Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:42PM

this whole mkt crisis can be traced back to that grinning tree hugging red-neck. Such hypocrisy.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:44PM

People will never forgive carter for not handling the hostage crisis correctly.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:47PM

Bush for 4 more years!!!!

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:47PM

stupid carter and his Community Reinvestment Act. what a fucking idiot

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:48PM

I don't think it's entirely his fault, but Bush will take the blame for this crisis because of his Adminstration's horrible response to it.

This is really as bad as the Katrina disaster - the Feds completely out of touch with the underlying problems, going on TV telling everyone to just wait and things will be okay.

We close today on the lows of the day. Who the fuck wants to see Paulson talk at 6:45 tonight? Fuck him. It's going to be too late.

There is going to be a MASSIVE wave of margin calls pumping into the market starting about 13 minutes from now.

MS is dead. D-E-A-D. How is that going to improve confidence in the system?

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:49PM

Carter passing the CRA in '77 and clinton strengthening it in '95 is a major reason we're in this mess.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:50PM

George Bush does not like black people!!!

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:50PM

I don't see how Obama will be blamed for what has happened so far, even in retrospect in the future.

However, if he goes batshit socialist on it with the help of Congress next year and beyond, he will make it much worse in the long run.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:52PM

Carter passing the CRA in '77 and clinton strengthening it in '95 is a major reason we're in this mess.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 1:55PM

Blaming the CRA is sooo stupid. The problem wasn't that mortgage lenders were forbidden from discriminating on the basis of race (although I know that's a bug not a feature to conservatives), it's that they didn't have any financial incentive to make sure the borrowers were creditworthy.

Securitization means not being on the hook for the loans you make.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:02PM

@12 if it wasn't for the CRA the people who were not credit worthy wouldn't have been getting loans for 120 ltv and such. Carter got the ball rolling... it's not just his fault, everyone is to blame.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:08PM

EP and Bess great work and keep the blogs coming I enjoy them all.

It's Friday people, time to get ready for the weekend. A lot of you know your job is coming up on the History Channel so what are you going to do. Go with the flow is all you can do. Focus on what you can control, time with friends and family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=387ZDGSKVSg

SPODE

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:08PM

From The New Republic, current issue: Meanwhile, conservatives have found themselves casting wildly about for solutions that fit their preconceived notions. Having searched frantically for a big government villain behind the free-market meltdown, the finger of blame settled upon [CRA], which requires banks to lend to low-income neighborhoods. In fact, as economist Janet Yellen has pointed out, banks that are subject to the CRA made subprime loans at a dramatically lower rate than independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by the CRA.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:09PM

This is all Bill Clinton's fault. And THOSE PEOPLE. If it wasn't for THOSE PEOPLE, the market would be at 32000. And, those LIBERALS... All they want to do is regulate. You know why? Because they want your hard earned tax money going to THOSE PEOPLE. That's why. It's because of THOSE PEOPLE, and that Bill Clinton. This is all THOSE PEOPLE's fault. Those LIBERALS just resent success, that's all. That's why those LIBERALS support public transportation. You know why? Because they want you to ride on the bus with THOSE PEOPLE. That's what's wrong with this country. It's THOSE PEOPLE.

You figure it out.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:09PM

This is all Bill Clinton's fault. And THOSE PEOPLE. If it wasn't for THOSE PEOPLE, the market would be at 32000. And, those LIBERALS... All they want to do is regulate. You know why? Because they want your hard earned tax money going to THOSE PEOPLE. That's why. It's because of THOSE PEOPLE, and that Bill Clinton. This is all THOSE PEOPLE's fault. Those LIBERALS just resent success, that's all. That's why those LIBERALS support public transportation. You know why? Because they want you to ride on the bus with THOSE PEOPLE. That's what's wrong with this country. It's THOSE PEOPLE.

You figure it out.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:11PM

Not being political but it just scares me that the dems set their goons on a bunch of college kids with an internet site that gives the news simply because they were investigating the Secretary of State of Ohio and trying to see if there was indeed voter fraud.

