The Reason Top Democrats are in support of "Occupy Wallstreet" !

"The credit crisis did not occur due to Government."

Our government has been at the root of the problem for decades but for some reason liberals think they are our savior.

Borncorn, Wall St pays the politicians to get favorable legistlation so that the 99%er can futher fund Wall St. So the problem is the marrage of Wall St and Government. No more money to politicians, no more too big to fail corporations and no more paying regulators to watch porn when at work.

government has been at the root of the problem

Fannie & Freddie (amongst many other examples) is a perfect example of government incompetence.

Fannie and Freddie were private Corporations. You could buy their stock at one time. The two biggest problems were probably Countrywide and WaMu. Sold bad paper all over the planet, now no one will take our private debt any longer.

Fannie and Freddie were private Corporations.

incorrect borncorn....they are both "GSE's" meaning they are backed by the federal government.

Government Sponsored Enterprises...that'd be yours and my tax dollars.

exactly right, WBOB....

Some of the GSEs (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until 2008) have been privately owned but publicly chartered; others, such as the Federal Home Loan Banks, are owned by the corporations that use their services. GSE securities carry no explicit government guarantee of creditworthiness,^[4

yes but fannie and freddie are guaranteed loans backed by the gubmint.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) is the nation’s largest mortgage buyer and a financial juggernaut that affects the lives of tens of millions of home buyers. It was taken over by the federal government on Sept. 8, 2008, along with Freddie Mac, as the two mortgage giants struggled with deep losses and investors lost confidence in the pair.

The federal government created Fannie and Freddie to increase the availability of loans. Largely because of investors' belief in an implicit government guarantee, these so-called government sponsored entities were able to lower the cost of millions of mortgages. But during the housing boom, they misused the government’s support to enrich shareholders and executives by backing millions of shoddy loans. Fannie and Freddie lost more than $30 billion, in part as a result of the deals, losses that were borne mostly by taxpayers.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/fannie_mae/index.html

implicit government guarantee

You do understand the difference between implicit and explicit don't you? And the bulk of Fannie and Freddies problems stated when Bush required them to take zero down payment loans in 2003. The GOP controlled both houses and the Presidency. They called it the ownership society. You right wingers really need to figure out who robbed us.

You right wingers really need to figure out who robbed us.

they can't see the forest for the trees Born, LOL I remember EVERYONE yelling on the Vine when the bailouts came. What happened to those on the right?? Why do they think the teaparty is justified and Occupied is not?

Makes no sense.

Which list of demands are you working from today ?

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare"

No, wait. Wrong group of demands.

yes, yes, you are right, of course...Bush shouldn't have pushed that, but even before that banks were forced to laon money to people who could not possibly afford for a home thanks to the CRA 1997, signed by Bill Clinton.

sorry, I can't get it to block quote....

" In the 1990's under the administration of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to demand that the lending institutions that it dealt with prove that they were not redlining. This meant that the lending institutions would have to fulfill a quota of minority mortgage lending. This in turn meant that the lending agencies would have to lower their standards in terms of such things as down payments and the required incomes. These subprime borrowers would be charged a higher interest rate. Having put the lending agencies into the position of granting subprime mortgages Fannie Mae then had to accept lower standards in the mortgages it purchased. That set the ball rolling. If a bank granted a mortgage to a borrower that was not likely to successfully pay off the mortgage then all the bank had to do was to sell such mortgages to Fannie Mae. The banks typically earned a loan origination fee when the mortgage was granted. The lending agencies could then make substantial profits dealing in subprime mortgages."

" Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a market for subprime mortgages the lenders did not have to worry about of the soundness of the mortgage contract they wrote. Thus the lenders could write the mortgages as adjustable interest rate mortgages knowing full well that an upturn in the interest rates could easily throw the borrower into insolvency. For example, when the interest rate is 6 percent the mortgage payment for a 30-year $200,000 mortgage is $1199 per month. If the interest rate goes up to 7 percent the mortgage payment would increase by $131 per month, an 11 percent increase. For many of the subprime borrowers living on the edge of insolvency this would be enough to push them over the edge. The guilt for the subprime mortgage financial crisis lies both with the lenders who knowingly put borrowers into booby trapped mortgages and the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for making a market for such booby trapped mortgages thus giving the lenders the incentive for writing them. "

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm

"This revolution will most defintely be televised."

