Us taxpayers are getting the bill for this “bailout”.
POINT OUT that the DEMS made credit EASY - “no money down” through reckless legislation.
Specifically through amendments to the Community Redevelopment Act pushed through by the Clinton administration in the mid 90's.
I heard today Demonrat Andrew Cuomo the son of the great “fatcheem” Mario cuomo had much to do with raising the cieling on the amount of loans and guarnetees that the feds would cover on these knowingly bad loans. any info?
Point out Jim Johnson, one of Obama’s VP vetters was CEO of Fannie when they were lending money recklessly. She was absolutely correct in pointing out both are too expensive to taxpayers, as now the taxpayers are on the hook for a possible 5.3 TRILLION in mortgages that Fannie and Freddie hold. The wonderful banks dumped the worst mortgages on Fannie and Freddie before this happend, so total losses to the taxpayers could be in excess of $200 BILLION. If that is not too expensive, I don’t know what is.
ex-CEO Mudd (son of THE Roger Mudd) will get $9.7 million severance along with a letter that he was dismissed WITHOUT cause.
former CEO Franklin Raines (former Clinton budget director) was convicted of manipulating earnings and fined $27 million.
You’re right, nmh, McCain and Palin should point out that the democrats pushed for low credit standards under the Bent One so that they properly shoulder the blame now that it’s hit the fan.
But in another sense, she’s perfectly right in her statement. Remember during the S&L scandal, the postponed bailout was eventually done ostensibly to staunch the bleeding by a thousand cuts that the failing thrifts were imposing on the treasury one-by-one.
I’m not sure I agree about either bailout, having been in the S&L mess at Ground Zero, but she’s just really restating the conventional wisdom that’s been swirling about. I guess it’s OK for Erin Burnett to say, but not Sarah Palin.
But the easy credit-no money down” through reckless legislation” by the dems was absolutely DEMANDED so that all diverse groups(whether they could actually afford a home or not) could move into one and then have the taxpayers bail them out. Maybe I’m a little paranoid, but I have no doubt in my mind that this is what the socialist dems had in mind all along.
it was not the no money down. they redid laws that essentially allowed INFLATED valuation to essentially BE no money down.
The fact these heavily regulated entities were failing IS an expense to the US ecconomy.
This is why the fed moves in on banks. The are in danger of failing.
What do former FBI officials know about running banks (as opposed to robbing them) and why were so many Clintonistas on the board of directors?