Any doubt that this finanicial crisis was caused by government regulation rather than private failure sector was put to bed by a great Thomas Sowell editorial.
Sowell notes that for the 100 years previous to the Community Reinvestment Act, mortgage lending had been the least risky venture a bank could engage in UNTIL Carter's 1977 CRA was put on steroids by the Clinton administration.
The most despicable revelation? The Clinton JD actually sued lending institutions who had a high percentage of black loan applications denied than applications for whites.
So it is true. Government intervention forced banks to make loans they otherwise wouldn't, and we are experiencing the fallout of that today.
This evidence is in sharp contrast with the unbelievable Obama claim that this current crisis was caused by Bush tax cuts.
But this isn't something the media is interested in covering. Nor is the unprecedented socialist boondoggle bills of Obama. No, the media is busy scolding Republicans for not supporting Obama.
Some states are holding tax payer's refund checks "hostage" due to budget shortfalls (California and Kansas primarily). They've been ordered to stop the processing of refunds there. The article said this is another reason for people to fine tune their withholding. Goodness knows I don't need to worry about that considering I sure never get money back from Virginia. I can't imagine they would have much to hold "hostage" here even if they wanted to.
Tom ...aaaaaahhhhhhhh reeeeelaaaaaax..what could be more important than this week's revelation that the Obama's will be getting a Portuguese waterdog in the next month or two.....aaahhhhhhh serenity now.....
Nice post, Tom. Of course most R's understand where the problems were and the "evil Bush" just stood as the guy to blame for every ill in the US if not the entire world. Of course now we see the media continue to do the finger pointing and BO using the "problem we inherited" phrase at every opportunity. This guy has not offered one solution to one problem. There is not a single plan that the markets accept as a solution evidenced by another week of declines. What is really funny, yet not spoken, is that he pushed the spending bill without a solution plan. Only in the gevernment can you put the money on the table before you design a solution. But, that's the approach of the d's. It is after all, YOUR money they are spending.
Post #1 and the "you be the man, Dr. Sowell": I hate it when a kernel of truth is tied to a lie and presented as fact, but I do understand that Conservatives are grasping at straws and Republicans are a sad lot these days so it is not hard to see that revisionist history would be more comfortable than the current reality.
However, the CRA was intended to stop the banking institution's very real discriminating against minority customers and it was wildly successful because it righted a wrong. NO ONE made banks or anyone else loan to people who could not afford it. That was a choice of pure greed. You can ignore Phil Gramm's efforts as the champion of financial deregulation that started the slippery slope of derivatives and credit default swaps that sold, repackaged and resold basically nothing of value. You can ignore the greed of financiers who saw a gravy train and hopped on; we did not grow up with a 'mortgage lender' on every corner. Only actual banks were regulated under the CRA and thus they would have remained less damaged (as some did) if they had not scooped up those crooked mortgage companies that looked so profitable. And finally, yes, you can ignore that the "evil Bush" was too busy wrecking a sovereign country that did nothing to us, to pay attention to what some greedy political friendly people were doing to our financial system. What you cannot ignore, nor escape is that you will be called on the false charges and you will not be allowed to skate on blame. That some Democrats were also turning a blind eye, is no reason to skirt your own party's culpability.
FDR was a socialist too, remember? Today we have Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Housing programs, etc, because we do not want soup lines and people living below poverty levels in a nation so rich, bountiful and patriotic. In the future the cost of health care will no longer be able to bankrupt a family and the cost of insurance will not be a huge added burden to employers. This too will be socialism to you and much needed relief to America. There is a moral responsibility to being an American. Suck it up!!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 27, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Sandi..you're the gift that keeps on giving.."Today we have social security, unemployment benes blah blah..because we don't want people living below poverty levels..." where to begin..NO, we have those programs due to people having jobs and the government having the ability to confiscate. 2) NO we don't have social security-that $$$ has been long spent and programs like SS are funded by debt instruments. Imagine your neighbor coming by your home every 2 weeks asking for 12% of your income to make ends meet. And after a few months he/she is driving up and down the street in a hybrid SUV. Welcome to Social Security where the government taxes you for 1 program and spends it on others!! 3) Clearly the government DOES want people living at/below poverty. Sandi we're NURTURING it!! Look at the number of folks dependent on WIC WELFARE FOODSTAMPS HEATING/HOUSING ALLOWANCES etc etc subsidized meals at school now versus 35 years ago. Why would you establish and grow these programs in perpetuity and build an industry around it, if the intent was to eradicate poverty?
