Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Cornhusker4Palin's column >>

CORNHUSKER4PALIN

Articles Posted: 17  Links Seeded: 6435
Member Since: 7/2009  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Despite Book's Claims, Clinton Policies Hurt Economy

Seeded on Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:24 AM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: Investors.com
politics
Seeded by Cornhusker4Palin
Advertise | AdChoices

President Clinton is plugging a new book scolding Wall Street and Republicans and offering his "solutions" to an economic mess he helped cause. His gall knows no bounds.

The media portray Clinton, who acts as if he were still president, as some kind of hero riding in to save the economy. But it was his own policies that wrecked it.

And now he's covering up his fault by blaming others, when in fact he forced banks to make high-risk loans in the name of diversity.

"When President George W. Bush took office, it was the first time anti-government Republicans had held both houses of Congress and the White House. They could do whatever they wanted," Clinton intones in "Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy." "It soon became clear they wanted less regulatory oversight" of the financial sector.

In fact, the problem was too much regulation, not too little.

Starting in the 1990s, banks came under siege by regulators who politicized their mortgage-underwriting decisions on Clinton's orders.

He added teeth to anti-redlining laws under the Community Reinvestment Act, and made it nearly impossible for banks to expand if they didn't pass CRA lending tests.

Then he ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy and bundle the riskier mortgages into securities to meet the higher "affordable-housing" lending quotas he slapped on the publicly created mortgage giants.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • Cornhusker4Palin's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: American_Politics, Democrat Watch, EconVine, Fans of Palin4President 2012, FOX NEWS, FoxNews, Free Market, GOP Watch , Gut Check America, Heated Debate, Newsvine HONOR Vine, ObamaVine, Outraged Americans For Justice, Power to The People!, Reagan Conservatives, rightwingers, Rightwingnutjobs, The Conservative Vine, The Newsvine Tea Party, TheRogueAndTheBlaze, True Americans
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (10)
TeursesDeleted
acravatt

Yeah, all that peace and prosperity. Dang him, dang him straight to heck! (Sarc)

  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:13 AM EST
George-369262

Read ' Reckless Endangerment ', an excellent book on the subject.

It was the banks that caused the financial crisis.

Whether you chose to blame the the Clinton Administration & liberal Democrats at Freddie / Fanny, or the liberal Democrats on Wall Street, it still comes down to the jackasses.

  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:27 PM EST
neoatg

no it doesn't it comes down to the GOP pushing the democrats into a rock and a hard place . To claim the Democrats are responsible ignore the reality of this crisis and past history.

The favorite lie pushed by the right is Clinton started it with the repel of Glass Stengel always forgetting to mention it was a veto proof bill Clinton have no choice but to sign it. The other favorite lie is that the banks were forced to make the loan Ignoring that the government program in question forbid High risk loan even naming sub prime loans as one of the type banned.

    #2.2 - Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:47 PM EST
    Reply
    btco

    It was the banks that caused the financial crisis. Not Clinton, not Bush.

    The banks. They purchased politicians on both sides, they changed the laws.

    They sold the loans that were @!$%#ty deals.

    The CRA, Fannie and Freddie did not cause the meltdown.

    Stop with the lies already.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#3 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:27 AM EST
    justaguy-1286185

    Banks can't change laws. Yes, blame the banks, just don't forget to blame the lawmakers.

    • 1 vote
    #3.1 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:13 AM EST
    Cornhusker4Palin

    The CRA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Frank and Dodd are the primaary reasonss for the present mess we're in. The latter two and their new strangulations made matters worse.

