What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
192 Comments
- rdldr1, on 12/26/2008, -17/+75What? McCain said that there was too much oversight and regulation in Wall Street! So he was WRONG?
- MiddleAmerica, on 12/27/2008, -15/+50
Bush Administration Weakened Lending Rules Before Crash
The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/bush-admi ...
McCain in March '08: Remove Regulations In Financial Markets
John McCain on the housing crisis just under six months ago: "Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital."
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/mccain-march-08-r ...
Regulations Republicans Eliminated Causing Financial Crisis
Here are few: State Laws Against Predatory Lending, The Net Capital Rule, The Uptick Rule. And McCain has been touting the idea that more deregulation of industry would be part of his policy. That's worked out well so far, eh? Plus he has been stumping for deregulation of the healthcare system, because it worked out so well for the financial industry, seriously.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/19/perin ...
GOP Was For Deregulation Before They Were Against It
Republicans deregulated markets causin the financial meltdown, then 6 months ago unveiled new plans for more deregulation of financial institutions, which McCain has supported on the campaign trail, but now GOPers have all flip-flopped.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/19/dereg ...
- inactive, on 12/26/2008, -9/+43And yet they spent $20 Billion more than Clinton on regulation doing what??
Oh, yeah. The Bush Administration HAD to spend millions going after that dangerous "e-gold" thing, in order to get rid of those awful Ponzi schemes...
Oh, wait. - statismisdead, on 12/27/2008, -17/+47The federal reserve is the core of this problem artificially manipulating interest rates causing these irrational boom/bust cycles. The fed just gave away 7 trillion of the public's money by taking on all this government created toxic debt, the 'bailouts' given away of which the government approved. Now all the blame is going to the private sector and the government and its apologist Nytimes is saying that more government intervention is the solution? These people really must think Americans are stupid, and unfortunately they may be right.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -3/+32Oh, let's face it, corporate interests basically run this country. If the government does something stupid, it does so because that's what corporate America wanted.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -3/+31you partisan tools are a joke...and one of the major reasons america can't grow up as a nation.
this is not a partisan issue. there are two dominant political parties in america and both have failed to protect the american people. - jason210, on 12/27/2008, -8/+31its not regulation, it's lack of law enforcement. and it's not the free market thats failing, it's the government bailing out partially governmental agencies and companies that should fail.
- edebolt, on 12/27/2008, -8/+28Well what about Congress? Barney Frank? In 1997 the Homeowners Investment act excluded capital gains under 500K and in 1998 the Glass Steagel act was repealed. Many analysts cite these two legislative changes along with a developing market boom that caused over investment in the US Housing market.
- altgeeky1, on 12/27/2008, -4/+16Dugg. I don't agree with you, although I used to think the same thing when I was younger, but more importantly your comment was not what the 'bury' function was made for.
Back when Enron had fleets of incinerators and shredders brought on site and the Administration waited 72 hours to react... we should have seen it coming that there was NO federal administration. The foxes were in charge of the henhouse, transferring wealth from all over the USA to either Texas, or overseas. - inactive, on 12/27/2008, -2/+13But prosecutions for obscenity are way up. As American families would much rather be swindled out of their life savings than be exposed to a nanosecond of a boob or have some naughty video for sale in a store they'd never go in, this is clearly a win/win situation.
- donotclickjim, on 12/27/2008, -0/+11I agree the GOP has done considerable damage to get us in the mess but lets not play favorites. This bi-partisan BS got us in the mess as both sides have blame.
Democrats Put Pressure on Fannie Mae to Expand Mortgage Loans
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits... In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescure similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s - NYT 9/30/99
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0 ... - Mujokan, on 12/27/2008, -1/+11One also worth mentioning is Phil Gramm's 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This contributed to the boom in derivatives, including CDS and CDOs. It was also responsible for the changes to energy futures trading behind the Enron scandal. It was tacked on to an 11,000 page appropriations bill late at night.