This is what is essentially wrong. Everyone is at fault cause everyone is fearful of speaking up. There had to be people who knew but there were subtle threats and such, had to be. So people decided to "mind their own business" and now sadly "it is everyone's business"

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:13PM

This is a global crisis with asset deflation across the board. The fact that an ex-president no one cares about comes out and blames one person - while not simultaneously blaming his own party at least in passing for aiding and abetting the GSEs - shows how big an idiot he was and continues to be.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:14PM

#19. Most people don't mind a plain garden variety old fashioned liberal. What people do mind are the liberals who are communist and socialist and militant in nature.

Similarly a nice garden variety old fashioned conservative can be good at times. It's when they get way out there that people become fearful.

Most of us really are independents, somewhere in the middle.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:17PM

Did a good job blaming Democrats? Is that was passes for partisanship these days - making sure we blame both parties instead the one in office for the past 8 years and 20 of the last 28?

There's plenty to blame Democrats for (San Francisco) but not this.

Anyone blaming CRA should take a two second look at the crap lenders were pumping to understand that it had nothing to do with it.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:28PM

I have faith that Obama's cadre of U-Chicago disciples of Friedman will have a steady hand on the economy for the next 4-8 years.

The problem is ideology, and he has always struck me as a very non-ideological guy. You've got the left shouting "soak the rich" and the right denouncing a bailout as socialism and professing unending faith in the free market. Neither side is right. Just do whatever fucking works. And that's kind of Obama's M.O. The guy puts more stock in experts and economists' opinions than any president in history.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:38PM

jimmy carter was the worst president in recent history, bar none. he has NO room to talk.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:40PM

Hey, here's something to toss around for a bit: Is a little bit of "Socialistic" type actions really that bad? Because clearly the free markets and unregulated capitalism are all the rave right now. How's this working out for you guys?

*I emphasis socialistic bc one law with not entirely free market ideals does not make everyone endorsing it a Socialist

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:48PM

@26 - ehem, uhhhhhhhh, hmmmmmmmm

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:55PM

@26 AMEN.... Go back to Plains, and stay there. What a tool.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 2:57PM

@25, wake up!
"..many GSB faculty members, affirms one staffer, line up solidly behind Republican John McCain. "

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0810/features/obama.shtml

There are some liberal economists on the faculty, obviously Goolsbe. But the Friedman types still favor deregulation and lassiez-faire policies for the long term. Obama will not do this. He has already promised as much.

And to claim Obama is non-ideological, wow!

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:05PM

@30 - this country has been and always will be a balance of free markets and proper regulation. Different times call for different measures. Sure, deregulation and lassiez-faire policies for the long term are favorable, but our concern is the near term and that's what we are electing the next president for.

I'm all for a Republican doing 8 years, as long as we can make it 8 years from now.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:07PM

If you're blaming CRA for this mess, go back to yahoo finance as you are way out of your league. Stick to watching McCain ads on-line and justifying how Palin is experienced.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:33PM

Carter never handled the hostage crisis, economy and the Shah of Iran properly. The citizens of Iran hate Carter for leaving them with a dictatorship.

With all this dick slamming on the table happening about who to blame makes me want to do the same thing.
But seriously, what is the simple solution?

Should they have let all of the companies fail and not do a bail out?

Should Bush have the US market open for 3 hours per day for a few weeks and let everyone get a grip?

How much further will the market drop before it settles down?

Should the banks write off all of their bad debts, re-evaluate their lending practices and move forward?

I find it interesting that homes in foreclosure are for sale for their 1st trust deed amount, ie $500k, when the market dictatates $350k. I see it in my neighborhood in Corona, CA and I think the banks have always known they would get bailed out if the market went south.

I'm a novice and I would greatly appreciate what you experts think needs to be done because I don't hear a solution.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:33PM

@32 yeah, cause the CRA has nothing to do with this shithole we're in now. all these people who can't pay their mortgages are were all credit worthy to begin with and are just down on their luck.

get a fucking clue.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:34PM

Carter never handled the hostage crisis, economy and the Shah of Iran properly. The citizens of Iran hate Carter for leaving them with a dictatorship.

With all this dick slamming on the table happening about who to blame makes me want to do the same thing.
But seriously, what is the simple solution?