IN short, the intent of the democrat party is to destroy and distribute wealth in this nation by tanking the economy and getting as many people as possible dependent on government programs. It doesn't matter if you call it socialism, transnational progressive dependency-- whatever. The dems are doing a great job of it, to the detriment of a nation.
Bud, if the welfare issue is so important to Republicans, why did they not undertake some kind of welfare reform during the Bush administration? I do not understand. Of the Republicans I know, gay rights is the number one issue. Welfare is the number two issue. When Republicans are in power, why do they never try to address those issues. I personally believe the 'Party' is afraid of laying those issues to rest for fear of losing voters. If there is another rational reason for avoiding those issues, I would like to know what it is.
Comment by Allen Bunch — February 28, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
"I personally believe the 'Party' is afraid of laying those issues to rest for fear of losing voters."
Ed H. #9: Exactly my point. We have all of these programs (and no one could argue that they do not need more oversight and stringency) and politicians rail against them as the demon seed and yet when in power choose to do nothing about it. If you really believe something is evil, wrong, 'Socialist', or 'Marxist', why would you not come back year after year, session after session, with a bill or alternate program to end and kill that which you so despise? It is easier to scream from the sidelines than enter the fray for many politicians. The moral responsibility of a nation as great and successful as America is to "lift all boats" not drown swimmers you don't like. If you believe otherwise, first, examine your faith, then ask YOUR politicians to stop talking and using wedge issues just to win an election and remember the follow through after the election.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 28, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
Allen, the GOP did address welfare reform in the mid 90s and on the 3rd try Clinton signed it into law..what followed was the fed budget going into surplus.
You're right. But don't expect the Dems and Reps to listen to you. They're in a symbiotic relationship: Each party uses the other as a bogeyman to frighten its own constituents into line. They're not about to give up this lucrative charade voluntarily.
It's up to the voters to remember that there are other parties we can vote for.
RSS feed 
Any doubt that this finanicial crisis was caused by government regulation rather than private failure sector was put to bed by a great Thomas Sowell editorial.
Sowell notes that for the 100 years previous to the Community Reinvestment Act, mortgage lending had been the least risky venture a bank could engage in UNTIL Carter's 1977 CRA was put on steroids by the Clinton administration.
The most despicable revelation? The Clinton JD actually sued lending institutions who had a high percentage of black loan applications denied than applications for whites.
So it is true. Government intervention forced banks to make loans they otherwise wouldn't, and we are experiencing the fallout of that today.
This evidence is in sharp contrast with the unbelievable Obama claim that this current crisis was caused by Bush tax cuts.
But this isn't something the media is interested in covering. Nor is the unprecedented socialist boondoggle bills of Obama. No, the media is busy scolding Republicans for not supporting Obama.
Unbelievable.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/02/18/upside_down_economics?page=full&comments=true
Comment by Tom — February 27, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Some states are holding tax payer's refund checks "hostage" due to budget shortfalls (California and Kansas primarily). They've been ordered to stop the processing of refunds there. The article said this is another reason for people to fine tune their withholding. Goodness knows I don't need to worry about that considering I sure never get money back from Virginia. I can't imagine they would have much to hold "hostage" here even if they wanted to.
Comment by Susan — February 27, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Tom ...aaaaaahhhhhhhh reeeeelaaaaaax..what could be more important than this week's revelation that the Obama's will be getting a Portuguese waterdog in the next month or two.....aaahhhhhhh serenity now.....
Comment by BUD — February 27, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Nice post, Tom. Of course most R's understand where the problems were and the "evil Bush" just stood as the guy to blame for every ill in the US if not the entire world. Of course now we see the media continue to do the finger pointing and BO using the "problem we inherited" phrase at every opportunity. This guy has not offered one solution to one problem. There is not a single plan that the markets accept as a solution evidenced by another week of declines. What is really funny, yet not spoken, is that he pushed the spending bill without a solution plan. Only in the gevernment can you put the money on the table before you design a solution. But, that's the approach of the d's. It is after all, YOUR money they are spending.
Comment by Al — February 27, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Post #1 and the "you be the man, Dr. Sowell": I hate it when a kernel of truth is tied to a lie and presented as fact, but I do understand that Conservatives are grasping at straws and Republicans are a sad lot these days so it is not hard to see that revisionist history would be more comfortable than the current reality.
