The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors

Note

  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.

By Nicholas

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Blogorian!

Blogged


« Wall Street Bailout: Ignore the Sales Pitch -- Bush Plan is Not the Only (or Best) Option | Main | Palin Saved Money on Rape Kits As Mayor, While Holding Out Her Hand for Taxpayer Dollars from the Big Old, Mean Old Federal Government »

September 23, 2008

Comments

Peggy McGilligan

When Bill Clinton loosened banking regulations in California, he was able to lend $8-billion for "community loans.” Of course, this money and much more would never get paid back. It was a blank check. Undoing regulations sets a precedent, as does "comping" real estate. With the influx of capital, houses overvalued at $125,000 became valued at $525,000. The only way to afford was through "creative financing.” When these schemes fell through, as they invariably will whenever 30-million Mexican nationals buy inflated properties in another country and default, it left bankers around the world in the lurch (see global, or new economy). Never mind that the aforementioned demographic is the new face of the Democratic Party; Congress simply cannot determine the worth of the financial instruments, because of the rampant “creativity” and subsequent artificial prices. So, it should be a $90-billion dollar bailout at best. But if you want to thank someone, thank Hillary Clinton. She knew all along who’d get the bogus loans; she knew whose votes she’d need: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)

Peggy,

Thanks for the info. How do you arrive at the $90 billion figure?

Did CA houses become overvalued (e.g., at $525K) because the influx of capital created a seller's market and encouraged speculation?

How is it that Hillary is at fault for the $700+ billion plan that the Bush Admin. proposed?

J4nitor01

Deb,

"How is it that Hillary is at fault for the $700+ billion plan that the Bush Admin. proposed?"

True, it wasn't Hillary's bailout plan, but I think her main point was how we got into this mess.

Simply blaming "Walls Street fat cats" is not really the at root of this problem.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307149667289804

Bruce

Nothing For Nobody!

Bruce

Nothing For Nobody!

Deb Cupples (Buck Naked Politics)

Bruce,

I suspect that the consequences of not devoting some funds to this problem would be tremendous -- but I don't know whether $700 billion (or even $350 billiion) is a fair figure.

Apparently, Treasury officials and the Bush Administration don't know either: they've admitted to guessing the price tag.

Shameful!

The comments to this entry are closed.