PDA

View Full Version : Who is to blame.



Qtec
08-27-2010, 05:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Banks’ Self-Dealing Super-Charged Financial Crisis



Over the last two years of the housing bubble, Wall Street bankers perpetrated one of the greatest episodes of self-dealing in financial history.

Faced with increasing difficulty in selling the mortgage-backed securities that had been among their most lucrative products, the banks hit on a solution that preserved their quarterly earnings and huge bonuses:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>They created fake demand.</span> <span style="color: #990000"> PONZI SCHEME? </span>

A ProPublica analysis shows for the first time the extent to which banks -- primarily Merrill Lynch, but also Citigroup, UBS and others -- <span style='font-size: 17pt'>bought their own products and cranked up an assembly line that otherwise should have flagged.</span>

The products they were buying and selling were at the heart of the 2008 meltdown -- collections of mortgage bonds known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

As the housing boom began to slow in mid-2006, investors became skittish about the riskier parts of those investments. So the banks created -- and ultimately provided most of the money for -- new CDOs. Those new CDOs bought the hard-to-sell pieces of the original CDOs. The result was a daisy chain [1] that solved one problem but created another: Each new CDO had its own risky pieces.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Banks created yet other CDOs to buy those.</span>

Individual instances of these questionable trades have been reported before, but ProPublica's investigation, done in partnership with NPR's Planet Money [2], shows that by late 2006 they became a common industry practice.

Source: Thetica Systems

Source: Thetica Systems
An analysis by research firm Thetica Systems, commissioned by ProPublica, shows that in the last years of the boom, CDOs had become the dominant purchaser of key, risky parts of other CDOs, largely replacing real investors like pension funds. By 2007, 67 percent of those slices were bought by other CDOs, up from 36 percent just three years earlier. The banks often orchestrated these purchases. In the last two years of the boom, nearly half of all CDOs sponsored by market leader Merrill Lynch bought significant portions of other Merrill CDOs [3].

ProPublica also found 85 instances during 2006 and 2007 in which two CDOs bought pieces of each other's unsold inventory. These trades, which involved $107 billion worth of CDOs, underscore the extent to which the market lacked real buyers. Often the CDOs that swapped purchases closed within days of each other, the analysis shows.

There were supposed to be protections against this sort of abuse. While banks provided the blueprint for the CDOs and marketed them, they typically selected independent managers who chose the specific bonds to go inside them. The managers had a legal obligation to do what was best for the CDO. They were paid by the CDO, not the bank, and were supposed to serve as a bulwark against self-dealing by the banks, which had the fullest understanding of the complex and lightly regulated mortgage bonds.

It rarely worked out that way. </div></div>


http://www.propublica.org/projects/cdo/cdos_buying_cdos2_100826.gif

Where were the rugulators, ie Bush Admin?

Still nobody in jail.

Q............. link (http://www.propublica.org/article/banks-self-dealing-super-charged-financial-crisis)

Gayle in MD
08-27-2010, 07:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Banks’ Self-Dealing Super-Charged Financial Crisis



Over the last two years of the housing bubble, Wall Street bankers perpetrated one of the greatest episodes of self-dealing in financial history.

Faced with increasing difficulty in selling the mortgage-backed securities that had been among their most lucrative products, the banks hit on a solution that preserved their quarterly earnings and huge bonuses:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>They created fake demand.</span> <span style="color: #990000"> PONZI SCHEME? </span>

A ProPublica analysis shows for the first time the extent to which banks -- primarily Merrill Lynch, but also Citigroup, UBS and others -- <span style='font-size: 17pt'>bought their own products and cranked up an assembly line that otherwise should have flagged.</span>

The products they were buying and selling were at the heart of the 2008 meltdown -- collections of mortgage bonds known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

As the housing boom began to slow in mid-2006, investors became skittish about the riskier parts of those investments. So the banks created -- and ultimately provided most of the money for -- new CDOs. Those new CDOs bought the hard-to-sell pieces of the original CDOs. The result was a daisy chain [1] that solved one problem but created another: Each new CDO had its own risky pieces.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Banks created yet other CDOs to buy those.</span>

Individual instances of these questionable trades have been reported before, but ProPublica's investigation, done in partnership with NPR's Planet Money [2], shows that by late 2006 they became a common industry practice.