However, the CRA was intended to stop the banking institution's very real discriminating against minority customers and it was wildly successful because it righted a wrong. NO ONE made banks or anyone else loan to people who could not afford it. That was a choice of pure greed. You can ignore Phil Gramm's efforts as the champion of financial deregulation that started the slippery slope of derivatives and credit default swaps that sold, repackaged and resold basically nothing of value. You can ignore the greed of financiers who saw a gravy train and hopped on; we did not grow up with a 'mortgage lender' on every corner. Only actual banks were regulated under the CRA and thus they would have remained less damaged (as some did) if they had not scooped up those crooked mortgage companies that looked so profitable. And finally, yes, you can ignore that the "evil Bush" was too busy wrecking a sovereign country that did nothing to us, to pay attention to what some greedy political friendly people were doing to our financial system. What you cannot ignore, nor escape is that you will be called on the false charges and you will not be allowed to skate on blame. That some Democrats were also turning a blind eye, is no reason to skirt your own party's culpability.
FDR was a socialist too, remember? Today we have Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Housing programs, etc, because we do not want soup lines and people living below poverty levels in a nation so rich, bountiful and patriotic. In the future the cost of health care will no longer be able to bankrupt a family and the cost of insurance will not be a huge added burden to employers. This too will be socialism to you and much needed relief to America. There is a moral responsibility to being an American. Suck it up!!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 27, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Sandi..you're the gift that keeps on giving.."Today we have social security, unemployment benes blah blah..because we don't want people living below poverty levels..." where to begin..NO, we have those programs due to people having jobs and the government having the ability to confiscate. 2) NO we don't have social security-that $$$ has been long spent and programs like SS are funded by debt instruments. Imagine your neighbor coming by your home every 2 weeks asking for 12% of your income to make ends meet. And after a few months he/she is driving up and down the street in a hybrid SUV. Welcome to Social Security where the government taxes you for 1 program and spends it on others!! 3) Clearly the government DOES want people living at/below poverty. Sandi we're NURTURING it!! Look at the number of folks dependent on WIC WELFARE FOODSTAMPS HEATING/HOUSING ALLOWANCES etc etc subsidized meals at school now versus 35 years ago. Why would you establish and grow these programs in perpetuity and build an industry around it, if the intent was to eradicate poverty?
IN short, the intent of the democrat party is to destroy and distribute wealth in this nation by tanking the economy and getting as many people as possible dependent on government programs. It doesn't matter if you call it socialism, transnational progressive dependency-- whatever. The dems are doing a great job of it, to the detriment of a nation.
Comment by BUD — February 28, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
"Imagine your neighbor coming by your home every 2 weeks asking for 12% of your income to make ends meet."
As this depression deepens, I can easily imagine that! And they might get it. But it will take more than 12% of my income to buy them a car.
Comment by Ed H — February 28, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Bud, if the welfare issue is so important to Republicans, why did they not undertake some kind of welfare reform during the Bush administration? I do not understand. Of the Republicans I know, gay rights is the number one issue. Welfare is the number two issue. When Republicans are in power, why do they never try to address those issues. I personally believe the 'Party' is afraid of laying those issues to rest for fear of losing voters. If there is another rational reason for avoiding those issues, I would like to know what it is.
Comment by Allen Bunch — February 28, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
"I personally believe the 'Party' is afraid of laying those issues to rest for fear of losing voters."
I think some politicians of all parties do that.
Comment by Ed H — February 28, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Ed H. #9: Exactly my point. We have all of these programs (and no one could argue that they do not need more oversight and stringency) and politicians rail against them as the demon seed and yet when in power choose to do nothing about it. If you really believe something is evil, wrong, 'Socialist', or 'Marxist', why would you not come back year after year, session after session, with a bill or alternate program to end and kill that which you so despise? It is easier to scream from the sidelines than enter the fray for many politicians. The moral responsibility of a nation as great and successful as America is to "lift all boats" not drown swimmers you don't like. If you believe otherwise, first, examine your faith, then ask YOUR politicians to stop talking and using wedge issues just to win an election and remember the follow through after the election.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 28, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
Allen, the GOP did address welfare reform in the mid 90s and on the 3rd try Clinton signed it into law..what followed was the fed budget going into surplus.
Comment by BUD — March 1, 2009 @ 7:30 am
Sandi,
You're right. But don't expect the Dems and Reps to listen to you. They're in a symbiotic relationship: Each party uses the other as a bogeyman to frighten its own constituents into line. They're not about to give up this lucrative charade voluntarily.
It's up to the voters to remember that there are other parties we can vote for.
Comment by Ed H — March 1, 2009 @ 7:42 am
BUD, since the GOP fixed welfare in the mid 90s, why are people still complaining about it?
Comment by Allen Bunch — March 2, 2009 @ 3:20 pm