Wow what a revolution a bunch of college kids screaming they want a free education and health care since they think they deserve it and it is owed to them.

The real American working class ARE WORKING. The idiots at the Occupy Wall Street protests are bitching that they cannot find a six figure job to pay the debts incurred while they obtained their Liberal Arts and Philosophy degrees.

Sorry, if this group had an ounce of intelligence collectively, they would be in Washington, DC. They are not, so what does that tell you?

What an entitled spoiled bunch that started this. The democrats are trying to hitch up to this and spin it in thier direction touting their platform but they hitched a ride to a spoiled lazy horse. Their challenge will be to guide them and tell them what to say and more importantly what not to say. Perhaps they can teach them to shut up and read from a prepared script once they go where they are told to. Me personally, I would like to have more street level interviews; they crack me up :) By all means, I support the movement. At the end of the day it will damage socialistic causes way more then detractors can. They are not schooled or instructed in the manners necessary to polish that rotten apple. They will tell it like it is :) That is good. Good luck cherry picking Tea Party crowds to find the out to space person to interview. You can't swing a stick without hitting one at these leftist protests.

The real American working class ARE WORKING. The idiots at the Occupy Wall Street protests are bitching that they cannot find a six figure job to pay the debts incurred while they obtained their Liberal Arts and Philosophy degrees.

As opposed to the thinly veiled TEA Party movement supported by Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers that has been protesting with "Obama as Hitler" signs and verbally abusing a disabled man.

To summarize what you said Askari:

"I cannot argue with what you said about Occupy Wall Street, so I will deflect by bringing up the TEA Party."

Education used to be the ticket to success in this country. Borrowing money for college normally paid off in terms of a good job. That has changed and this generation is caught in the middle of something that is not their fault.

America does not value education. If it did, the path for students would be much easier. Not everyone is cut out for college, of course, but there are few alternatives for those students. There are no apprentice programs or internships. High school graduates are in a very precarious position. Their 'old' jobs in manufacturing have been sent overseas.

The GOP especially enjoys the dumbing down of America. Look at their roster of candidates.

RV, there is nothing in YOUR comments to argue with because they aren't even YOUR thoughts. They were cut and pasted by YOU linked from some insignificant blogging site filled with opinions of people I couldn't care less about.

Come back when you have some original thoughts that were formed by researching the topic from a number of CREDIBLE, OBJECTIVE (as much as possible) sources.

#3 -

Too bad wholesale off-shoring of jobs...

Get a clue,

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/powerful-democrats-help-chinese-e/

Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/bringing_america_back/american-infrastructure-jobs-shipped-china/story?id=14592567

These projects sound like steps in the right direction, but much of the work is going to Chinese government-owned firms.

The renovation of the Alexander Hamilton Bridge in New York is being overseen by China Construction America, a subsidiary of the China State Construction Engineering Corporation. The company uses mostly U.S. labor, but many coveted skill jobs such as engineering and design work are Chinese. The profits will also go overseas.

"This is not the time to send more jobs to China," said the Alaska Iron Workers in a radio advertisement. "Our tax dollars will provide hundreds of jobs there, not at home."

In other words Sean, Obama and Reid have screwed over organized labor, you know, the hard working people protesting the lack of jobs. I wonder how many children in those hard working families are going to have a lousy Christmas, or at the least have enough to eat.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and if I may, Al Gore, are con artists, and they have suckered your ilk to the point none of you realize your being @!$%#ed, and you don't even get the dinner and a goodnight kiss.

Excuse me, but you do have to understand that Occupy hasn't put out many 'official' demands...and what you keep repeating is just an individual's opinion...

Please be sure to note that in the future when you are saying this is what this one person wants...

Not what 'Occupy' wants...

