An Interview With Jim DeMint On The Bailout Crisis

Right Wing News ^ | 9/26/08 | John Hawkins

[Dawnsblood]

I got together this afternoon for a short interview with Jim DeMint, the man who could fairly be called the conservative leader of the Senate, to hear what he has to say about the bailout. What follows is the slightly edited transcript of our conversation.

Did Congress help create this problem and if so, how?

...Congress passed a law back in the late seventies that required banks to make subprime loans to...

The Community Reinvestment Act?

Yes. It required the banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them as part of our social programming. Congress also created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgages from banks all over the country. Since these were, in effect, guaranteed by the federal government, they didn't pay much attention to the credit worthiness of the borrower or the value of the asset.

What happened over the years is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together processed over 5 trillion dollars worth of loans and sold them as securities all over the world. This easy credit inflated the cost of homes and created over-building and an over-supply of homes until we finally hit a wall. The values of people's homes started to go down, which means the mortgages were over-priced. Now these banks want to unload these securities in order to have money to loan.... but they can't sell them for what they got them for.

The biggest creditor is China and that's a big part of this equation that's not being talked about. If America was not in such deep debt, we could deal with this problem much more effectively -- but China has essentially told the U.S. that we make good on all the debt that they're holding, which is nearly a trillion dollars, or they're going to stop lending us money. To show that they're serious, they've already stopped lending us money and if we can't borrow money every day, literally hundreds of billions of dollars, we default on the loans that are coming due.

So, this is a house of cards that the government has created and my biggest frustration with this whole mess is that it is being blamed on free enterprise, capitalism, and corporate greed -- when in fact, this is a good example of what happens when the government gets involved in the private sector. It created a huge mess.

Now, do you support the bailout?

No, I don't support it and I probably won't support it in any form. It should not have come to this. We knew this was coming and we didn't do anything about it. For years, a number of people, John McCain is one, have tried to change this system, but the Democrats have consistently protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- and some Republicans have been complicit in this easy credit game that we had going.

What I am trying to do is to cause enough anger and uproad through blogs, radio talk shows, and TV interviews that I am doing so that people will at least get their congressmen and senators to listen to some kind of alternative to what's been proposed that would keep us within the constitutional framework that we've sworn to uphold.

We can't have the government buying parts of companies, buying stocks, mortgages, selling those in the markets, and becoming a real player in the financial markets. We could do the same thing they're trying to do with insurance products, loan guarantees, things that have been used before with banks that assure the value of their assets, so they continue to do business. We can even get the banks to pay for that insurance -- but apparently, Secretary Paulson has promised Wall Street that we're going to come in and buy their assets at above market rates so they can come out like bandits.

The problem we have here is that by the government essentially promising to come in and do that, it is causing the credit markets to seize up. They're waiting for a government infusion of funds. They're waiting for the government to buy at a higher market rate, so they're not operating and credit is closing down in America. It's a self fulfilling prophecy...

Now you said you were hoping the blogs would do something. I can tell you that people are furious about this. I know at my blog, I did a poll and 85% of the people opposed this. People think they're being asked to throw their money away on a massive scale to pay the bills for people who behaved irresponsibly. Are they right?

They're exactly right. People are mad. I am getting hundreds of calls a day and it's 100 to 1 against this. ...Even banks like BB&T say that they don't want this because they know what it means: the government is going to get involved in their business whether they take their money or not....

So, people have every right to be angry and that anger needs to continue.... We've seen that Americans getting angry and involved helped us defeat this whole amnesty proposal and it helped us spotlight wasteful earmarks, which we're making some progress on. It has brought the energy issue to the point where we have backed the Democrats down from this drilling moratorium. We're making progress on this bailout.

...The problem we have politically is that the President wants this so that he's not the President who presides over a catastrophe. He's willing to give the Democrats all the regulations and intrusions in the market that they want if they will help him pass it.

Last question, the House Republicans are holding up the whole thing, thank goodness, and they're pushing to do something you suggested earlier, setting this up as an insurance deal...is that what we should be doing right now?

We should. We need to do this in a way that may have the government more involved than I want them to be, but at least they're not taking ownership and playing in the market -- things that we have known since the beginning of our country were wrong and not constitutional.

So, the House Republicans here are the champions. They're the heroes. No one can blame them for holding this up because if the Democrats believe this is the right thing to do they can pass it in an hour. There are not enough Republicans in the House to stop them. In the House, if you're in the majority, you can ram something through regardless...

They're right and I've been hoping that McCain would come out and back that plan idea and not back the Paulson plan. I think it would separate him from Bush and really help, but so far we have not heard him say that. So, we'll just have to wait and see.

But, this is just an example of our government out of control and we need to rein them in and it will take a big effort by the American people.

Mr. DeMint, thank you for your time!

[MeanMachine]

Now here’s a guy who needs to think about running for President next time.

[Rembrandt]

An excellent background piece.

[Fred]

Blunt clearly said today that the Democrats in Congress DO NOT NEED Republican votes to pass the Goldman Sachs Bailout Act

The axis of evil Dodd/Frank/Pelosi/Reid can go straight to you know where...

[koraz]

To me, this is the best explanation of how this started. Sorry if it has already been posted. I do hope it goes viral.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH—o

[Syncro]

The link been posted on several threads.

Here is The Thread about it if you want to bump it.

[Syncro]

DeMint’s take on the current crisis FYI

[freekitty]

Now, this is what I am talking about. Leadership.

This man needs to be in a leadership position.

[southernindymom]

I agree! He does not seem to be afraid to put his neck out there right now, anyway.

[NYC Republican]

Can anyone tell me if the ACORN story was true from yesterday (that $140B was going to go to them - 20% of the total)? If so, why wouldn’t DeMint, who’s excellent, raise it as an issue?

[Pharmer]

Wow! An amazing video! Rush mentioned he got it but could not go into it on his show. Thanks for posting it. I wont complain about a repost. This need to go around. Thank God for U-Tube!

[griswold3]

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

Winter 2000
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock EMAIL

The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.

The CRA’s premise sounds unassailable: helping the poor buy and keep homes will stabilize and rebuild city neighborhoods. As enforced today, though, the law portends just the opposite, threatening to undermine the efforts of the upwardly mobile poor by saddling them with neighbors more than usually likely to depress property values by not maintaining their homes adequately or by losing them to foreclosure. The CRA’s logic also helps to ensure that inner-city neighborhoods stay poor by discouraging the kinds of investment that might make them better off

more....

[liberateUS]

DeMint’s my Senator, WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO! Now Lindsay on the other hand, not so much.

[Leisler]

"...but China has essentially told the U.S. that we make good on all the debt that they're holding, which is nearly a trillion dollars, or they're going to stop lending us money. "

So, basically, Bush and Congress are collection agents for China? Anyways, where are they going to put their money? In the Chinese stock market? Down 50%. Maybe Russia? Maybe not. In China? Fine. Maybe China can bail us out? Maybe the US will get a IMF intervention with money coming from...um....Eur...no...um...someone.

[EEDUDE]

“(that $140B was going to go to them - 20% of the total)”

I think you have it wrong: 140 Billion of the bailout is not going to them. The 20% they are talking about was where the Dems wanted to see money recovered (if any) when the Govt sold the assets be earmarked for ACORN.

So none of the actual 700 Billion being proposed would go to ACORN. Just some of the money recovered (if any).

[NYC Republican]

Thanks

[DoughtyOne]

Sadly, that video whizzes by so fast that unless you were quite well versed on the problems to begin with, you’re not going to come away elightened. The info is there. If the guy had just slowed it down so people could follow his logic trail and realize there was something substantial behind it, it might have been very helpful. As it is, those who don’t know the background are going to think it’s not much more than slick propaganda.

Folks, I know a lot of you have been very upset at what you see has the government taking over institutions and turning our society into a socialist enclave. I get the logic. I share the thoughts. I don’t see the alternative.

Over the last few days I have entertained certain suggestions about lowering capital gains taxes and other really good ideas. I think that in the long term those ideas are necessary separate from this current crisis. I do not see them as the total fix here.

China has just halted all loans to the U.S. Why? Putting political ideology aside here, they are doing it because they fear they will lose money on their investments in the United States. What happens if other nations decide to do the same thing? Whether folks want to acknowledge this or not, we could melt down in days if that were to happen.

We must get capital back into the markets now, not next Thursday, not 172 hours from now, not 48 hours from now, but now!

Look folks, we bailed out other institutions. We bailed out Mexico. We made money off those arrangements. We may make money on this one. If not, we will not lose the total 700 billion. If we don’t act, we may lose a lot more than that.

If we take measures that might fix things in a year or two, what confidence is that going to build overseas? We fear that $700 billion might not be enough, but think other fixes will be. Frankly, I think a combination is required. I like some of the suggestions I have seen from the right side of the isle. I just don’t think they are enough.

