October 24, 2010 at 1:30pm
Good letter, Sue! We do need to take the rhetoric down a notch, respect one another, and vote.
October 24, 2010 at 10:28pm
I good bumper sticker would read "If you don't vote, then you can't complain." =)
October 25, 2010 at 5:02am
Thank you Mrs. Patrick. Something that needed to be said and coming from a very well respected member and leader of the Democrat Party makes it even more noteworthy.
The rhetoric now, reminds me of the 1950s when McCarthy was painting everyone as having Communist connections and beliefs. When he painted the most respected and esteemed General Marshall as RED, not even Ike came to the General's rescue.
And it seems history is repeating itself with the Studd's style of politicis taking over and no one except the Sue Patrick's and Faye Northcutt-Knox's of the County saying, let's call a halt to this madness.
Thank you both!
October 25, 2010 at 6:01am
dailyreader, I guess you have missed the Democrats equating Republicans and Tea Partiers to Hitler and labeling them as "extremists" while all the while they have brought us "extreme" deficits, debt, spending, unemployment, job loses, foreclosures, etc.
October 25, 2010 at 11:02am
Kevin, I have seen a lot of Teaparty signs equating Obama with Hitler. From my point of view, the Republicans and Teapartiers are the ones overusing the Hitler motif.
And honestly, aren't the Teapartiers the most extreme political faction in recent years?
And the Republicans (particulary the Dubya administration) are responsible for today's "deficits, debt, spending, unemployment, job loses, foreclosures, etc." We were in fairly good shape when Clinton left office. Dubya left us with the Great Recession, and Obama is pulling us out again.
October 25, 2010 at 11:25am
" 'And the Republicans (particulary the Dubya administration) are responsible for today's "deficits, debt, spending, unemployment, job loses, foreclosures, etc.' "
But Kyle, have they not occurred since the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006 and Obama the presidency in 2008? And where is the evidence we are being "pulled out?" It could be that we are being "pushed under."
October 25, 2010 at 1:16pm
Dear Kevin: You may want to check out "Financial crisis of 2007–2010" on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010). You will see there that the housing bubble, which peaked in 2005-2006, had roots in easy credit conditions (2000-2003), subprime lending (2004), deregulation (1980, 1982, 1999, 2004), increased debt burden or over-leveraging (2001-2007), financial innovation and complexity (?), incorrect pricing of risk (2005-2007), etc.
The causes of the Great Recession reach back to both Republican and Democrat administrations, but the Republicans seem to have been the primary facilitators.
October 25, 2010 at 1:26pm
Kevin you are wasting your time trying to explain to a Democrat that six of the eight years Clinton was in office was while Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
You are also wasting your time explaining to a Democrat that the last four years when our economy has progressively gotten worse it has been under the control of a Democratic Congress and Democratic President.
We are the "dumb" ones remember. We don't have the intelligence the Democrats do. They are much smarter. That is why we can't understand that unemployment at 10%, the deficet in the trillions, bail outs of insurance companies, banks and auto industry is a good thing.
You have to be really smart like the Democrats to understand the Helath Care Law is a good thing regardless of cost, the increase in premiums, using tax dollars to pay for abortions and taxing the American people if they don't take a "qualified plan".
If I wasn't so dumb and the Democrats so smart, I would think that since they had all the power and could override any fillibusters by the Republicans that they should have solved all of the problems we face today.
But, what do I know?
October 25, 2010 at 1:36pm
Dear Kyle, you may want to read the following and see how the housing bubble came about, and it's take on who the "primary facilitators" actually were:
How Bush Destroyed the Economy In Only Eight Short Years
October 25, 2010 at 3:03pm
Interesting article, Mr. Halpern! I'm no fan of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. In my opinion, they either need to be more strictly regulated or abolished. Or just cut the apron strings and let them compete in the free (but regulated!) market, without government favoritism.
The well-intentioned government policy to put everyone in a home of their own is partially to blame for the housing bubble.
Like I say, the Democrats are not perfect. It's not a matter of black and white, but shades of gray.
October 25, 2010 at 7:35pm
Regulation is what caused the housing collapse as much as anything.