Should they have let all of the companies fail and not do a bail out?

Should Bush have the US market open for 3 hours per day for a few weeks and let everyone get a grip?

How much further will the market drop before it settles down?

Should the banks write off all of their bad debts, re-evaluate their lending practices and move forward?

I find it interesting that homes in foreclosure are for sale for their 1st trust deed amount, ie $500k, when the market dictatates $350k. I see it in my neighborhood in Corona, CA and I think the banks have always known they would get bailed out if the market went south.

I'm a novice and I would greatly appreciate what you experts think needs to be done because I don't hear a solution.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:34PM

@33 - I think you're concerns are legitimate. I also think something not being taken into account here is that taxes are historically very low right now. I believe Capital Gains Tax is lower than Reagan's term. Most of Obama's tax raises are just undoing Bush's tax decreases, which may have been a little 'too' effective if you know what i mean.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:36PM

@33 - I think you're concerns are legitimate. I also think something not being taken into account here is that taxes are historically very low right now. I believe Capital Gains Tax is lower than Reagan's term. Most of Obama's tax raises are just undoing Bush's tax decreases, which may have been a little 'too' effective if you know what i mean.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:45PM

@35 - do you completely understand what the CRA was?

If you look at the CRA and compare it to what's going on now, you'd think "wow, i see the correlation." Logical thought process.

Also, if you worked in banking the past few years and saw the complete disregard for risk control and understood the securitization of these loans, you'd think "wow, anyone who sees a correlation between CRA and now is retarded."

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 3:49PM

17 here again. Let me repeat: "Banks that are subject to the CRA made subprime loans at a dramatically lower rate than independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by the CRA." It was the terrible underwriting standards that caused the problem, not CRA

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 4:25PM

@37, long term capital gains rates were lowered by Clinton and the Repub Congress circa 1997.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 5:35PM

Old fart ain't dead yet? Providing ridiculous incentives and encouraging lending practices that are curved around normal economic and market principals were bound to lead us to disaster. Securitizations was just the key needed to exploit the opportunity offered by Carter and Clinton. CRA, GSEs all enjoy special government sponsored privileges that bend market forces in their favor to the tipping point we are at today. Democrats have finally succeeded at bringing equality to everyone, if by that they meant that we would all be begging the streets together.

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 6:13PM

#37-38 - no one with a room temperature IQ or higher would dispute that the lower capital gains rates brought in more revenue. I would think that O would want as much revenue as possible to pay for all the additional spending that he has proposed. The merit of how he wants to spend it is for another day. Is the purpose of the tax code to raise revenue or to punish unpopular groups of the population (i.e. the most productive)?

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 8:59PM

The eight years with Bill Clinton gave us all prosperity. He inherited a good sized deficit and left a surplus (if you idiots don't know what that means look it up in you Funk and Wagnalls. Geo W.....is winding up the worst Presidency the U.S. has ever had. Alan Greenspan and Bush should be held accountable for the financial fuck-up we are it. Honestly you bible belters, would you vote for Geo W. Bush.....again?

Posted by guest , Oct 10, 2008 10:43PM

@44 - perhaps you don't have access to the Constitution or didn't get a chance to cover the 22nd Amendment while preparing for your GED exam. As a helpful reminder, Bush isn't on the ballot for 09 as he has already served two terms. As you've sufficiently demonstrated that neither US History nor Costitutional Law are your strong suits, perhaps a refresher course is in order. The first 2 years of Clinton were a nightmare - Dem control of House, Senate and the White House. Look at the Dow from Jan 1993 to Jan 2001 and notice the pop in Nov 1994 (Republicans took the House and Senate that month). The best results for the market and the economy were under divided government. Republicans fucked up when they controlled the White House, Senate and the House over the past 8 years. The best hope for the next 4 years is divided government (although the last 2 years haven't been promising) because neither party can be trusted. Bush failed "big time" when it came to controlling spending although his tax cuts worked. Carter is still the worst President ever even though Bush is giving him a run for the money.

What's with the Bible Belt reference? As someone who has lived and worked in the NYC area all my life, I can only wonder if you are an idiot or just copying a post from another site.