- crees!, on 12/27/2008, -4/+14It's nice now the Bush administration did bring this to light in the years past. Not once, but twice, and both times Congress said, nah, it's not an issue; besides, we don't want to indite ourselves now do we. You people need to get your heads out of the New York Slimes and wake up on where responsibility actually lies. And speaking of lies, Elmer Fudd, I mean Barney Frank, Christopher Dope (Dodd) and the rest of them are guilty as hell in this. It's not a 1 person takes the blame thing, but you're blind if you can't see who all have contributed to this mess over the past 40 years.
- TheCamino, on 12/27/2008, -1/+11 American's have only proven one thing with this, and it's not that they're stupid.
They've proven that they're just as greedy as everyone else worldwide.
Yeah, your theory would be right if it was just about the Federal Reserve, America, and this generation's spending problem.
... but it's not just America, and it's not just the Federal Reserve... it's humanity and the whole world.
.. in Holland, over a century ago, there was a tulip run, where people would trade rare tulips, and pay more than a house to have a flower.
.. in the United States, there was the great depression, where people would borrow money to throw in the stock market, and then expect to profit so fast they could pay off that money immediately.
.. in Asian markets, there are huge swings due to natural resources, and tech speculation.
... the Middle East oil market has cartels, and crashes themselves out.
.. the Chinese keep the Yuan devalued, to undercut other nation's markets at the expense of the poor that they keep down to make their own billionaire oligarchs.
.. and the list goes on and on.
.. this happens any time greed is involved.
Don't confuse some regulation problem with greed.
This is a human problem.
Sticking this on America completely is well, stupid.
The whole world got greedy, whether they were being bought or sold. - altgeeky1, on 12/27/2008, -1/+10>And yet they spent $20 Billion more than Clinton on regulation doing what??
Scotch. And male prostitutes. - induren, on 12/27/2008, -7/+16This is the result of Randian, objectivist, laissez-faire philosophy, that Alan Greenspan himself admitted is a failure, in comments to the US Senate.
These actions are not coincidental, and the terrorism excuse is not satisfactory. - induren, on 12/27/2008, -1/+10Skinnyskittles, my sincerest apologies. I should have put laissez-faire in quotations, to mean that these people only favor regulations that help big business abuse consumers and smaller businesses, under the guise of intellectual and economic purity.
I'm prone to making assumptions about people's ability to interpret sarcasm and nuance. - skinnyskittles, on 12/27/2008, -4/+13What a laugh! You're either willfully ignorant of laissez-faire or don't understand history. Maybe both. When do you think the last time we had a laissez-faire market was?
- pintomp3, on 12/27/2008, -7/+16the strength of the fundamentals blinded him.
- semperfidoordi, on 12/27/2008, -3/+12Down with the government! Everytime they get involved things go bad. Oh no! Something when bad!! Wheres the government?!
Give me a break with this *****. - inactive, on 12/27/2008, -6/+14The free market can never f... Aw *****
- gfryesc, on 12/27/2008, -9/+17thank you, partisan NYTImes. When will we see a story from them about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd being too lax in reigning in Fannie May and Freddie Mac? No wait, I forgot, this is left central.
- mnocket, on 12/27/2008, -0/+8I believe when McCain said he would fire the head of the SEC, Obama's people said he was being impulsive and rash.
- Mujokan, on 12/27/2008, -0/+8It's a combination. The Federal Reserve was acting at the behest of the private sector. As for Congress and the White House, there's plenty of ways in which deregulation made the bond and derivatives aspect of the crisis worse. But in any case this article is on a different topic -- the SEC and fraud prosecutions.
- MrFurious2k, on 12/27/2008, -5/+12So - all the begging to increase regulations that got stonewalled by the Democrats was Bush's fault for not being able to convince the Democrats?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM
Bush has had plenty of failings, but trying to lay the blame on him for the Democrats mistakes is ridiculous. - angryfirelord, on 12/27/2008, -1/+8I'm not a fan of regulation, but if you really want to stick it to Wall Street, tell them to pay the bailout money back. Of course, that would not have happened if the Fed hadn't supplied that money in the first place. Wall Street deserve to fail just like any other business that does poorly.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -5/+12and the Clinton administration regulated Wall Street...???? It's all Bush's fault...right? You guys blame everything on him.. unbelievable.
