aware of...Congressional Record?)

But it hardly matters anymore.

The Senate passeed a bailout bill last night by a 74-25 vote, with a few new sweeteners - tax cuts for business, increase in level of FDIC insurance, and some pork (including $$ for Alaskan fisheries) to get a few more Republican votes in the House.

Is the moral of the story that you need to get out more?

So living in a microcosm of an ideological echo-chamber, such as you describe, must lead to condescending intolerance and treating ideological outsiders poorly? I suspect that you could easily find yourself a scenario where your viewpoints would be found laughable.

Sorry about your getting mugged by such desperate souls. Where did this occur?

Obama and Democrats often refer to "deregulation" as the root cause of this crisis and most of our current economic problems and that this "deregulation" was driven by the current administration. It is convenient that they are never specific, because no one can honestly evaluate the claim. So, I ask here - what regulations are they talking about? What regulations were not being enforced?

so let's see if this helps reconcile in some way the parallel conversations in here:
neoliberalism encompasses both republicans and moderate democrats--you know, like the dlc and the clinton administration--moderates. i know, i know the right has expended alot of effort trying to portray these folk as "leftists" but that's mostly a distraction. meaningless except in the imaginary grid-space of conservatives. it has had functions, they're obvious if you think about them, but they bore me now. neoliberalism is that "market" oriented ideology around which a movement took shape across the 1970s that connected back (thanks to the workings of the hoover institution i think, personally) to populist conservatism of the 1920s and to hoover as a way of situating itself in opposition to fordism, to the new deal---in other words, to the last socially viable form of capitalism (you wouldn't think this was the case if you focused on the opposition to the vietnam war and civil rights movement etc.---but if you look at the bigger picture, it's true)....the conditions of possibility for the ascendance of this ideology were put into place under nixon...thatcher/reagan are the key transitional figures--the making-explicit of a much longer and internal process of implosion of the left was its opportunity,,,the systematic blurring of information and ideology its main device for dissemination--and it has been the way things are thought and operate at the level of the dominant order in the united states since the reagan period.

that means reagan, bush 1, clinton, bush2.
that means republican republican democrat republican,
that means the center democrats AND the republican administrations were responsible for this politically.
so there's no point in this petty he said/she said of locating this or that action in this or that administration since the reagan period IF you see what's coming apart here as neoliberalism itself.

seems to me that folk can't get their heads around what's happening so they pretend it's something that fits into their frame of reference---but it's the frame of reference that IS the problem and that is coming undone as we write.

another way---the dominant order consists of different factions that rotate every 4 years. the conflict over the presidency is a conflict over which patronage networks will have privileged access to resources by alliances with the political faction that runs the show. but SOMETIMES there are periods of mutation. we are entering one of them. mutation throws alot of cards in the air. neoliberalism as the naturalized ideology of the pastr 30 years is particularly ill-suited to mutation.
that is one of a hundred reasons why it is coming apart at the seams, and very quickly.

I dunno... a lot of pork sandwiches here....

Yeah, I'm lost. We're hurting for cash, borrowing money to get by and the answer is more pork?

No wonder Congresses approval ratings are so low.

To be more specific:

Democrats obstruct regulation attempts by Republicans, then blame them for "deregulation."

Democrats decide to borrow the economy out of debt. They buy off some (but not all) Republicans by inserting 400 pages into what was originally a 3-page document. Among them was Elijah Cummings, who appeared on the news saying that he supported the bailout because he "received assurances from Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank." :bowdown:

Can't recall the last time I agreed with Kucinich, but I do today. Oh well, at least my wooden arrows and Caribbean Rum are protected.

What specific regulations are you talking about. As long as I can remember the GOP has had the mantra of less government and deregulation.


This whole bailout was proposed by the Bush Admin. When did they switch parties?



I don't care about this. My arrows are graphite and the rum I like is made in Nicaragua.