    • 1 vote
    #3.2 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:51 PM EST
    Reply
    outthere

    Best Documentary film with incredible insight....Inside Job. I was even more disgusted with the Educational portion from our 'economic experts.' Also, if truth is what we really want, one must see the chart showing the INITIAL decline of the middle class pay versus the Corporations profits and NOTHING was done.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#4 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:05 AM EST
    Randy McMurphy

    Wow. Just wow. What a Joke . Still on the blame the CRA kick? Well 80% of the CRA loans were PRIME ,even in the Bush years, even though multiple batteries of Bushs' deregulation rendered CRA meaningless, as Bush was trying to foist sub prime loans through private lenders. The CRA did not do one thing to lend to the republican mortgage debacle. Subprime loans were 5% of the mortgage market when Clinton left office, they were 25% of the market within 4 years under Bush. Were Clinton at fault, you would see the loans made under his tenure reset in the early aughts, as they did in 2007 and on , which was why the recession occurred when these loans started to falter, there was none of that in the properly regulated 90's,

    lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600
    billion and 20 percent of all originations by 2005. Only
    25 percent of subprime loans were made by banks and
    thrifts, and the Federal Reserve reports that only six
    percent of subprime loans were CRA-eligible. Although
    reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret
    the evidence, my own judgment is that the worst and
    most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions
    with the least federal oversight.
    We need to mend what my friend,
    the late Federal Reserve Board Governor Ned Gramlich,
    aptly termed "the giant hole in the supervisory safety
    net."11 Banks and thrifts are subject to comprehensive
    federal regulation and supervision, their affiliates are far
    less so, and independent mortgage companies are not
    at all. Moreover, many market-based systems designed
    to ensure sound practices in this sector—broker reputa-
    tional risk, lender oversight of brokers, investor oversight
    of lenders, rating agency oversight of securitizations, and
    so on—simply did not work. Conflicts of interest, lax
    regulation, and "boom times" covered up the extent of
    the abuses—at least for a while, and only for those not
    directly affected by abusive practices. But no more.
    As has become all too evident, the subprime
    market has been plagued by serious problems. Some
    borrowers who could have qualified for loans from
    prime lenders ended up in the subprime market, paying
    higher rates. Preliminary research suggests that up to
    "prey[ed] on . . . the elderly, minorities, and individuals
    with lower incomes and less education."
    http://www.frbsf.org/publications/community/cra/community_reinvestment_emerging_from_housing_crisis.pdf

    http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html
    2006 80% OF CRA LOANS WERE PRIME
    There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general.  I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans,16 and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.17 We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term.1
    16. According to the 2006 HMDA data, 19 percent of the conventional first lien mortgage loans originated by depository institutions were higher-priced, compared to 23 percent by bank subsidiaries, 38 percent by other bank affiliates, and more than 40 percent by independent mortgage companies.  Robert B. Avery, Kenneth P. Brevoort, and Glenn B. Canner, "The 2006 HMDA Data," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Volume 94 (2007), p. A89.

    CLintons Fault LOL and you righties go nuts when we dare cite Bushs awful, failed economic policies. Clinton was handed unemployment at 7.5%, a deficit of 340 billion dollars, and he reduced that debt every year before any of republican policies took place and created surplus' the Bush destroyed, even if he spent as prolifically as he did with his unfunded wars, big pharma welfare bill and executive orders and kept Clintons tax in place we'd have been only 8 trillion debt by the end of his budget as opposed to the 12 trillion when his last budget ended by Oct 2009 and if bush and the republik majority didn't spend like they did and funded their spending their would have been near no debt at all.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#5 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:21 AM EST
    neoatg

    Sigh people on the right still trying to push that failed crap abut Clinton polices being bad. God damn you would think they would get over the Clinton hate a decade later.

    Clinton polices where a huge success and while the right trys to claim they "hurt the country" half the time. The other half of the time there trying to take credit for them even though it took the VP to brake the GOP lock and step vote against them.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#6 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:25 AM EST
    Ripley8

    about says it all ............

    "America has a strong economy and a surplus.... Now is the time to reform the tax code and share some of the surplus with the people who pay the bills."

    --George W. Bush, nomination acceptance speech, 3 August 2000

    then cons screwed us.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#7 - Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:48 AM EST
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    FUN STUFF:
    • Leaderboard |
    • E-Mail Alerts |
    • Top of the Vine |
    • Newsvine Live |
    • Newsvine Archives |
    • The Greenhouse |
    COMPANY STUFF:
    • Code of Honor |
    • Company Info |
    • Contact Us |
    • Jobs |
    • User Agreement |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • About our ads
    LEGAL STUFF:
    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com