I suspected as much listening to some of the original protesters. It wasn't about jobs; it was about jobs for them to pay off there student loans. Did they do a market check and decide what the in demand careers were? If you are taking a loan to go to college it had better be to get a good, in demand job when you attain your degree. Don't take whatever courses you want then expect the job to be created for you. A sheepskin doesn't mean crap if you don't have an in demand skill. A degree and a dollar can get you a coke. Experience, work ethic and discipline count much more then a "BS" degree. I want, I want, I want...... tough. Do it just like everyone else has to. Take what you can get then work on padding your resume. I don't have much use for these spoiled college grads that think the world revolves around them and society has to accomidate them. Get a job you don't like and work towards or wait for your opportunity. If you want your "dream" job then you go get it; don't expect it to be created for you. I didn't go to college. I started on minimum wage and slowly worked up from there. Job to job, gaining experience and recognition. Finally I am closing on 6 figures but not there yet. I have met a ton of degree holders and many have been some of the most incompetent lazy people I ever had the pleasure of seeing out the door. Education is no substitute for work ethic and experience. It will always take a back seat; only in careers you require a doctorate AND is in demand should a degree be required. Employers everywhere are starting to recognize this.

Excuse me, but you do have to understand that Occupy hasn't put out many 'official' demands...and what you keep repeating is just an individual's opinion...

Really? Tell that to your liberal friend - The Realist Party.

Maybe, in an effort to not look so foolish, you show read the "official" stated purpose of Occupy Wall St and not the bs propagated in the right wing media.
First OFFICIAL Release from OCCUPY WALL STREET

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/kwk2d/first_official_release_from_occupy_wall_street/

This was unanimously voted on by all members of Occupy Wall Street last night, around 8pm, Sept 29. It is our first official document for release. We have three more underway, that will likely be released in the upcoming days: 1) A declaration of demands. 2) Principles of Solidarity 3) Documentation on how to form your own Direct Democracy Occupation Group.

This is a living document. you can receive an official press copy of the latest version by emailing c2anycga@gmail.com.

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one's skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers' healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people's lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

--------edit-------

Also here is the Working list of goals: https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/

The only thing consistent with this movement is how inconsistent it is!

Did you read my sentence wrong?...Because you just pointed to only 'one' demand put out by Occupy...

I said...

that Occupy hasn't put out many 'official' demands

What you just linked is just 'one' statement (of course it has multiple points within it)...again it's still not 'many' so my previous comment holds.....

dcstone, you know I love ya....give it up. Who cares what these asses write?? I don't. I am proud of occupy and don't feel the need in the least bit to justify any of it.

I didn't give a @!$%# back in the 60's and I don't give a @!$%# now. You all want to be part of the establishment that @!$%#s over Americans daily, be my guest, just don't trample on my rights to protest against you and to ask for change.

F.O.

First OFFICIAL Release from OCCUPY WALL STREET - Key word, "official." It contains MANY demands. Your comment only holds in liberal land.

RV, maybe you need to re-read the collective STATEMENT again. There are NO demands. Do you understand what the word "demand" means?

Askari - please read this completely:

https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

I even BOLDED THE WORDS FOR YOU! Direct from the site.

RV, you had the right link posted in comment #4.6. The link you posted above does not work. I do VERY well with reading AND comprehension. Let me point you in the right direction regarding the demands of Occupy Wall Street from your link:

This was unanimously voted on by all members of Occupy Wall Street last night, around 8pm, Sept 29. It is our first official document for release. We have three more underway, that will likely be released in the upcoming days: 1) A declaration of demands. 2) Principles of Solidarity 3) Documentation on how to form your own Direct Democracy Occupation Group.

This is a living document. you can receive an official press copy of the latest version by emailing c2anycga@gmail.com.

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

I put in bold letters for you that the declaration of demands has yet to be formulated. There are NO current demands yet.

Right Greg, the regulations were already in place. It is easy though to look the other way when you stand to profit from their sucess. Some regulators are working towards gaining a position in industry, some are invested with the companies and all elected officials have campaign contributions and behind the scenes support. If the do have a concientious regulator that starts raising a red flag all it takes is a phone call to congressmen and the person is "reassigned" or just gives up and gives in to the game.

Obama stopped being the president and because the presidential nominee again many months ago. If anyone deserves a six figure salary it will be the spin masters deflecting his own record and actions/ inactions. They have a grand task ahead of them between now and next November. Hope they take their vitamins.

You find that Kenyan birth record yet?

this video, I believe, is put out by the working party....try again.

um...okay, thanks for the heads up...LOL!

Proof that Liberalism is a menal illness.

I know it is, that's why I am a conservative!! But...you aren't helping out yourself here...just sayin'

yeah, looks like georgie didn't get his conviction overturned for insider trading either...guess that makes him corrupt. Have the Kock brothers been charged and convicted of anything yet?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/06/george-soros-insider-dealing-european-court-of-human-rights

I'm sure it is coming, vol.

So in other words, you have nothing...Ok, thanks for playing...

it is Koch (pronounced Coke). Faux pas?

Oops, yep, misspelling...

I see all these deletes...so who is this Mama knows best? Re-reg of whom?

By the way-You have to love this story. Only in Chicago, Only in Illinois. Only with Unions. I wonder how it will be spun that the GOTPBaggers are at fault here too?

Strange... She's been here almost 3 years and her column is up, but it says no comments left under the "recent comments" section. Wonder if it was a self delete type thing. She hasnt been seen since 10/10

....and still the other story languishes. No one has even made a comment on it-which is comment enough to my mind. These folks are the 'Do as I say, not as I do' type of people.

They are hopping aboard this but like you said, they still have one foot on the ground just in case they have to jump off fast :) Politicians are opportunists; both the GOP and the Dems. Most of them will ride any wave they think that will help them but they will pull out as fast as the wind can change. It is hard to find one that stands for something without testing the wind first.

I swear I dont know how republicans survive, they would burn their hand on a stove and blame the fridge and keep putting their hands on the hot stove and keep blaming the fridge.

LOL

One of the truest descriptions of how these people operate that I've ever seen.

Actually it was George W (when he had a Republican House and Senate) who introduced no money down mortgages.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

Furthermore, the CRA was passed under Carter and it didn't lower lending standards.

It merely said that banks couldn't "redline" neighborhoods.

What is the Community Reinvestment Act

lenders would literally “draw a red line around a neighborhood on a map, often targeting areas with a high concentration of minorities, and then refusing to lend in those areas because they considered the risk too high. Even though it is now against the law, some lenders today are still accused of redlining.”

CRA was enacted to encourage federally insured lenders to offer loans to qualified applicants in communities where they also take deposits.

Please note the term "qualified applicants".

Countrywide and WaMu weren't subject to CRA regulations. Like I stated earlier, you right wingnuts don't even know who robbed you.

Good job trying to educate,

It was my charity work for the day.

Allow me to educate you two mother and corn.

Fannie and Freddie were at the core of every aspect of the whole thing from day one (pre-Bush). You see, Fannie and Freddie (the GSEs) were given a mandate to drastically raise the number of loans to groups known to be high risk (low and very low income) by Clinton's HUD in the mid-90s. See the page 3 introduction and the bottom of page 5 which explains how Fannie and Freddie did this. Note phrases like "enhanced their product offerings" and "featured underwriting criteria that depart from industry norms and allow for higher risks". This goes back to 1995-1996.http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/lusk/research/pdf/wp_2006-1005.pdf

"In addition, Listokin and Wyly (2000) and Temkin, et al.
(2001) show that the GSEs enhanced their product offerings so as to facilitate more
purchases of loans from targeted communities. These new products often featured
underwriting criteria that depart from industry norms and allow for higher risks."

Table 8 item 2 of this next Fannie Mae report (Listokin and Wyly) from 2000 shows what kind of underwriting Fannie and Freddie were promoting. It is virtually a point by point list of the most egregious underwriting "standards" that have been documented and they were in full use and actively advanced by Fannie/Freddie by at latest 1998. What you won't see is the names of investment houses and major banks except for B of A.http://foundingbloggers.com/img/grabs/rep_newmortmkts_background.pdf

You see, Fannie and Freddie, until a couple years ago, were not allowed to buy non-conforming loans. To get around this, they worked with non-bank lenders to make virtually all loans conform and it was the non-bank lenders (not Wall Street) who originated almost all of the sub-prime loans. If you didn't have a good enough debt-to-income ratio for your loan to conform, a company like Countrywide was allowed to let you claim income that you could not document (liars loan). They would then give you a "conforming" loan with that information (wink-wink) and Fannie/Freddie would gladly buy those loans from Countrywide, package them up, and resell them as mortgage backed securities (MBS) infecting the capital markets. The new home owner was happy because they could purchase a house that in reality they couldn't afford. Countrywide was happy because they could make boatloads of cash knowing that Fannie/Freddie would always gladly buy their continuous river of junk loans. Fannie/Freddie was happy because they were meeting their HUD mandate, besides almost all the risk was born by the suckers who bought their MBS. In fact Fannie/Freddie kept the lower risk MBS in house and made sure it was the higher risk ones that were put out to the open market. They were all happy until it collapsed like a house of cards.

Now, if your point is that Fannie and Freddie were late in the game as far as MBS went, as I've heard some try to advance, that's also a lie. Hell, Fannie/Freddie didn't just lead the game, they practically designed the game. In the late 90s Fannie/Freddie accounted for nearly two-thirds of the capitalization in the MBS market not the banks or investment houses. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Mor-Off/Mortgages-Mortgage-Backed-Securities.html

This continued on through at least fall of 2006 at which time their MBS issuance line of business still were issuing "residential mortgage backed securities (mbs) in amounts that historically have exceeded half of all mbs issued in the United States."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=944912

In total, Fannie and Freddie were tied to over 70% of all mortgage backed securities (toxic assets) in one way or another. They held ~20% of the MBS in their own portfolio and sold (infecting our markets and banking system) over 50% of the rest of them...the most risky, I'll add. That 70% leaves little room for your statement "Private banks was bundling up the bad mortgages, also given out by private banks, and trading them in the derivative market" to be true as a comparative to your previous statement absolving Fannie/Freddie. In context, that statement is a blatant falsehood. I've shown that Fannie/Freddie accounted for a vast majority of the MBS market, not the banks.

This kind of leads us to the whole "Bush deregulation", "Republican deregulation" fallacy that you guys assert, which again is a gross misrepresentation.

To attempt to solely blame the Republicans for the deregulation surrounding the meltdown is completely ridiculous. Clinton's Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin was pushing Congress to repeal of Glass-Steagall as early as 1995, testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services.http://www.allbusiness.com/government/business-regulations/500983-1.html

"Among Rubin's recommendations for financial modernization were

* Permitting a depository institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to affiliate with a securities firm, insurance company or other financial company.

* Repealing section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Section 20 prohibits a bank that is a federal reserve system member from affiliating with a company principally engaged in underwriting or dealing in securities that a national bank cannot underwrite or deal in directly.

* Allowing insured depository institutions to affiliate only with firms that were well capitalized and well managed and had internal controls that adequately managed financial and operational risk, and only if the institutions' safety and soundness were unimpaired.

* Maintaining the Federal Reserve Board's authority to impose consolidated capital standards as a safeguard on bank holding companies whose subsidiary insured depository institutions constitute their principal business."

The Clinton administration's push for deregulation didn't stop there either. In fact in late 1997 and early 1998, Clinton's administration approved the 3 headed merger of Travelers (insurance), Salomon-Smith-Barney (investments), and Citicorp (banking) a full 2 years before it was even legal.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/citicorp-and-travelers-in-155bn-merger-1155012.html That's right, they signed off on the merger over a year and a half before the legislation making it legal even hit the floor for debate!

Finally, regarding derivatives...while I do agree that that market needs more transparency and oversight, the derivatives themselves were not the problem. A vast majority of the derivatives market was innocuous and still is. The only small segment that wasn't was the segment tied to the loose lending standards I documented above. Those derivatives would have also been innocuous had it not been for HUD/Fannie/Freddie pushing irresponsible underwriting standards and pushing toxic MBS into the market. No BS underwriting standards, no derivatives market collapse. It's as simple as that.