When you force banks to lend money to people who are high risks, do not have enough income or who want to purchase a house that does not have enough equity to cover the loan based solely on their race, color and ethintictiy then you reap what you sow.
Deregulation is the key to the housing market recovery. The more you regulate, the more you stipulate that certain factors must be met in order to qualify for government backing, the more harm you do.
I do not condone dicrimination of loans to any person. But, I do not condone someone receiving a loan because if the bank does not comply with the regulations they will have their FDIC backing revoked.
October 26, 2010 at 11:43am
Dear doolittlerd77: You may want to read Thomas L. Friedman's HOT, FLAT, AND CROWDED (2.0). There you will see how deregulation removed the safeguards that would have prevented the Great Recession. Here's a quote, for example, from page 13:
"With all that money chasing all that yield, it was inevitable that the financial houses managing all that money would lobby Washington to give them more and more 'flexibility' to design investment instruments that could produce higher and higher yields. And Washington accommodated. With the end of the Cold War and the intensification of globalization, market-friendly presidents (Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush), along with congressmen and senators whose palms had been greased by Wall Street through campaign donations, rolled back banking regulations that had limited risk-taking. some of these regulations had been on the books since the Great Depression."
October 26, 2010 at 1:14pm
For every liberal argument there is a conservative argument.
When you regulate and force banks to lend money to candidates who are high risk, do not have a job, who knowingly cannot pay for the loan based soley on race, color, sexual orientation and demographics then you will absolutely, 100% cause a collapse in the housing market. It is proven without a shadow of a doubt. Look around you right now and you will see it.
I know I am not a smart Democrat like yourself, but anyone who took High School Economics or General Business should know that.
I don't care what liberal wrote what article and I don't care what conservative wrote one either.
What I care about is what I know. I have talked with enough loan officers who work in the banks in the last year to fully understand what they themselves know to be true.
Those are their words. Those are their statements. I believe them to be true.
Surely, you can see by now that the more the government intervenes, the worse things always get. Banking is no different.
I stand by my statement. De-regulation is the primary step in the recovery of the housing market.
October 27, 2010 at 12:31pm
The regulations require the banks to lend to borrowers who would normally not qualify due to lack of income, previous bankruptcy, the loan amount is higher than the property is worth, etc.
The regulations require the banks to lend money to borrows based on demographic location, race and sex.
That is why I say they are forced to make loans to high risk borrowers.
Don't take my word for it, call a loan officer and ask yourself.
I have talked to roughly five or six and all said the same.
P.S. They were not all Republican either. I talked to the smart Democrats as well!
October 27, 2010 at 12:36pm
How are banks being forced to make loans to high risk borrowers? Didn't the banks willingly jump into subprime & Alt-A mortgages when the regulations were rolled back?
There was big money to be made in mortgage-backed securities. Securities backed by junk loans were improperly given high ratings. Even those who knew the risks made a quick buck and passed on the junk loans to someone else. The banks and Wall Street couldn't resist the "get rich quick" temptation. How were lenders forced to make junk loans?
October 27, 2010 at 1:13pm
Okay, I'm learning something. You are probably refering to the Community Reinvestment Act. The article in Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) describes the dispute between those who blame the CRA for the Great Recession, and those who say, "not guilty." (See the section entitled "Relation to 2008 financial crisis.")
I think the better argument belongs to the "not guilty" crowd. The law itself "emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution."
October 27, 2010 at 3:17pm
Let me clarify for the record.
All regulations are not bad, but all of them are not good.
To ensure the mess never happens again a comprehensive study should be conducted to determine which regulations (such as the ones I mentioned) are removed and which should stay.
Forgive me if I sounded like I meant everything should be wiped clean. My intent was to say that de-regulation is essential to the recovery of the housing market by removing the ones that cause banks to lend to high risk borrowers.
A bank, or any other business for that matter, should not be regulated to take a borrower based on their demographic location, race or sex.
How would you like it if the government regulated all law offices to take 25 pro bono cases per year to include capital murder defense based solely on the race of the defendent?
Take out the ones that are un-necessary and leave the others and we have a good plan.
Unfortunately, no one can work together long enough to decide what time they should meet, let alone determine what regulations need to be removed.
