BoatBanter.com - O/T Is this true?

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - O/T Is this true? (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/98998-o-t-true.html)

O/T Is this true?

The problem with our economy today is from a liberal thinking congress,
senators, and presidents, as well as greed and dishonesty. When you put
these together it spells disaster in any area of
our life.

* Under Jimmy Carter we received the Community Reinvestment act. This law
says banks have to make loans in low income areas and it has forced many
lending institutions to seek to make loans to people in areas that lenders
would not normally go because of the risk and low property values. (Sub
Prime Loans). This was in 1977. In 1980 president Carter and a Democratic
controlled congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and
Monetary Control Act-- The law also removed the power of the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation to set the
interest rates of savings accounts. A Sad fact is we are all still feeling
the effects of his
policies and decisions 30 years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Q

* Then in 1995, Bill Clinton, (in between interns) made changes to the
Community Reinvestment Act, that forced an increase in the number of loans
to these people and the aggregate do llar amounts loaned.-- Larger loans to
people with less income in areas where the collateral value would go down
instead of up. ( Clinton should have had his mind on the long range effects
of this instead of Monica an d a good cigar.) This was in response to
pressure from "community organizer." Can you think of a former Community
organizer running for president? Hint - he's a Democrat

* In 1999 Mr. Clinton signed to repeal the Glass-Steagall act which had
protected taxpayers since the Great Depression.

* In 2003 President Bush tried to propose a change in regulatory control
over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and place both companies under the control
of the Department of the Treasury, but was voted down by the liberal
democrats led by Barney Frank. Remember the name Barney Frank, he is one of
Obama's top two economic advisors the other is Jim Johnson who was the head
of Freddie Mac and walked away with $24,000,000.

* Now, Mr. Obama and his liberal cronies are spinning the facts so you will
believe that all our financial problems are because of Bush's failed
economic policy. However, OBAMA'S two MOST TRUSTED ECONOMIC ADVISERS TO HIS
CAMPAIGN are the very people that were in control of Freddie Mac- Jim
Johnson $24,000,000 and Fannie Mae - (Franklin Raines $90,000,000 in 6
years).
In addition, since 1989 their have been several politicians who have
received campaign donations and kick backs from these two failed
institutions. The #1 recipient is Senator Chris Dodd-D RI and the runner up
is none other than Senator Barrack Obama who received the second largest
amount of donations (over $500,000) which is phenomenal because he has only
been in the Senate for 3 years.

When Enron went belly up, we demanded Senate hearin gs and investigations.
Why aren't the Democrats demanding the same with these companies? But, oh
yeah, I forgot. It is Bush's fault! (Yeah, Right, Sure it is).

I am Jerry Teasley, banker, and I approved this email.

--

jlrogers±³©

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt

"Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall
soon have neither." Benjamin Franklin

O/T Is this true?

You really have to be a total tool to not see that Bush and his people
have ruined this country. You have to be an even bigger tool to start
talking about liberal this and conservative that. Bush is NOT a
republican and never has been. If he was then the country would be in
far better shape.
I doubt McCain or Obama can do much in the near future to repair what
Bush has done. 8 years and insane partisan fruitcakes still make the
same old chants from BOTH camps. The time for that is over and most
polls show that even hardcore republican nuts realize what's been done
to them.

RB

O/T Is this true?

"jlrogers±³©" wrote in message
...
complete BS removed

jlrogers±³©

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt

"Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall
soon have neither." Benjamin Franklin

I think you should vote for McCain!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

O/T Is this true?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Generally accurate, but with two exceptions. First, removing the guvmint's
ability to dictate interest rates under Regulation Q has very little or
nothing to do with the present problems. Those of us who were dealing with
the financial sector back then recall the economic distortion those
guvmint
fixed rates caused. The one small exception is that repeal of Regulation Q
opened up the possibility of brokered deposits, which are somewhat more
volatile than other CDs. However, the regulators have been fairly vigilant
in keeping an eye on brokered deposits. For example, a bank that is not
well
capitalized under the regulations is prohibited from taking brokered
deposits, and the term "brokered deposits" is very broadly interpreted.
Even
before this rule kicks into play, there is a fair amount of informal
pressure to reduce brokered deposits. The rule can, however, become
significant if a bank holds large amounts of brokered deposits and then
falls below the well capitalized level. The result is that the bank is
unable to roll over maturing high rate CDs, reducing its lending ability.

Second, repeal of Glass-Steagall by Gramm-Leach-Bliley also has little to
do
with the present problems. It simply added a new category, called
financial
holding companies, to the universe of bank holding companies. Financial
holding companies can own a somewhat broader range of finance-related
businesses than bank holding companies. A bank holding company cannot
convert to a financial holding company unless it is well capitalized, well
managed, and received a satisfactory rating on its last CRA exam. This
last
requirement was insisted upon by the Dems as a condition to voting for the
bill, making it veto-proof. It may have some bearing on the current crisis
in that it provided an added incentive to lend in poorer areas.

Banks remained subject to the same regulations and regulators as
previously.
Federally chartered commercial banks remained subject to regulation by the
OCC; state chartered banks remained subject to regulation by the FDIC at
the
federal level and the state banking departments at the state level;
thrifts
and thrift holding companies remained subject to regulation by the OTS and
FDIC and, if state chartered, the state banking authorities; bank holding
companies and financial holding companies remained subject to regulation
by
the Federal Reserve Board; securities brokers and dealers remained subject
to regulation by the SEC.

Note that in both cases the passage you quoted gives no reasons whatever
to
support the assertion that those two changes play a role on the present
crisis.

Yeah, and you forgot to tell us the economy is in great shape!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

O/T Is this true?

wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct 2008 11:16:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

Generally accurate, but with two exceptions. First, removing the guvmint's

If you would stop spelling government in cutesey baby-talk, you might
gain at least slight credibility, Dave. Not guaranteed, of course...

He's attempting to show contempt for an institution of which he's a part.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

O/T Is this true?

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:16:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

Generally accurate, but with two exceptions.

Really? Please quote the clause in the Community Reinvestment Act that
told investment banks to leverage their position in subprime CD0s to
suicidal heights. This mess isn't because of the CRA, it's because of
greed, and Wall Street group-think. Subprime mortgage defaults are only
the visible cause. A healthy bank can withstand a 25% default rate in
the subprime sector, leverage that risk to 33-1, as one bank did, and
it's bye-bye. Greed and bad business practices brought on this mess.

O/T Is this true?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 09:57:33 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Yeah, and you forgot to tell us the economy is in great shape!

Who was it that said "I am confident about the American economy"?

I guess since about 7/8 years ago when I was saying it wasn't so good.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

O/T Is this true?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:19:31 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

an institution of which he's a part.

I don't think so.

Really? So you don't believe you have any say about how we govern
ourselves....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

O/T Is this true?