It was actually specific democrats and republicans who do not know the difference between over and under regulation, specific republicans and democrats who were being pressured by lobbyists and either did not know enough about the issue or were more concerned with campaign contributions to be able to make a good decision.

Some saw the problem a long time ago others didn't. Some who helped create the problem tried to fix it along the way and others didn't. Most of them now see the problem....some of them are trying to fix it, some of them are trying to hide their prior ignorance, some are trying to hide their shady involvement, and most are still manipulating the issue to try to get reelected.

I will grant you that as a generic statement, but not one in this specific case.  It was clearly blocked by Frank and Schumer.

Oh really? Show the exact legislation would you please. You might as well add Dodd since much of what he has "advocated" is nonsense also. But be careful if you are referring to Fannie/Freddie. They are not the root cause of the problem, merely a symptom.

YOu really dont even have to google  it.  Brad Gave you the link for free.

http://minx.cc/?post=274177

And no, they are at the root of the problem.  The maginitude of the mismagement (all in the name of good intenctions) is going to cause other institutions - that may have weathered a storm - to sink as well.  As we see.

The Levees in New Orleans stood for decades!  It was not like they were going to fail "anyday" just when Katrina was added on THAT day.  So it is with Financial indtituations.  WHen you count on money, and it disappears, you are going to hurt.  Hopefully you have a rainy day fund for that, but when they are the size of Fannie and Freddie, it is tough to plan for that large a storm.

Wow....pretty good distortion of the facts...or maybe just abusing the timeline and facts to make it look like it was partisan thing. Fannie and Freddie were giving contributions to almost every member of the house and senate. The house bill failed to pass in a Republican controlled congress. The senate bill was first shelved during a Republican controlled Senate.

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/532756-1.html

Here's a decent article that explains how these two bills went back and forth. Two sides unwilling to budge an inch either way.

The Hagel bill which was co sponsored by McCain was a better bill, yet it never even made it to the floor.

Then when you go on to the next round of bills in 2007 its the same shit over and over. Neither party willing to budge an inch.

Get it into your thick skulls.....This is both parties screwing us not just one.

In any case the GSA's did not cause the problem. They were regulated in the amount of sub prime mortgages they could hold. The problems are the subprime mortgages most of which have been made through the investment banking industry. 80% of these mortgages are subprime and are what is wrapped into the mbs's and cds's that are causing the current credit crunch....CDS CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP.   In otherwords the investment banks made mbs derivatives out of subprime loans had the rating agencies put AAA on them and then they packed them into the mutual funds and investments of unwary investors. They were also packaged as CDS Rated AAA and traded on the market into hedge funds and also to Corps like AIG to hedge their main businesses. The investment banks have failed because they can no longer sell them. AIG failed because they cannot sell them to get cash to pay off claims(most likely from the the last two hurricanes) and so on and so forth.

So I hope you checked all your investments because these assholes both Dems and Reps are about to finish off the demolition.

Don't bail out a bank automatically just because it is failing and/or affects lots of people, because that will just mean those banks know in the future they are likely to be bailed out if the same thing happens again.

Instead, the justification for a bail out IMO should be one based on information - that is, that the government (with the information available to it) believes the banks assets are worth a certain amount. If others give in to speculative panic and end up making banks go bankrupt due to no-one wanting to lend to the bank (/deposit money with it) even when the government knows that the bank itself is sound, then there is a case for intervention. For example if you know an asset is worth $100, and it is valued at $80, there is a case for you buying it since long-term you can expect to sell it and realise a profit.

On the face of it though it seems as though the case for the bail out is simply to avoid the short-term pain of banks going under, and hence I'm not strongly in favour of it. However I'm not fundamentally opposed to it either, and can see some reasons for the $700bn bailout to go ahead.

The bailout will simply drive us further into debt, allow these corrupt companies to continue their poor practices, and ignite inflation.  No more privatizing profits and socializing costs, let's take the bump on the head and keep going.

The government should set up a trust fund and use the estimated $700 bill tax debt to get preferred shares and warrants from the financial institutions in exchange for treasuries instead of using the shotgun proposal of the administration. If the financial institutions are forced to keep their lousy derivatives then they will have less of an incentive to simply create and/or buy more further fueling the problem. Preffered share purchases would significantly boost the values of the companies shares from the get-go as well as provide the amount of liquidity that the institutions seek.

I cant believe the crap that is being proposed by the party (B)leaders....All it will do is keep the credit markets going until after the election. Both parties deserve to have the administrations shotgun pointed at their heads. Instead they will all head back to their districts to campaign and proclaim how they just saved the world. Looks like the taxpayer is going to get railroaded once again.

I guess that is your only defense now (and if you are an independent, you sure are sensitive to democrat criticism).  WHen you cannot deny the facts, say they are distorted.  Want to go to the congressional record?  You will lose.