- induren, on 12/27/2008, -11/+17I would respectfully disagree with you, and assert that your statement is a misinterpretation of reality.
- sashia, on 12/27/2008, -2/+8How could you be expected to bring charges against your friends? The ones who learned how to work the loopholes from you? Oh, wait, surely there's a few who are not in the " good ole boys' club"? Yeah, GET THEM!!!!
As for Ponzi Schemes as jayraymilton reports, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme isn't it. The first investors get something back, the rest get NOTHING? - alais, on 12/27/2008, -5/+10Before you guys get too far ahead of yourselves vilifying republicans
"Democrats in good standing supported the final bill. Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, Clinton Treasury officials whom Obama relies on for advice, supported it. Joe Biden voted for it, it passed the Senate with 90 votes, and President Clinton signed it. Heaven knows, Washington can make bipartisan mistakes, but if the bill were so obviously the road to financial perdition, presumably some of these Democrats much keener to regulate the economy than Gramm would have voted “no.”
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Democrats_wron ... - GovernmentsGun, on 12/27/2008, -1/+6While I agree with you, and dugg you up, I do see an assumption that should be checked. You make the assumption that the parties are supposed to be protecting the american people. I think they're really there to fleece the american people.
After all, what better way to make an easy living than to get into the one organization that has the power to take an unlimited amount of money from people, and spend it as you want with little accountability? Then have people clamor for more! - inactive, on 12/27/2008, -4/+9It will be fun to watch the liberals apply the same failed Keynesian prescription to the nation's recession as was tried in the 1970's and the 1930's with similar ruinous effect. I wonder what Republican will emerge to save the day like Reagan did. Perhaps it will be Mitt Romney. The biggest problem on Wall Street last year was the tainting of the mortgage backed securities by liberals Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. They resisted Republican attempts to investigate and reform.
- thecatcantalk, on 12/28/2008, -0/+5"Don't be so naive"? Right, because the way to stop a crime wave is to fire all the policemen, close the courthouses and let all the convicts out of prison.
- GovernmentsGun, on 12/27/2008, -0/+5Well you don't have capitalism them. We haven't had capitalism now. And I'm sorry that you've grown up thinking we do.
What you see is endemic to both government and corporations. When you have people in power, there is a lot of opportunity for abuse. Both government workers, and corporate workers engage in it. And, seeing the mutual benefit, they engage in it as a team. Both government and the corporations work together to screw you.
I think the business part of the equation gets bitched about constantly because we're trained, from birth, that we desire authority to rule over us; starting with our parents. Then, when we no longer have our parents, we need to transfer that desire to the government. - voisine, on 12/27/2008, -0/+4What you say is true, but parent is also correct. Corporate America loves regulation as it raised the barrier to entry for small competitors. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Rothchild's and co. were the ones who came up with and lobbied for the federal reserve system, and look who's getting bailed out. Ultimately though only elected officials have the generally recognized authority to steal from us and limit our freedoms. They are responsible for the system they created under pressure and bribes from corporations. Without that government authority, corporations would be left with no choice but to serve customers and provide value in order to profit.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -6/+10No *****.
- GovernmentsGun, on 12/27/2008, -0/+4I'd be more worried about the greater of two evils. The government needs policing first before anything else.
I mean, asking the government to police wallstreet, is like asking the Mafia to police a donut maker who only gives you 11 donuts instead of a full dozen. - judicar, on 12/27/2008, -16/+20I'm sure there's a 30 page diatribe by Ron Paul out there someone on exactly this issue and how we can fix it by simply going back to the gold standard and trading our Escalades in for the horse and buggy.
- evilpolitians, on 12/27/2008, -0/+4Members of BOTH parties are accountable.