If the government backs these concerns and property values stabilize, we’re looking at a fix that will not cost us the $700 billion. Even if property values drift more south, the government is not going to lose the entire $700 billion. We need to quit acting like it will.

Folks, if foreign nations lose confidence in the investment pool in the United States, that $700 billion that we are too tight to turn lose of now, will turn into trillions of dollars of losses and violent turmoil on a global scale.

We need to get a grip here, and realize that we’re going to have to bite the bullet one way or another. Two year, three, four, five years fixes are not going to placate foreign nations which we depend on to remain liquid.

If our leaders don’t pull their heads out and get a fix going NOW, we’re in serious trouble.

There’s one more thing here. IT WAS NOT GREED, that got us into this fricken mess! Can we be honest here? It was Janet Reno and the leftist cabal that has race baited us nearly into oblivion. If we don’t get on point to a man and make this our rally point, we’re going to sign on to a plan that gifts the Democrats their wet dream desires, to flood their store front activist concerns with literally hundreds of billions of dollars in funding. We must make sure there is no leftist pork in the final bill. (And frankly, it’s time to defund some of these leftist bull-sxxt organizations.)

We should have declared war against the leftists in this nation a long time ago. This should be the last straw. From what I’ve seen so far, our leaders on the right haven’t a clue. They can’t focus on what the problem was. They are not on point. They are failing us more than at any time in the Republican Party’s history.

We are bailing these financial institutions out for one reason only. The Democrats in Congress forced this situation on them, and our government should be responsible to bail them out.

The government caused this mess. Greed my ass, unless it’s the greed of party politics over national survival.

We have stood by and watched the Democrats gift public funds to hundreds of storefront operations in this nation focused on one goal, taking this nation down. Some of it was related to race. This whole financial meltdown is.

The Democrats in this nation deserve their own Appian Way. Yes, I’m serious. Never again you Rat bastards!

[napscoordinator]

Sheesh where did they find him...he is not worth having around. Lost his senate seat.

[SC Swamp Fox]

South Carolina Ping

Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.

[snippy_about_it]

DeMint raised it yesterday and it was removed.

[snippy_about_it]

Who are you talking about?

[upchuck]

Senator DeMint is DaMan!

[cowboyway]

We made money off those arrangements. We may make money on this one.

Since when is the gubmint in business to turn a profit?

We fear that $700 billion might not be enough

$700 billion here, $700 billion there. Pretty soon we'll be talking about real money..................

We need to get a grip here, and realize that we’re going to have to bite the bullet one way or another.

I have better idea. Let's let .gov and Wall Street bite the bullet..........

IT WAS NOT GREED

Sure it was. But, as Ayne Rand said, not all greed is bad. But greed in bed with dirty politicians, well, that's another story.

we’re going to sign on to a plan that gifts the Democrats their wet dream desires, to flood their store front activist concerns with literally hundreds of billions of dollars in funding.

That's one reason that I don't support any kind of government backed bailout, especially something that is pushed through without strict scrutiny.

The Democrats in Congress forced this situation on them, and our government should be responsible to bail them out.

Our government doesn't have any money. They use other peoples money, i.e., mine and yours.

In part of your rant, you stress the need to bailout now. In another part, you state that we need to make sure that we don't use this bailout to fund left wing socialist programs. The two are mutually exclusive in a Rat controlled congress and a president on the cusp of leaving office that doesn't want a meltdown at the end of his watch.

I stand with Jim DeMint and the Republicans that DO NOT SUPPORT THE SOCIALIZATION OF THE HOUSING INDUSTRY IN THE USA.

The federal government needs to be drastically downsized. Hundreds of federal programs need to be eliminated and returned to individual state control. The individual states need to insist on reclaiming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Then, if the people of a socialist minded state want their state government to back risky home loans to people of their state that probably won't pay them back, it won't cause a national/worldwide financial crisis when they inevitably default.

[cowboyway]

Senator DeMint is DaMan!

I went to the Republican headquarters in Seneca last week to get some McCain/Palin yard signs and bumper stickers.

I took some DeMint stickers but told the guy there that he could keep the Graham stickers.

He smiled and nodded his head as if he might have heard that before..........

[DoughtyOne]

We made money off those arrangements. We may make money on this one.

Since when is the gubmint in business to turn a profit?  The point is, in case you missed it, that the $700 billion is not going to be a total loss.  That money will come back to the government.  This is a stop gap measure.

We fear that $700 billion might not be enough

$700 billion here, $700 billion there. Pretty soon we'll be talking about real money...  Perhaps you think the drying up of the credit for businesses to borrow as a regular practice is a good thing.  Perhaps you think not being able to tap your real estate equity is a good thing.  Perhaps you think foreign nations refusing to invest in the United States is a good thing.  Perhaps you think massive layoffs is a good thing.  Perhaps you think business closures is a good thing.  Perhaps you think a DJIA of 3,000 is a good thing.  That IS what we are talking about here.  Yes, $700 billion is a large sum of money.  So is the loss of trillions of value on paper, that can be lossed in the blink of an eye because we allowed the system to colapse, so we could avoid being socialists.

We need to get a grip here, and realize that we’re going to have to bite the bullet one way or another.

I have better idea. Let's let .gov and Wall Street bite the bullet...  Sounds like a good idea, if that truly were what would happen.  Do you think the things I mentioned above are limited to the government and Wall Street?  I don't think folks realize how entangled this thing is.  They glibly talk aboug greed and a "Lets stick it to 'em" attitude that simply isn't realisitic.  This isn't going to hurt your Congressman or Senator.  It's not going to teach the CEOs a lesson.  It's going to crush stockholders.  It's going to hurt you, your family, your comminity, your city, your region, your state, and the nation as a whole.  These entities don't bite the bullet.  You screw them and your ass lights on fire. Sorry, that's just the way it works.

IT WAS NOT GREED

Sure it was. But, as Ayne Rand said, not all greed is bad. But greed in bed with dirty politicians, well, that's another story.  Janet Reno stated, "You will either start making loans to minority and poor individuals, or I am going to take your organization to court on a civil rights statute.  And so the lending institutions begin to make loans to people who can't possible service them.  As time goes by, those loans are packaged and sold off to other lending institutions.  Pretty soon there's a massive amount of paper out there without a firm foundation.  And then the whole house of cards is in jeopardy.  Tell me, how much money did these "greedy" corporations make?  They are insolvent today, but for some strange reason you think they were making massive sums of money.  Bud, they weren't making massive sums of money.  They were following the guidelines of the Justice Department of the United States, or else.  The management of these firms could have been thrown in prison for non-compliance with Reno's directive.  So what did you expect them to do?  Did you expect them to tall Reno to go screw off and be charged with some statute concerning race?  Did you expect them to resign, and let the next guy deal with it?  What do you think they should have done?  They handled these loans like they handle every other loan.  The government ordered them to make the loans, and they did, and then they handled them like any other loans.  What else did you want here?  Where does the greed come in?

we’re going to sign on to a plan that gifts the Democrats their wet dream desires, to flood their store front activist concerns with literally hundreds of billions of dollars in funding.

That's one reason that I don't support any kind of government backed bailout, especially something that is pushed through without strict scrutiny.  Where did I say that I want something pushed through without scrutiny?  I stated specifically that I did not want any pork in this.  I would expect the Republicans to remain firm and not vote for a plan that included pork.

The Democrats in Congress forced this situation on them, and our government should be responsible to bail them out.

Our government doesn't have any money. They use other peoples money, i.e., mine and yours.  Yes they do.  And if that government can save your home, prevent your community from going through a depression, causing an internation economic collapse, do you think they should do it or not?

In part of your rant, you stress the need to bailout now. In another part, you state that we need to make sure that we don't use this bailout to fund left wing socialist programs. The two are mutually exclusive in a Rat controlled congress and a president on the cusp of leaving office that doesn't want a meltdown at the end of his watch.  Oh cut it out.  That's bull and you know it.  If we had any Republicans today with a backbone, they would not only oppose pork, but they would come out to the cameras and the reporters and explain in detail what was going on, and how the fat cats were lining their friends pockets.  The public would get angry about it, and the Democrats would have to back down.  Good bills can be drafted as quickly as bad bills.  You let the other side know from the start that they will not get pork through on this bill, and you take it to the public.  Bush could make a lot of noise about the graft.  Most people think the Republicans can't do anything, because the Republicans so seldom do anything.  They actually can if they set their minds to it.

I stand with Jim DeMint and the Republicans that DO NOT SUPPORT THE SOCIALIZATION OF THE HOUSING INDUSTRY IN THE USA.  The governemt, with the backing of the American public, has the deepest pockets around.  It is the single entity that can stabalize the markets in a hurry.  I mentioned an auto maker that the U.S. bailed out decades ago.  You dismissed it.  I mentioned it because the government got back more money than it put up to keep the company solvent.  The government did the same thing with Mexico when it needed help.  Frankly I was really against the bailout of Mexico.  Now I realize that Mexico paid back the loans early with interest.  If this is socialism, then every time you borrow money from the bank, you're a socialist.  Every time you go to the credit union and borrow money, you're a socialist.  Don't you realize how absurd you are being.

The federal government needs to be drastically downsized. Hundreds of federal programs need to be eliminated and returned to individual state control. The individual states need to insist on reclaiming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Then, if the people of a socialist minded state want their state government to back risky home loans to people of their state that probably won't pay them back, it won't cause a national/worldwide financial crisis when they inevitably default.

Yes, the government needs to be downsized.  I agree.  I consider that to be a separate issue.  It's something we should work towards every day, not just in times of crisis.  As for loans to people who are not qualified to get them, I stand firmly against it even if 100% of them are some minority ethnicity.  The fact is they are not 100% of some minority ethnicity.  Poor White folks were getting these unjustifiable loans too.  Janet Reno should be strung up.  The members of Congress that voted to set up the situation where this could happen, should also be strung up.

A lot of folks think the financial instituion CEOs are the culprits here.  They were doing what the federal government ordered them to do.  Is that true or not.  Yes, it is true.  Then they can't be the cause of the problem.

[cowboyway]

This is a stop gap measure.

No. This is a socialist measure.

Perhaps you think the drying up of the credit...Perhaps you think not being able to tap...Perhaps you think foreign nations refusing...Perhaps you think massive layoffs...Perhaps you think business closures...Perhaps you think a DJIA of 3,000 is a good thing.

Perhaps you think that socialism/fascism is a good thing.

Ben Franklin once said, ""People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

This current situation is no different. Are you willing to trade a free market system for one of nationalized entities in order to save your precious stock portfolio? If so, you deserve neither freedom nor financial security.

Where did I say that I want something pushed through without scrutiny?

From you post #17:

We must get capital back into the markets now, not next Thursday, not 172 hours from now, not 48 hours from now, but now!

We must make sure there is no leftist pork in the final bill.

You can't have your cake and eat it too...............

And if that government can save your home, prevent your community from going through a depression, causing an internation economic collapse, do you think they should do it or not?

Reminds me of another quote: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."---Gerald Ford

So, you're a Big Gov guy................

If this is socialism, then every time you borrow money from the bank, you're a socialist.

You're reaching. It's socialism only if the bank is the government. Otherwise, it's one free market entity borrowing from another free market entity.

Don't you realize how absurd you are being.

No. You're being absurd. And quite frankly, I think that you have an intense vested interest in this bailout.

I consider that to be a separate issue.

Actually, it is the central issue. If not for the big, all powerful, centralized government (which the founders warned against) this latest crisis couldn't happen.

They were doing what the federal government ordered them to do.

Did the federal government tell them to cook the books so that they could get bigger bonuses?

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the response. I expect our leaders to get busy and implement some course of action now. The longer we see this delayed, the more financial institutions are going to go belly up in the short term. These guys are all inter-related. Nationally and internationally, these financial concerns are poised like a row of dominoes.

You can spin this any way you like, but if there isn’t a cash influx in this system immediately, we WILL create a bigger problem than we needed to face.

I don’t advocate pork in this mix. The bill should be clean. It MUST be done now.

Europe’s biggest bank is now failing as I understand it. And while we allow our large financial institutions to waver during this development stage, other banks that might be shored up by the fix, are headed down due to inaction.

Once they go, you can’t say, “Oh wait, here’s the fix. Let’s go back.” It doesn’t work that way.

We’re not going to agree on this. I appreciate you voicing your point of view. Take care.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Janet Reno stated, "You will either start making loans to minority and poor individuals, or I am going to take your organization to court on a civil rights statute.<<

[DoughtyOne]

Both are very good. Thank you.

[wafflehouse]

Janet Reno stated, "You will either start making loans to minority and poor individuals, or I am going to take your organization to court on a civil rights statute. And so the lending institutions begin to make loans to people who can't possible service them. As time goes by, those loans are packaged and sold off to other lending institutions. Pretty soon there's a massive amount of paper out there without a firm foundation. And then the whole house of cards is in jeopardy. Tell me, how much money did these "greedy" corporations make? They are insolvent today, but for some strange reason you think they were making massive sums of money. Bud, they weren't making massive sums of money. They were following the guidelines of the Justice Department of the United States, or else. The management of these firms could have been thrown in prison for non-compliance with Reno's directive. So what did you expect them to do? Did you expect them to tall Reno to go screw off and be charged with some statute concerning race? Did you expect them to resign, and let the next guy deal with it? What do you think they should have done? They handled these loans like they handle every other loan. The government ordered them to make the loans, and they did, and then they handled them like any other loans. What else did you want here? Where does the greed come in?

do you have a good link or source for this info? how many businesses sued to overturn this law?

[wafflehouse]

The management of these firms could have been thrown in prison for non-compliance with Reno's directive

I am assuming you are not referring to CRA.. what are you referring to?

[DoughtyOne]

This is a topic that popped up on the forum between the middle of last week to this last Sunday. I don’t remember the name of the thread. I looked for a few minutes and decided to see if I could find something on Google.

Check this out:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n19_v86/ai_15779827?tag=content;col1

I think it pretty well reveals what Reno was up to. Programs had been set up by Congress to promote loans to minorities. The guidelines were that loans would be made, and the recipients weren’t to be rejected unless they had pretty much stopped breathing.

I’ll see if I can find some more articles.

[DoughtyOne]

Here's another article that addresses the issue of low income or minority loans.

They try to address the number of loans that don't get approved.  Take note that 50+% of the loans to people with incomes at 50% of the median, are getting loans approved.

That seems problematic to me.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_/ai_n10120677

[DoughtyOne]

In the article, you’ll note that there was a specific lending institution cited. There was probably underlying programs that the government wanted these banks to utilize or take into consideration. I don’t know if the CRA would have figured in here.

[DoughtyOne]

Here’s an article that touches on CRA. See if it sheds any light on the topic.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Commentary/2000/1100.htm

[ForGod'sSake]

Pretty good rant DoughtyOne. Aside from a minor quibble re Janet Reno's justice department taking it upon themselves to be enforcers, it wasn't even necessary in a lot of cases apparently. A few threats aimed at the financial intsitution(s) from the ACORN types usually got the job done I hear. Of course Reno's DOJ was always available for "consultation". And, you're probably aware but just for the sake of clarity and so he doesn't feel left out, Billy Jeff, with a stroke of the pen in 1995 lit the afterburners on subprime lending. Check any of the charts on subprime development if you haven't seen 'em.

BTW, GWB could have, with the stroke of a pen, undone Billy Jeff's dirty deed and commited political suicide for himself and the Republican Party at the same time. There just ain't no justice.

And while subprime mortgage failures were the trigger that set all this in motion, they're just a tiny portion of the much larger derivatives market where the real problem lies. Most everybody knows this and the damage they can and will do to the credit markets WHEN they go south.

Anyway, it's come down to a game of chicken. Conservatives, dead set against big government socializing our financial institutions and credit markets also understand something BIG needs to be done and SOON. How soon? Who really knows. Question is, who will blink first.

[VOA]

bump

[EBH]

Can we write him in on election day?

[DoughtyOne]

There was a thread the other day addressing a comment Bush had made regarding the practice of extending home loans to the poor or some such. It was supportive. I didn’t bother to read it.

While I think the Democrats painted us into this corner, we did have Bush and a Republican majority from 2001 to 2006.

That was perhaps the most wasted six years in American history.

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it.

[ForGod'sSake]

That was perhaps the most wasted six years in American history.

Just so. The Pubbies we sent to DC under the auspices of "The Contract With America" soon developed brain seize and figured they could also siphon of enough of the victim class of voter to make a REAL difference. Just what in God's name could our Pubbies have been possibly thinking when they decided they could pander with the pros? How did they lose their way?

DC is a Rat's maze created by and for the Rats and they are the only ones who know how to navigate it. Would that conservatives would set their sights on destroying the maze instead of blindly stumbling around, forever staying lost in it. I wonder what it is about DC that entices one to check their principles upon entering the city limits?

[DoughtyOne]

Well we certainly share the same thoughts on this. I wish I had some answers for you. I believe the main problem is that voters back the wrong people to run for office. They are often the wrong people, who some backer or another has lofted to push his own agenda rather than the Conservative agenda. And I don’t think the RNC is inclined to back the decent sort that would truly turn things around.

[SnarlinCubBear]

<>< DeMint bump

[tillacum]

It’s the Rat’s p in the water. A few sips and bamm, you’re part of the Rat’s maze.