October 28, 2010 at 12:16am
Years before George W. Bush became our president, most prominent Democrats wanted Saddam Hussein's head on a platter.
Now "deceptive" Democrats say that George W. lied to us and Hussein never had any WMDs, and the only reason president Bush went into Iraq was for the oil. All for a lie?
This web site reveals many prominent Democrat's quotes years before Bush was elected President.
Liberals get serious amnesia about this fact or they are deliberately omitting the Truth?
Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress during President Bush's last two years in office. This article will show how deficit spending has become insane under Nancy Pelosi and President Obama.
This article will show the step by step process of Liberal Democrat's gone wild and not restrained. George Bush's failure? Don't think so! He did behave poorly with his veto pen however.
Name calling? Could Sue or Faye cite a single example of it, or by whom?
I would agree that no one is to judge one's salvation status, as we can not know the secrets of the heart and God alone will make such judgments.
"My bible teaches to love one another and we are not to judge one another. Not loving one another and judging others is a sin."
We are called however, to make judgments of various types and the following ARE found in the Bible (Sue's too);
If we are to follow God's commands such as:
"... you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you" (1 Cor. 5:11-13);
"Test everything. Hold on to the good" (1 Thess. 5:21);
"Hate what is evil; cling to what is good" (Rom. 12:9) and
"...watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them" (Rom. 16:17),
Then the question isn't "Should we judge?" but "What do we judge?"
Tuesday's election results will reveal some judgments as well. If Liberal Democrats are overwhelmingly elected, it would seem to say such behavior is embraced.
If, however, Liberal Democrats and RINOs are "rejected" by the voters, and Conservative Republicans are "embraced", then voters will have confirmed a "course correction" in our Nation's Political structure.
Tuesday's results will judge if the "Hope and Change" promised by Liberal Democrats is truly such a welcomed change or .....
if a 180 degree change in direction to fiscal sanity, Constitution respecting and restoring rights are protected.........stay tuned!
November 01, 2010 at 8:08am
The economy started downhill when George W. Bush started sending out rebate checks, depleting any cushion in the financial reserves. He signed the Trade agreement which meant more goods were inported than were exported, our goods are setting in containers at the ports. No one wants them or the tariff they must pay. He then partnered with Hailburton's share holder, Vice President Chaney to go into Irac, for false reasons. Lives both American and Iraqi civilians lost by the thousands. Every state started losing federal funds in the name of war and thus state governments's raised taxes. Financial institutions got greedy and came the Ponzi and Barni Madoff schemes. It was just quoted this weekend on a news cast that the top 10% of the rich made a combined profit of 40 trillion dollars thats up about 10 trillion from last year. Our elected officials fail to understand there is no longer a middle class due to their bungling. It doesn't matter what party we look at there are bad apples in them all. Carl Rove slipped away without being punished from giving the okay to out Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. He is trying to be in the thick of the Republican party now as a Fox news contributer. And ask yourselves how all those classified documents were released from a secure vault? That person responsible should be tried for Treason and hanged. Someone high up in the food chain was responsible and nothing has been said other than to blame a private. This country is gong to hell in a hand basket and every liberty I fought for during my military career has been damaged by these birdbrains. The Unions need to be barred from Capital Hill and Special Interest Groups need to be monitored because they have done too much damage already. I will go with this thought: Do you think Bin Laden has his hand in our financial decline? He wanted to kill George W. Bush on 911 and it goes back to Bin Laden's brother from the oil cartel who was killed while in the United States in conference with George H. W. Bush. The Bush family maintain close ties with Saudi Arabia and the oil business. Bin Laden was thrown out of Saudi Arabia with all his millions and he placed each of his brothers (52 siblings) in different parts of the world in financial busines ventures.
November 01, 2010 at 9:51am
The economy started going south when your beloved President Bill Clinton and your beloved Democratic Congress voted for NAFTA that went into effect on January 1st, 1994 six years before George Bush took office.
I remember Ross Perot's statement that you would hear a "giant sucking sound" as jobs left the United States.
How prophetic was that!
Blame George Bush all you want, but the evidence points squarely on the shoulders of Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress.