Eliot Spitzer explains how Bush screwed the pooch

evince

evince

Truthmatters
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../AR2008021302783.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

He used and arcane law to stop the states from battling the people who were using preditory lending.



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.
 
Last edited:
No Desh, it isn't. You see the tip of the iceberg and forget the rest and then say that the tip is the whole of it, and you do it because part of the iceberg under the water has blue rather than red coloring.
 
Damo they thwarted the states from legislating and investigating in their own states.

They stoped any effort to blunt the impact of these types of practices. Why did they stop them from protecting themselfs?
 
Damocles said:
No Desh, it isn't. You see the tip of the iceberg and forget the rest and then say that the tip is the whole of it, and you do it because part of the iceberg under the water has blue rather than red coloring.
Click to expand...
Tell us the rest then. Tell us the missing piece that makes the administration not look like shitheads.
 
Desh said:
Damo they thwarted the states from legislating and investigating in their own states.

They stoped any effort to blunt the impact of these types of practices. Why did they stop them from protecting themselfs?
Click to expand...

WHO IS THEY....tell us who in the immediate Bush Administration
USED this OCC organization to do anything at all....???

Nobody? thats what I thought...

Whatever this OCC is alleged to have done was more likely done without the knowledge or consent of anyone near the White House.

Its just more crap from Bush haters...no matter what happens, even in the remotest sections of the government bureaucracy, that includes MILLIONS of government workers, Bush must be blamed at all cost........if a freekin' pen runs out of ink, ITS BUSH'S FAULT
.....


Idiots...
 
bravo said:
WHO IS THEY....tell us who in the immediate Bush Administration
USED this OCC organization to do anything at all....???

Nobody? thats what I thought...

Whatever this OCC is alleged to have done was more likely done without the knowledge or consent of anyone near the White House.

Its just more crap from Bush haters...no matter what happens, even in the remotest sections of the government bureaucracy, that includes MILLIONS of government workers, Bush must be blamed at all cost........if a freekin' pen runs out of ink, ITS BUSH'S FAULT


.....


Idiots...
Click to expand...

So is the article all wrong then? Or are you just an idiot desperately defending the regime?
 
Desh said:
Damo they thwarted the states from legislating and investigating in their own states.

They stoped any effort to blunt the impact of these types of practices. Why did they stop them from protecting themselfs?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is where it ended, however you ignore the path that got them there to begin with.

We've explained it to you several times, but you instead go and find some idiot editorial out there that blames only Bush and spout it off as if its truth. It becomes tired. Any excuse for your side. While I can understand, and pointed out, where my side took what was bad and made it worse, you can't even let yourself see that it all begins with the first bad legislation.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Tell us the rest then. Tell us the missing piece that makes the administration not look like shitheads.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to repeat it, AHZ. I didn't say she was wrong, just that she finds the end of the journey and forgets to look at the path that led to it. Several times we pointed out the laws that were changed that started this mess, how they were later extended all to keep politicians' ability to say "More <insert group here> own homes than ever before!" How they made it easier to extend because banks, objecting to holding the risk and having a hard time selling it, were allowed to bundle them to decrease risk then sell the debt.

We've gone on and on about it, detailing what each step did to continue the path that began with Lawmakers who had no experience setting risk factors for loans and forcing banks to follow them, all for the very political goal of "More <insert AHZ here> own homes than ever before!"

So, no. I don't want to go into detail again and again, instead I will just mention the previous conversations she and I have had on the subject and she can refer to them or to her memory.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, this is where it ended, however you ignore the path that got them there to begin with.

We've explained it to you several times, but you instead go and find some idiot editorial out there that blames only Bush and spout it off as if its truth. It becomes tired. Any excuse for your side. While I can understand, and pointed out, where my side took what was bad and made it worse, you can't even let yourself see that it all begins with the first bad legislation.
Click to expand...

when someone uses a hammer to kill someone you dont insist hammers stop being made
 
Desh said:
when someone uses a hammer to kill someone you dont insist hammers stop being made
Click to expand...
Bad analogy. Very bad analogy.

This was a journey, it had a beginning and an ending. You pretend that nothing that went before could possibly contribute because you desperately want to absolve your own party. This is the most partisan hackery I have ever seen. Total in one ear and out the other, desperately searching for an editorial from an equally partisan hack to cement your already decided opinion.

When you first started that thread I was pretty sure this is where you would end, however we pointed out exactly where it began, how it was made worse and those who participated. You just refuse to learn from the past because you don't want to recognize the history.

The funny part is nobody argues with this being bad at all. Just that this isn't where it started. This journey began way back in 1992 continued through two Presidents, a change in control of the house... twice, after that, everybody contributing another piece to make it worse.
 
The % of these loans did not reach their highs of 20+% until the years that the Bush team worked to keep them from being regulated.

They served a purpose in the industry until they were abused.
 
Desh said:
The % of these loans did not reach their highs of 20+% until the years that the Bush team worked to keep them from being regulated.

They served a purpose in the industry until they were abused.
Click to expand...
The purpose was solely to get politicians the ability to say, "More <group here> own homes than ever before!"

The reality is that the loans were going to adjust, even without the "abuse" (Most were not abusive loans, or even predatory, most people knew their loans could and would adjust). People rode the wave. We spoke often of a housing bubble on here and on fp.com as well. Throughout this we spoke of how stupid people were to get adjustable loans if they were unable to pay otherwise.

It is unrealistic to take the tip of the iceberg and pretend that is all that is there.

Reality is it is bad to have Legislators changing bank rules and forcing them to take on risk they otherwise wouldn't. There was a reason they asked to be able to sell bundles, it is because they couldn't sell them otherwise because the loans were crap, they had a high failure rate.

Yes, "abuse" is bad. But so was the policy to begin with. This is not a place legislators should be mucking about. Without each step along the way, the end of the journey will never be reached. Each rung of the ladder...

You expect everybody to ignore all the other steps that got us to where we are. I continue to point them out.

You pretend that each of those steps were benevolent, I point out how they were not and that each was necessary to get us to the place we are now. That the pimple didn't come to a head until now doesn't change that it was a pimple throughout.

Basically what I am saying is that this is a perfect example how the road to Hell can be paved with good intentions.
 
bravo said:
WHO IS THEY....tell us who in the immediate Bush Administration
USED this OCC organization to do anything at all....???

Nobody? thats what I thought...

Whatever this OCC is alleged to have done was more likely done without the knowledge or consent of anyone near the White House.

Its just more crap from Bush haters...no matter what happens, even in the remotest sections of the government bureaucracy, that includes MILLIONS of government workers, Bush must be blamed at all cost........if a freekin' pen runs out of ink, ITS BUSH'S FAULT


Idiots...
Click to expand...

.....
Fuck! What ever happened to transparency and accountability in Government. Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?
 
Damocles said:
There is no reason to repeat it, AHZ. I didn't say she was wrong, just that she finds the end of the journey and forgets to look at the path that led to it. Several times we pointed out the laws that were changed that started this mess, how they were later extended all to keep politicians' ability to say "More <insert group here> own homes than ever before!" How they made it easier to extend because banks, objecting to holding the risk and having a hard time selling it, were allowed to bundle them to decrease risk then sell the debt.

We've gone on and on about it, detailing what each step did to continue the path that began with Lawmakers who had no experience setting risk factors for loans and forcing banks to follow them, all for the very political goal of "More <insert AHZ here> own homes than ever before!"

So, no. I don't want to go into detail again and again, instead I will just mention the previous conversations she and I have had on the subject and she can refer to them or to her memory.
Click to expand...

SO there's nothing inaccurate in the article and the bush administration made sure states did nothing to stop the insanity.
 
AssHatZombie said:
SO there's nothing inaccurate in the article and the bush administration made sure states did nothing to stop the insanity.
Click to expand...
I pointed that out, in this thread. Did you take that CK Class on reading incomprehension?

You don't see the parts where she pretends that the rest didn't happen and repeatedly tries to only blame it on one idiot rather than the whole slew of idiots that created the whole "bubble"? You seem, of late, to be turning into a lefty hack who pretends that only the window you look through is the whole of the world....
 
Damocles said:
I pointed that out, in this thread. Did you take that CK Class on reading incomprehension?

You don't see the parts where she pretends that the rest didn't happen and repeatedly tries to only blame it on one idiot rather than the whole slew of idiots that created the whole "bubble"? You seem, of late, to be turning into a lefty hack who pretends that only the window you look through is the whole of the world....
Click to expand...

Blah. blah.

WHich part of the article is false? None? Ok, then. then have a good day. Label me how you want. I don't give a flying fig.
 
Damo these loans were not a problem and did not effect the overall economy. They did allow a small percent of people who had bad credit but good incomes to get into a house.

They became a problem when large numbers of them were written. If you would bother to look into it the lenders began telling people who actually quailified for better rates that all they could get was a subprime loan so that they could profit off the people. The market was such that people thought they would just refi in two years and have equity in their house and better credit which would allow them a better rate. Then the bottom fell out. The average joe who did not understand the market got hosed because they were lied to so someone could make money. Yes some people we just being greedy. There was still crime at the industry level which the states fought to stop then the Bush admin who apoints the head of the OCC got involved to keep them from battling the industry because they needed the economic numbers this mess was giving them at the time.

There was nothing wrong with the loans it was their misuse.

Just like a hammer is a good tool but you should not use it to hit people over the head with to take their money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top