Source: Thetica Systems

Source: Thetica Systems
An analysis by research firm Thetica Systems, commissioned by ProPublica, shows that in the last years of the boom, CDOs had become the dominant purchaser of key, risky parts of other CDOs, largely replacing real investors like pension funds. By 2007, 67 percent of those slices were bought by other CDOs, up from 36 percent just three years earlier. The banks often orchestrated these purchases. In the last two years of the boom, nearly half of all CDOs sponsored by market leader Merrill Lynch bought significant portions of other Merrill CDOs [3].

ProPublica also found 85 instances during 2006 and 2007 in which two CDOs bought pieces of each other's unsold inventory. These trades, which involved $107 billion worth of CDOs, underscore the extent to which the market lacked real buyers. Often the CDOs that swapped purchases closed within days of each other, the analysis shows.

There were supposed to be protections against this sort of abuse. While banks provided the blueprint for the CDOs and marketed them, they typically selected independent managers who chose the specific bonds to go inside them. The managers had a legal obligation to do what was best for the CDO. They were paid by the CDO, not the bank, and were supposed to serve as a bulwark against self-dealing by the banks, which had the fullest understanding of the complex and lightly regulated mortgage bonds.

It rarely worked out that way. </div></div>


http://www.propublica.org/projects/cdo/cdos_buying_cdos2_100826.gif

Where were the rugulators, ie Bush Admin?

Still nobody in jail.

Q............. link (http://www.propublica.org/article/banks-self-dealing-super-charged-financial-crisis) </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "As the housing boom began to slow in mid-2006,...."

".....by late 2006 they became a common industry practice."


"By 2007, 67 percent of those slices were bought by other CDOs, uup from 36 percent just three years earlier...."</div></div>

It was a done deal, before Dems moved in, annd happened entirely on Bush's, and the Republican majority's, watch.

Democratics hadn't even hung their new drapes, until mid Feb, 2007.

Most of our economists have said all along, that by early 2007, the crash was a done deal, and some, say even earlier than that.


Yet the right, wants to go all the way back to the Carter Administration, and blame him, or blame Clinton, even though the community reinvestment program worked just fine for thirty years, until Bush and the Repub majority failed to do anything, as that kettle boiled over, for years. Yet, knowing full well, that their party mantra is deregulation, and Bush's appointees have been proven to be former corporate lobbyists, or political cronies, who would look the other way when the time came to regulate, the Rw nutjobs continue to blame this disaster on Dems, and Obama.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

jimmyg
08-27-2010, 08:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Banks’ Self-Dealing Super-Charged Financial Crisis



Over the last two years of the housing bubble, Wall Street bankers perpetrated one of the greatest episodes of self-dealing in financial history.

Faced with increasing difficulty in selling the mortgage-backed securities that had been among their most lucrative products, the banks hit on a solution that preserved their quarterly earnings and huge bonuses:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>They created fake demand.</span> <span style="color: #990000"> PONZI SCHEME? </span>

A ProPublica analysis shows for the first time the extent to which banks -- primarily Merrill Lynch, but also Citigroup, UBS and others -- <span style='font-size: 17pt'>bought their own products and cranked up an assembly line that otherwise should have flagged.</span>

The products they were buying and selling were at the heart of the 2008 meltdown -- collections of mortgage bonds known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

As the housing boom began to slow in mid-2006, investors became skittish about the riskier parts of those investments. So the banks created -- and ultimately provided most of the money for -- new CDOs. Those new CDOs bought the hard-to-sell pieces of the original CDOs. The result was a daisy chain [1] that solved one problem but created another: Each new CDO had its own risky pieces.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Banks created yet other CDOs to buy those.</span>

Individual instances of these questionable trades have been reported before, but ProPublica's investigation, done in partnership with NPR's Planet Money [2], shows that by late 2006 they became a common industry practice.