Again the lack of derivative regulation can be traced back to Clinton's administration. In fact just in April Clinton was lamenting this decision, pointing the finger at Robert Rubin and Larry Summers (both served as his Secretary of Treasury) and saying he was misinformed by them. The following is a great read from Lawrence H. Summers (Clinton Treasury Secretary), Alan Greenspan (Clinton Fed Appointee), Arthur Levitt (Clinton Chairman SEC), and William J. Rainer (Clinton Chairman CFTC):

"Specifically, with respect to OTC derivatives, the Working Group is unanimously
recommending:
· An exclusion from the CEA for bilateral transactions between sophisticated
counterparties (other than transactions that involve non-financial commodities
with finite supplies);
· An exclusion from the CEA for electronic trading systems for derivatives,
provided that the systems limit participation to sophisticated counterparties
trading for their own accounts and are not used to trade contracts that involve
non-financial commodities with finite supplies;
· The elimination of impediments in current law to the clearing of OTC derivatives,
together with a requirement that any clearing system for OTC derivatives be
regulated by the CFTC, another federal regulator, or a foreign financial regulator
that satisfies appropriate standards;
· A clarification of the Treasury Amendment that clears the way for the CFTC to
address the problems associated with foreign currency “bucket shops” and
excludes all other transactions in Treasury Amendment products from the CEA,
unless they are conducted on an organized exchange;
· A modification of the exclusive jurisdiction clause of the CEA to provide greater
legal certainty to hybrid instruments; and
· A statutory clarification of the inapplicability of the Shad-Johnson Accord to
hybrid instruments that reference securities."

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/otcact.pdf

These Clinton adminstration parameters were integrated into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CMFA). Please note the "Signed by President" date of Dec. 21st, 2000 and the name William Clinton. You should also note that Republicans at least put up token opposition to it (~25%). Democrats meanwhile only mustered a whole 9 votes in opposition (4.5%) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-457

So, the idea that the Republicans somehow pushed bank deregulation and the lack of oversight for the derivatives market on Democrats and the Clinton administration is, again, a blatant fallacy...so you can drop that leftist talking point too.

One other point you can drop. Your following statement is disingenuous in it's purpose:

"The debt load of sub-prime loans was 9% for F&F up until Bush's deregulation of banking and loans. Then pushed F&F to take on more sub-prime bad loans, during that time the debt load went from 9% in 2000 to 26% in 2006 went it all went bust."

A) As noted above, it was the Clinton administration that deregulated banking and loans.

B) As noted above, it was the Clinton administration HUD that started the push for bad loans.

C) The sub-prime market was virtually non-existent before the HUD mandate. Sub-prime debt load went from 0% to 9% in the 4 years after that mandate. That it increased at basically the same yearly rate under Bush that it did under Clinton should be no surprise. Where's the blame for Clinton?

So guys, how about stopping the BS liberal rhetoric (lies). When all you have is a finger to point and I have documentation from professors, historical data, and the GSEs themselves, it ultimately makes you look bad. You're coming to a gun fight with a pea shooter.

Plain and simple, Fannie and Freddie were at the core of this meltdown and the Dems in office continue to protect them. Hell they actively rake everybody else over the coals, but won't even allow a single inquiry into the institutions (GSEs) that received more bailout money than any other and continue to come to the trough for more while most of the others have paid theirs back.

Your posts just show the left's refusal to take any responsibility/accountability or even entertain the idea that their policies may have exasperated or even caused the meltdown. The big problem with this is that means the people with control of the nation's purse strings and who are controlling policy during this delicate time have learned nothing from this fiasco and continue to govern as if they've learned nothing.

Speaking of Countrywide, Angelo Mozillo, the erstwhile founder and chairman, was able to unload all of his stock at the tip-top price. Ohhhh, it was just a 'coincidence', nudge, nudge, wink, wink. It was almost half a billion dollars, I believe. After he flushed his, er, account, the stock fell through the floor. People who worked there all their lives found themselves with stock worth $3 a share if they were lucky.

Uncle Angelo recently received a slap on the wrist and a nominal fine for his activities. THAT is who the Occupiers are protesting against, and people like him.

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003. Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating rate loans, which required income verification and minimum down payments, were left out of the insanity.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html

NativeCon, President Bush and a world of allies "liberated" Iraq's oil fields for oil companies to keep gouging us. Occupy seems to be a good term considering what the corporate culture has done via Congress' facilitation...