The most ludicrous thing of all this is that we are now willing to hand over to the very same people responsibility to bailout, manage and regulate these industries. - Jimeo722, on 12/27/2008, -5/+9A major source of the problem, which both Bush and the Liberal Dems in Congress both perpetrated, was the determination to force mortgage lenders to issue subprime, no-money-down, loans to people who were all but certain to default. The alternative was the loss of their licenses to do business. The mortgage lenders shrugged their shoulders and did it, since the government also forced Fanny and Freddie to buy the bad mortgages from them if they couldn't unload them elsewhwere. That's where the money that Wall Street bundled into junk investments came from. If you don't know that, you don't know the first thing - literally - about how we got into this mess.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/27/2008, -0/+4Haha!
No. - rthakidn, on 12/27/2008, -1/+5@MiddleAmerica. There is plenty of blame to go around on this, especially considering the likes of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters are plaster all over YouTube saying Freddie and Fannie are very succesful. Every politician in DC is responsible for this mess. That said, please refer other sources. JedReport, HP and ThinkProgress are not exactly unbiased sources. It would be the same as me countering your points with references to LGF, Drudge and Redstate. Also, copy and pasting is intellectually dishonest.
- evilpolitians, on 12/27/2008, -0/+4Not sure why you are being dugg down. It's all on the record. Even lowly on YouTube...
- thrashertm, on 12/27/2008, -3/+7The lesson to take away from this is that you simply cannot depend on the government to protect you. Even when you discount Cox's incompetence (Heckuva job Brownie!), there is simply too many opportunities for fraud for the SEC to realistically be capable of detecting all but a small fraction of the malfeasance.
Today we take it as a given that the average citizen has to invest in the stock market, and thus subject themselves to the risk of these fraudsters. If one does not invest, their savings will be eaten away by inflation. The thing is, until 1913 there was very little inflation, if any. The dollar maintained its value from 1774 until about 1914 - when the Federal Reserve hijacked the currency. Before the Fed, a dollar earned and saved was a dollar you could hold and pass on for generations. If we took control of our monetary policy, we'd once again be able to keep what we earn without having to depend on risky investments.
Check out this chart showing the value of the dollar from 1774 to now. http://www.measuringworth.org/datasets/uscpi/resul ... - Craig304958, on 12/27/2008, -1/+4By his own account, Madoff had a hugely successful long con running. Certainly Madoff deserves whatever consequences he earned, including your contempt. But blaming others, such as hamstrung regulators or Democratic politicians, for his misdeeds makes no sense. If prosecutors (not under Bush, of course; never under Bush) can prove collusion, that'll be another matter.
Your attempt to divert attention to Schumer looks like standard Republican "don't look here, look over there" distraction tactics to me, just my own opinion of course. But in any case, don't go splashing slime all over everyone. The problem was:
1. Madoff was a con man.
2. The Bush administration discouraged financial regulation even when regulation was mandated, so there was no way to catch Madoff short of waiting for his con-based empire to collapse.
Too bad there were bystanders and onlookers, but it's sillly to blame them for what Madoff did and lack of regulatory action encouraged. - edebolt, on 12/27/2008, -1/+4exactly and who was POTUS in 1997 and 1998?
- TheCamino, on 12/27/2008, -7/+10 Cmon man!
You're missing the point of a green lifestyle!
You can go literally dozens of miles a day in a buggy!
And the only environmental impact is rampant E. Coli in the water supply, and the smell of poop everywhere! - evilpolitians, on 12/27/2008, -0/+3Politics is a dirty game.
- UberGeek404, on 12/27/2008, -6/+9oh yeah - "It's all Bush's fault". It's just as if Clinton never existed, remarkable. And let's all forget about Congress who actually writes the laws. Let's forget Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae, and her little sister, Sallie Mae all of which are creatures of Congress and from which much of this horror has sprouted using the moist dirt found in the pot of Moral Hazard.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 12/27/2008, -0/+3"Logic 101: He was citing legislative actions."
Fail. The article is about a lack of enforcement.
Congress can make all the laws it wants, if the executive branch won't enforce them then the laws are meaningless. -
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is