Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 112
Page 3 of 9

« Previous | Next »

Bailouts and Blame

Clinton wasn't responsible

IT SPEC
DOE
Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:26 AM

Post Reply

Clinton could not veto the bill - it was "veto proof"(From Wiki):
"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[7] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[8]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999."

Re: Clinton wasn't responsible

IT Specialist
DOD
Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:49 PM
You are correct with respect to this bill, but this bill does address the fact that it was Congress who pressured lendors to loosen its requirements for getting loans for lower income buyers. Bad Credit...No Problem, No Down Payment...No Problem,No Job...No Problem. The Bush Administration tried repeatedly to fix this bad practice, but was rebuffed by Congress. There is blame on both parties, but Senators Dodd and Frank are mostly to blame for the lack of reforms that were needed. Yet they being allowed on TV and no one in the media is going after them. The reason why is Obama gets hurt if they do because he was a big campaign recipient from Fannie and Freddie along with Dodd and Kerry. To be fair McCain got money as well, but it was from and idividual donor and not Political Action Funds. Think about it, a quasi Government Entity with a Political Action Committee. This was a recipe for disaster. Congress on the take from an organization they were supposed to be monitoring.

Re: Clinton wasn't responsible

Watcher
Inner Sanctum
Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:17 PM
Which means that a Republican controlled congress is the reason that we are in this mess now. They created it then, they permitted it to continue, and they are trying to lay their blame on the other side.

So there...


Bunch of whiners.

Re: Clinton wasn't responsible

IT Specialist
DOD
Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:11 PM
Watcher- You forget history. Even though the Repubicans had a majority in the house, they did not have a 60 vote majority in the Senate to stop a filibuster. The Democrats were able to stop the reform bills from getting to the floor because there was not 60 Republican votes to overide their objections. The Democrats own this mess to some degree. Look at the Senate now. Why do you think the Democrats have been unable to force Bush out of IRAQ by cutting off funding? They don't have the 60 votes needed to overide a filibuster in the Senate by the Republicans. Social Security reform dies in the Senate because the Democrats stopped it. A energy plan died in the Senate because the democrats stopped it. Federal appointments didn't occur because the democrats stopped it. You have to have 60 votes to force legislation through the Senate. That is not whining, it is the politics in the Senate.

Re: Clinton wasn't responsible

Diversity Manager
DOL
Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:30 PM
Who was president then = Clinton so if he wasn't to blame and since the Democrats control both houses than Bush can't be blamed either. i guess the good economy that Osama keeps talking about in the 90's was a Republican success!!!

Re: Clinton wasn't responsible

admin asst
doe
Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:12 PM
"Which means that a Republican controlled congress is the reason that we are in this mess now. They created it then, they permitted it to continue, and they are trying to lay their blame on the other side."

This is the kind of partisan crap that is getting in the way of a solution. This situation has been festering for many years and it's ridiculous to lay the blame at only one politcal party or institution.

Re: Clinton wasn't responsible

Diversity Manager
DOL
Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:53 PM
Adm Assist allI can say to your post is Huh???

Re: Clinton wasn't responsible

admin asst
doe
Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:00 PM
Ok Diversity Manager, I'll simplify it for you now pay attention..

The poster I responded to is trying to assert that this problem is all due to one political party. With me so far?

Now that's obviously ridiculous, this situation had its roots back in the mid 90s and politicians from both sides have been aware of it ever since. They've all had countless opportunities to address it ever since and they haven't until now.

Clear enough for you?

Bailout

Secretary
US Army Corps of Engineers
Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:28 AM

Post Reply

Why wasn't a survey bullet point added to blame the Clinton Administration? It was during his administration in 1997 that the Tax Relief Act of 1997 was passed which created the tax-payer backed agencies which caused this housing bubble and subsequent crisis.

Borrowers/Lending Institutions

Adminstrative Assistant
I.R.S.
Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:29 AM

Post Reply

The borrowers and the lending instutions are both to blame. When my husband and I were looking for a home, the bank told us, "The bad news is you don't qualify for a $500,00.00 home. The good news is, you qualify for a $450,000.00 home." We told them outright , "The bad news for you is that we were not going to buy anything over $200,000.00. We had done our homework and knew what we could be comfortable with with a built in cushion for unexpected expenditures.
When my husband lost his job 4 years ago, we could afford our home with a little belt tightening until he found a new job. This generation is the "Now" generation -- must have it all NOW! What's wrong with starting small and trading up like we did?

BAIL OUT

Generalist
USDC/SDNY
Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:33 AM

Post Reply

The PREZ is in 4 or 8 years. Congress however controls and manipulates the system...they are the Legislatures. Corruption is rampent throughout the system. V.A. and other GOVT agencies require oversight and must beg for their budget! How come MEDICAID, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac required NO SUCH OVERSITE yet they had Congressional Charters??
We should adopt the ancient Roman System....they (Congress & Senate) should serve as an honor and not be paid!

Re: BAIL OUT

IT Specialist
DOD
Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:51 PM
In Rome, they could afford to not get paid. They were already rich. They were all wealthy land owners.

Fire Sale

KC Douglas
Homeland Security
Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:36 AM

Post Reply

Should the bail out occur, let's hope that the "fire sale" will be watched over for the next seven years. Individuals who would refinance their home should not be able to capitalize within the first seven years of the loan. Example: You refi today for the re-evaluated price of your home which is far less than your mortgage; and the balance of your old mortgage is wiped away by the bail out. If within or less than seven years down the road, you decide to sell and because NOW the home has valuated extremely well especially since your NEW mortgage balance is much less than original, you make a huge profit. Who's profit is it; yours or the governments? If we are to have faith again in our lending institutions, a plan DEFINITELY needs to be in place OR we'll be in the same muck all over again! I vote YES to the bail out with long term provisions NOT short term ones.

Help for Main Street

QA
USAF
Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:37 AM

Post Reply

I am against the bail out for the same reasons as stated above. I want to see the first Politian that can look me in the eye and tell me we cannot fix Social Security. That would really help the Taxpayer.

Clinton

Budget Analyst
USDA
Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:22 PM

Post Reply

Oh boy! Oh boy! Something else to blame on Clinton - yippy!!

Re: Clinton

Reformed Conservative
DFAS
Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:19 PM
If Clinton didn't exist, conservatives would have to invent him.

Take it from someone who used to be conservative, folks--conservatives are incapable of governing. It is not a viable philosophy.

Re: Clinton

analyst
dod
Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:36 AM
"conservatives are incapable of governing. It is not a viable philosophy."

This sort of one sided nonsense is part of the problem. To say one side of the aisle is incapable of governing is unbelievably naive.
Total Comments: 112
Page 3 of 9

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.