Foreclosed: Blame Bill Clinton

[FOTD]

http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/foreclosed-blame-bill-clinton.html

"When Bill Clinton gave that pen to Sanford Weill, it symbolized the ending of the twentieth century Democratic Party that had created the New Deal. Although the 1999 law did not repeal all of the banking Act of 1933, retaining the FDIC, it did once again allow banks to enter the securities business, becoming what some term "whole banks."

Billary? Not here.

[cannon_fodder]

So it's Bill Clinton's fault that banks took on too much risk and people borrowed too much money?

He merely gave them the rope to hang themselves with.  It is not his fault, they could have used that rope to climb higher.  But both parties got greedy... and now they are paying for it.

If he did not sign it you would be complaining that banks have all the money and are prohibited from making alternative loans to the "working poor."  Thus stopping poor people from owning houses.  That's just not right!

Blaming Bill Clinton for allowing more economic freedom and more choice is ridiculous.  A great example of the "I need government to protect me" mentality.  The government knows better than the banks who have the money and the people who want it.  Clearly, because the government is noted for being competent and making wise decisions.

I rarely view more freedom as a bad thing.  This instance is not one of those rarities.

[FOTD]

^"If he did not sign it you would be complaining that banks have all the money and are prohibited from making alternative loans to the "working poor." Thus stopping poor people from owning houses. That's just not right!"

I don't think so. There are several other methods to help the disadvantaged in our society purchase a home that would not have opened the entire debacle unfolding to the speculators who abused the system. You know, the "investors" who thought a house is an investment and not a home.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/28/strong-economy-maybe-for-some-but-not-the-middle-class/

Strong Economy? Maybe For Some, But Not The Middle Class
By: Nicole Belle on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 at 4:02 PM - PST  
"John's talked about watching the stock shows, and I have to admit that I do occasionally catch them myself, but far less frequently than he does, mostly because I find them bizarrely contradictory and less than useful.  The same set of conditions can be characterized as being the precipice of a recession, the warning of a deep depression or positive signs of growth, depending on which talking head is looking at it.

What I know of the economy is both informed by friends in the financial industry and just common sense of looking at the circumstances of people all around me.  And what it's telling me is that things just aren't looking good for most Americans.  

I just came across a study that confirms that gut feeling and then some.  Demos and IASP/Brandeis have released a study that shows that the middle class is hanging by a thread.  Some of their findings ( full .pdf here):

Overall Economic Security

* Only 31 percent of middle-income families match our profile for being securely middle class. That is, despite falling into the broad range that defines middle-class "income," fewer than one in three families has the necessary combination of other factors to ensure middle-class security.
* Our Index results vary by race. Thirty-four percent of white middle-income families are securely in the middle class, as compared to 26 percent of African-American middle-income families and only 18 percent of Latino middle-income families.
* One in four middle-class families matches our profile for being at high risk of slipping out of the middle class altogether.
* One in five (21 percent) white families is at high risk for slipping out of the middle class, as compared to one in three (33 percent) African-American headed households and an alarming two in five (41 percent) Latino families.

Lack of Assets

* More than half of middle-class families have no net financial assets whatsoever-that is, no financial assets or debt levels that exceed their assets.
* Only 13 percent of middle-class families have sufficient assets to meet three-quarters of their essential living expenses for nine months, should their source of income disappear.
* About four out of five middle-class families do not have sufficient assets to cover three quarters of essential living expenses for even three months should their source of income disappear. We defined essential living expenses as food, housing, clothing, transportation, health care, personal care, education, personal insurance and pensions.
* Middle-class families have a median debt of $3,500 and median net assets of $0.

Insufficient Income to Meet Living Expenses, Cover Housing Costs, and Buy Healthcare

* Twenty-one percent of middle-class families have less than $100 per week ($5,000 per year) remaining after meeting essential living expenses. These families are living from paycheck to paycheck with very little margin of security.
* In nearly one out of four middle-class families (23 percent), at least one family member lacks health insurance of any kind.
* Twenty-eight percent of middle-class families spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing expenses, putting them above federal guidelines for housing affordability.

For me personally, THESE are the real issues that the presidential candidates need to address, not diamonds or pearls or whether the top 1% should have their tax cuts made permanent.  This kind of disparity and insecurity for the vast majority of Americans should be considered an abomination in the last remaining superpower. "

Let's face it....loose money, lack of regulation, and above all lousy tax policy have led to quite a disparity in class. Look for future crime to escalate. And some may worry about terrorists.


The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell

[cannon_fodder]

lol, I'm not even going to bother to argue.  You linked to an article from a website whose entire purpose is to pain the republican party as bad.  What's more, the author (not an economist) did not even pretend to write an objective piece.

crooks and liars (dot) com - dedicated to the over throw and exposure of the republican party!

Who the hell looks at the and says "Hey, here is an objective news source!"  The article is a horrid puff piece as bad as "Bart's People" spoof on The Simpson's.  Except she doesn't even manage to pick real life examples.

American's are rich, greedy, spoiled, and stupid.  Those are the REAL issues that should be addressed.  

Wait, haven't we discussed this before?  And every time I shoot down your horrible sources and lack of argument you change the subject.  Oh yeah - repeatedly.

/waste of time.  Go ahead and think the sky is falling.  The government needs to protect us from buying houses we can not afford, TVs we do not need, cars that will be upside down, and not saving a damn penny.  Clearly government has let us down.

[Conan71]

It's funny when Aox gets off going on about the middle class.  I don't think he's ever lived a middle-class existence except for camping out with deadheads and a lot of them were rich kids as well.