Source: Thetica Systems

Source: Thetica Systems
An analysis by research firm Thetica Systems, commissioned by ProPublica, shows that in the last years of the boom, CDOs had become the dominant purchaser of key, risky parts of other CDOs, largely replacing real investors like pension funds. By 2007, 67 percent of those slices were bought by other CDOs, up from 36 percent just three years earlier. The banks often orchestrated these purchases. In the last two years of the boom, nearly half of all CDOs sponsored by market leader Merrill Lynch bought significant portions of other Merrill CDOs [3].

ProPublica also found 85 instances during 2006 and 2007 in which two CDOs bought pieces of each other's unsold inventory. These trades, which involved $107 billion worth of CDOs, underscore the extent to which the market lacked real buyers. Often the CDOs that swapped purchases closed within days of each other, the analysis shows.

There were supposed to be protections against this sort of abuse. While banks provided the blueprint for the CDOs and marketed them, they typically selected independent managers who chose the specific bonds to go inside them. The managers had a legal obligation to do what was best for the CDO. They were paid by the CDO, not the bank, and were supposed to serve as a bulwark against self-dealing by the banks, which had the fullest understanding of the complex and lightly regulated mortgage bonds.

It rarely worked out that way. </div></div>


http://www.propublica.org/projects/cdo/cdos_buying_cdos2_100826.gif

Where were the rugulators, ie Bush Admin?

Still nobody in jail.

Q............. link (http://www.propublica.org/article/banks-self-dealing-super-charged-financial-crisis) </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "As the housing boom began to slow in mid-2006,...."

".....by late 2006 they became a common industry practice."


"By 2007, 67 percent of those slices were bought by other CDOs, uup from 36 percent just three years earlier...."</div></div>

It was a done deal, before Dems moved in, annd happened entirely on Bush's, and the Republican majority's, watch.

Democratics hadn't even hung their new drapes, until mid Feb, 2007.

Most of our economists have said all along, that by early 2007, the crash was a done deal, and some, say even earlier than that.


Yet the right, wants to go all the way back to the Carter Administration, and blame him, or blame Clinton, even though the community reinvestment programs worked just fine for thirty years, until Bush and the Repub majority failed to do anything, as that kettle boiled over, yet, knowing full well, that their party mantra is deregulation, and Bush's appointees have been proven to be former lobbyists, or political cronies, who would look the other way when the time came to regulate, the Rw nutjobs continue to blame this disaster on Dems, and Obama.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
G. </div></div>

Fair, balanced, factual, unbiased, and knowledgeable. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif

There is plenty of fault to go around and over thirty years of history to find it. Anyone who can't see that, isn't looking.

J

Gayle in MD
08-27-2010, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jimmyg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Banks’ Self-Dealing Super-Charged Financial Crisis



Over the last two years of the housing bubble, Wall Street bankers perpetrated one of the greatest episodes of self-dealing in financial history.

Faced with increasing difficulty in selling the mortgage-backed securities that had been among their most lucrative products, the banks hit on a solution that preserved their quarterly earnings and huge bonuses:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>They created fake demand.</span> <span style="color: #990000"> PONZI SCHEME? </span>

A ProPublica analysis shows for the first time the extent to which banks -- primarily Merrill Lynch, but also Citigroup, UBS and others -- <span style='font-size: 17pt'>bought their own products and cranked up an assembly line that otherwise should have flagged.</span>

The products they were buying and selling were at the heart of the 2008 meltdown -- collections of mortgage bonds known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

As the housing boom began to slow in mid-2006, investors became skittish about the riskier parts of those investments. So the banks created -- and ultimately provided most of the money for -- new CDOs. Those new CDOs bought the hard-to-sell pieces of the original CDOs. The result was a daisy chain [1] that solved one problem but created another: Each new CDO had its own risky pieces.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Banks created yet other CDOs to buy those.</span>

Individual instances of these questionable trades have been reported before, but ProPublica's investigation, done in partnership with NPR's Planet Money [2], shows that by late 2006 they became a common industry practice.

Source: Thetica Systems

Source: Thetica Systems
An analysis by research firm Thetica Systems, commissioned by ProPublica, shows that in the last years of the boom, CDOs had become the dominant purchaser of key, risky parts of other CDOs, largely replacing real investors like pension funds. By 2007, 67 percent of those slices were bought by other CDOs, up from 36 percent just three years earlier. The banks often orchestrated these purchases. In the last two years of the boom, nearly half of all CDOs sponsored by market leader Merrill Lynch bought significant portions of other Merrill CDOs [3].

ProPublica also found 85 instances during 2006 and 2007 in which two CDOs bought pieces of each other's unsold inventory. These trades, which involved $107 billion worth of CDOs, underscore the extent to which the market lacked real buyers. Often the CDOs that swapped purchases closed within days of each other, the analysis shows.

There were supposed to be protections against this sort of abuse. While banks provided the blueprint for the CDOs and marketed them, they typically selected independent managers who chose the specific bonds to go inside them. The managers had a legal obligation to do what was best for the CDO. They were paid by the CDO, not the bank, and were supposed to serve as a bulwark against self-dealing by the banks, which had the fullest understanding of the complex and lightly regulated mortgage bonds.

It rarely worked out that way. </div></div>


http://www.propublica.org/projects/cdo/cdos_buying_cdos2_100826.gif

Where were the rugulators, ie Bush Admin?

Still nobody in jail.

Q............. link (http://www.propublica.org/article/banks-self-dealing-super-charged-financial-crisis) </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "As the housing boom began to slow in mid-2006,...."

".....by late 2006 they became a common industry practice."


"By 2007, 67 percent of those slices were bought by other CDOs, uup from 36 percent just three years earlier...."</div></div>

It was a done deal, before Dems moved in, annd happened entirely on Bush's, and the Republican majority's, watch.

Democratics hadn't even hung their new drapes, until mid Feb, 2007.

Most of our economists have said all along, that by early 2007, the crash was a done deal, and some, say even earlier than that.


Yet the right, wants to go all the way back to the Carter Administration, and blame him, or blame Clinton, even though the community reinvestment programs worked just fine for thirty years, until Bush and the Repub majority failed to do anything, as that kettle boiled over, yet, knowing full well, that their party mantra is deregulation, and Bush's appointees have been proven to be former lobbyists, or political cronies, who would look the other way when the time came to regulate, the Rw nutjobs continue to blame this disaster on Dems, and Obama.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
G. </div></div>

Fair, balanced, factual, unbiased, and knowledgeable. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif

There is plenty of fault to go around and over thirty years of history to find it. Anyone who can't see that, isn't looking.

J </div></div>

You have yet to address the article, but choose to go on the personal attack route, yet again.

If there is a point you'd like to make about the article, or the financial collapse, the worst one since The Great Depression, which happened on Bush's watch, and under a Republican majority, then do so.


I don't communicate with people who cannot discuss issues, without attacking the people who disagree with their views.

This makes about the fifth or sixth time, for you, the next time you wsill be put on ignore....

G.

Chopstick
08-27-2010, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yet the right, wants to go all the way back to the Carter Administration, and blame him, or blame Clinton, even though the community reinvestment program worked just fine for thirty years,
</div></div>

It has nothing to do with what the "right" wants or does not want. CRA caused all of this meltdown. If you force banks to lend money to people who will not pay it back, this is what you get. Also, framing this as a purely American problem is not correct. All of the governments in Europe have done the same thing and are now paying the price.

Deeman3
08-27-2010, 09:38 AM
Chopstick,

If you will just accept that Bush was just wanting all thos epoor folks to have houses and that after the Summer of Recovery, we are doing just fine all will be well.