I don't think so I have researched the issue for a long time

I just try to point out some falsehoods, misleading information, and ignorance in what is mostly a blogsite filled with the republican flock.

When Im posting to blogsites that are mainly geared towards the democratic flock I point out some falsehoods, misleading information, and ignorance found within  their flock.

Then you know how (the democrat) they why (constituents) the when and the how they basically precipated this crises.  WHile some did it for graft and bribery, the majority just saw it as a plum for their constituents.  And any cxriticism - from the regulators and auditors no less!  - was met with a witch hunt.  This is not a distortion.  These are the simple facts.  It is not left or right wing - unless you are looking at the why.  Facts are not slanted, so you dont have to "inject" fairness into what is essentially politics as usual.

And before you shout - they both do it - the problem is not who does it or when.  But in trying to cover up why, when where and how it happend - so that it will happen again.

Of course they do as i have said many times before. When does matter because unfortunately the when is usually during election season.

Yes almost all Senators and Representatives believe something needs to be done because their campaigns for re-election depend on something being done so that their big contributors are there for them.  I disagree that this is a decision that "us Americans" don't have a say in, write your representatives to show just how much you dislike this bailout.  It may not end up doing any good but remember that every single member of the House and 1/3rd of the Senate are up for re-election this year, if you ask me anyone who votes for the bailout doesn't deserve to get re-elected.

To be honest I'm rather surprised at how little bickering there is over this issue.  Yes there is finger pointing, but there is far less than I had expected.

The solution is to NOT do anything.  Yes not bailing them out is going to cause problems, some banks will fail, hard times will be ahead but those hard times will not last as long as the hard times that will result from this bailout.  The long term effects of this bailout are going to cause problems for the average American for years to come, and honestly very little is being done to actually fix anything.  The underlying cause of this crisis isn't really being addressed and until it is this crisis is going to keep on cropping up and getting worse and worse.

Yes I know the rich pay more taxes than I do, but who is going to be more impacted by the inflation that results from the size of the bailout?  The poor and middle class.

No I'm not an economic expert, but I have taken the time to research the implication of the bailout and there are experts out there who think this bailout is a bad idea (they have been quoted in various news publications over the past couple of weeks).  And anyone with a rudamentary understanding of how inflation works can see that this bailout is going to have wide reaching implications.  And as far as being in DC, I have a job and need to be at work so that I can afford to pay my bills, I have done my part by writing my representatives and if they don't listen then I will not vote for them in November.

I agree the lower and middle income class (I think we need to stop calling them poor because poor most are not) will and currently are being affected. But guess who got themselves in this dielmma in the first place? We can't ignore that most of these people knew they were getting themselves into this but chose to ignore it just to get that big house they wanted so bad (I mean, how can you not know you can't afford that house you are getting?). Or those who were doing the whole "flip this house" thing that are now screwed as well. I find it ironic to think that one works hard to earn a decent living or an above decent living only to give up some (a lot) of that hard earned money to pay for the poor choices of those in middle and lower income classes and then be told one does not pay enough and one earns too much. Not to mention that being rich somehow means that you did not work for it because your job does not require sweat and heavy lifting and stuff. I guess responsibility does not equal hard work these days.

The way I see it, again I say, everyone had their hands dirty on this one. Guilt by association I guess you can call it. I would rather we not bail them out at all, but I am not sure what damage that could cause and I am no expert in this topic so I prefer we do something if the damage for not doing anything, in the hopes it all works itself out, could be a disaster for us and the world. What would be the point of saving our tax dollars if our economy goes to hell anyways? We need to do what I necessary even if it means going against what the majority want. After all, not everyone in this country is educated enough to know any better, they are simply reacting to the idea of their money being used and possibly never see it returned. Can't blame them for thinking this way. I also see a lot of "well we are simply giving them money allowing them to do this again" comments. What I think about that is if we do bail them out and allow them to continue, then we are a lousy country and deserve to be screwed, we don't deserve the position of the most powerful nation today if we can't avoid this disaster from happening again.

I don't deny that the so-called victims of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown deserve what they get to some extent.  They made poor financial decisions and they deserve to lose their homes.  My point is that the tax payers shouldn't be burdened with bailing out the banks who continued to lend to people they knew could never afford to pay the mortgage or the home owners who continued to borrow when they knew they couldn't afford it.  What's the point in a credit rating if you're just going to ignore it and give the person the money anyway?  These banks knew the risks they were taking in lending money to people who couldn't afford the mortgages and I shouldn't be made to feel the burden for the mistakes of others.  What should have happened a year or so ago when the sub-prime mortgage meltdown started was the banks involved, no matter how difficult it was going to be, should have sat down with the mortgagees and worked out deals that would be beneficial for all involved even if it meant offering a fixed rate mortgage with a term of 80-100 years.  It would have been in both the banks and the mortgagees best interest to do that.  The banks chose not to do anything and now they are suffering and should be made to continue suffering since they did nothing to prevent this mess.