Look at the shiny objects and agree that Health Care is cheaper and better now and everything is o.k. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
08-27-2010, 10:35 AM
It's amazing that we still have people who think Obama is good for the country. Their only course of action is to shift the blame to Bush.

SSDD

Steve

pooltchr
08-27-2010, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't communicate with people who cannot discuss issues, without attacking the people who disagree with their views.



G.
</div></div>

So happy to see that you managed to hold on to your sense of humor during your "summer vacation".

Steve

Gayle in MD
08-27-2010, 12:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yet the right, wants to go all the way back to the Carter Administration, and blame him, or blame Clinton, even though the community reinvestment program worked just fine for thirty years,
</div></div>

It has nothing to do with what the "right" wants or does not want. CRA caused all of this meltdown. If you force banks to lend money to people who will not pay it back, this is what you get. Also, framing this as a purely American problem is not correct. All of the governments in Europe have done the same thing and are now paying the price. </div></div>

OIC, then you think that predagtory lenders, Wall Street's dishonest actions, Greenspan's irrationally low interest rates, and his overestimation that Wall St., wouldn't cut their own throats in the interest of Greed, REal Estate Reps, pushhiing people to no doc, interest only payments to make a sale, and wealthy people buying up multiple properties, and walking out on their obligations, had nothing to do with it?

Can't say I agree with that, Chop.

G.

eg8r
08-27-2010, 12:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still nobody in jail.</div></div>That is because your investigative google search had about as much fact and proof as the story about the secretary.

eg8r

LWW
08-27-2010, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's amazing that we still have people who think Obama is good for the country. Their only course of action is to shift the blame to Bush.

SSDD

Steve </div></div>

They don't really think that, they are simply so bound to an ideology that they cannot confess the failure of that ideology.

The left has, and will, always be of the belief that we are <span style='font-size: 11pt'>just one more</span> big government program away from Nirvana.

LWW

Qtec
08-28-2010, 04:19 AM
What it shows is fraud. It also blows away the idea that "nobody saw this coming" excuse.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

January 8, 2009 2:55 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney says that his boss, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>President George W. Bush, has no need to apologize to the American people for not doing more to head off the financial calamity, saying no one saw the crisis coming.</span>

During an interview Thursday with The Associated Press in his West Wing office, Cheney defended the administration's performance on an economy that is growing weaker daily and which recently collapsed in spectacular fashion. Cheney said that <span style='font-size: 17pt'>''nobody anywhere was smart enough to figure it out.''</span>

He said Bush doesn't need to apologize because he has taken ''bold, aggressive action.''

AP-WS-01-08-09 1750EST </div></div>

Some actually WERE smart enough to figure it out and actually speak out.

Read it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. <span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets</u>.</span></span>

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
</span>
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.</span>

The writer is governor of New York. </div></div>

Q...........he paid the price.

Gayle in MD
08-30-2010, 09:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What it shows is fraud. It also blows away the idea that "nobody saw this coming" excuse.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

January 8, 2009 2:55 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney says that his boss, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>President George W. Bush, has no need to apologize to the American people for not doing more to head off the financial calamity, saying no one saw the crisis coming.</span>

During an interview Thursday with The Associated Press in his West Wing office, Cheney defended the administration's performance on an economy that is growing weaker daily and which recently collapsed in spectacular fashion. Cheney said that <span style='font-size: 17pt'>''nobody anywhere was smart enough to figure it out.''</span>

He said Bush doesn't need to apologize because he has taken ''bold, aggressive action.''

AP-WS-01-08-09 1750EST </div></div>

Some actually WERE smart enough to figure it out and actually speak out.

Read it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. <span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets</u>.</span></span>

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.
</span>
Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.</span>

The writer is governor of New York. </div></div>

Q...........he paid the price. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">he paid the price. </div></div>

Exactly! The Administration had a bulls eye on his back. Guess Rove managed to keep a few A.G. Bushies in office.

G.