$3.7 billion in lobbying and political contributions

[overthebow]

The financial sector spent $2.7b in lobbying and employees made another $1b in political donations.

The report will probably reignite debate over the outsize influence of Wall Street; it says that regulators “lacked the political will” to scrutinize and hold accountable the institutions they were supposed to oversee. The financial sector spent $2.7 billion on lobbying from 1999 to 2008, while individuals and committees affiliated with the industry made more than $1 billion in campaign contributions.

The report does knock down — at least partly — several early theories for the financial crisis. It says the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession “created increased risks” but were not chiefly to blame. It says that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants, “contributed to the crisis but were not a primary cause.” And in a finding likely to upset conservatives, it says that “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits.

This report will be a political football.

Of the 10 commission members, only the 6 appointed by Democrats endorsed the final report. Three Republican members have prepared a dissent; a fourth Republican, Peter J. Wallison, a former Treasury official and White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan, has written a dissent, calling government policies to promote homeownership the primary culprit for the crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

 

[mercury14]

John Boehner's biggest contributor? Kleenex.

 

[off2bed]

“aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits.

Wrong, as usual. The liberal government goal of having banks lend money to people who couldn't pay it back was a culprit. The only "opportunity" that represents is one for Democrats to gain more power, which they did.

 

[Loring2]

Wrong, as usual. The liberal government goal of having banks lend money to people who couldn't pay it back was a culprit. The only "opportunity" that represents is one for Democrats to gain more power, which they did.

Right O2B, a government with no understanding of real estate economics gives fiat money to people who have no intention of owning the homes they were given., yes given.

All the people concerned thought that the prices of houses would keep going up forever. A number of left side economists (Including Krugman) either stated directly or intimated that there would never again be a financial crash.

This was to be Nirvana under socialism, one of the great oxymorons of modern times

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Right O2B, a government with no understanding of real estate economics gives fiat money to people who have no intention of owning the homes they were given., yes given.

All the people concerned thought that the prices of houses would keep going up forever. A number of left side economists (Including Krugman) either stated directly or intimated that there would never again be a financial crash.

This was to be Nirvana under socialism, one of the great oxymorons of modern times

You do realize that Community Reinvestment Act-governed banks and loans were not as hard hit by this crisis as non-CRA banks and loans. Right?

*Watches all the right wingers flee the scene until they think I'm gone...*

 

[Ham Murabi]

You do realize that Community Reinvestment Act-governed banks and loans were not as hard hit by this crisis as non-CRA banks and loans. Right?

*Watches all the right wingers flee the scene until they think I'm gone...*

NEW YORK (AP) - A troubling 93 percent of banks heavily involved in the Community Reinvestment Act's shoddy home lending practices were hard hit by the collapse of the housing market and sucked in billions in federal funds to remain solvent, government auditors said Tuesday.

 

[mercury14]

Wrong, as usual. The liberal government goal of having banks lend money to people who couldn't pay it back was a culprit. The only "opportunity" that represents is one for Democrats to gain more power, which they did.

Yeah it had nothing at all to do with Bush's "Ownership Society" where he took Clinton's pro-lending policies and expanded them greatly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Yeah it had nothing at all to do with Bush's "Ownership Society" where he took Clinton's pro-lending policies and expanded them greatly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society

Now off2bed will run away from YOU and never be seen again in this thread...

 

[mercury14]

Now off2bed will run away from YOU and never be seen again in this thread...

Probably. That cockroach is hiding from me on half a dozen issues at the moment so we can just add this to the list.

Maybe he'll come back with one of those arguments about how Barney Frank ruined the financial system during the six years of total Republican control when he had no power.

 

[firespin]

Yeah it had nothing at all to do with Bush's "Ownership Society" where he took Clinton's pro-lending policies and expanded them greatly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_society

Are you always this stupid?

Wait...we know the answer to that.

The "ownership society" was primarily about social security, not home ownership, you nimrod.

Home ownership rates under Bush didn't "expand greatly"...they continued a long term gradual increase. They peaked out at just over 69% in 2006.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/home_ownership.jpg

 

[mercury14]

Are you always this stupid?

Wait...we know the answer to that.

The "ownership society" was primarily about social security, not home ownership, you nimrod.

Home ownership rates under Bush didn't "expand greatly"...they continued a long term gradual increase. They peaked out at just over 69% in 2006.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/home_ownership.jpg

Look how angry and out of control you are. Nobody is disagreeing that Bush's Ownership Society was partly about privitizing social security. And partly about cutting taxes on capital investments. So take a deep breath, breathe into a paper bag, or do whatever you need to do.

Somehow you're forgetting about the Republican "Zero-down-payment initiative". Can't afford a home because you don't have much of a prospect for income? NO PROBLEM! Just sign here.

Can't afford to pay a mortgage? NO PROBLEM! Bush gave America his "no mortgage payments for two years" initiative.

Can't pay your credit card debt that you already have and now you want to add on a mortgage payment to your monthly expenses? Because of Bush and the Republicans that was no obstacle at all!


Turns out that Bush and the Republicans fostered legions of homeowners who couldn't afford to own homes. All it took was a little recession to knock down Bush's house of cards which then led to a very big recession where America's entire financial system was brought to the precipice.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You do realize that Community Reinvestment Act-governed banks and loans were not as hard hit by this crisis as non-CRA banks and loans. Right?

*Watches all the right wingers flee the scene until they think I'm gone...*

Why would it?

As soon as they made the loans they sold them to Freddie and Fannie.

At this point we don't even have to ask, "Are you that...?"

 

[off2bed]

Why would it?

As soon as they made the loans they sold them to Freddie and Fannie.

At this point we don't even have to ask, "Are you that...?"

 

[firespin]

Look how angry and out of control you are. Nobody is disagreeing that Bush's Ownership Society was partly about privitizing social security. And partly about cutting taxes on capital investments. So take a deep breath, breathe into a paper bag, or do whatever you need to do.

Somehow you're forgetting about the Republican "Zero-down-payment initiative". Can't afford a home because you don't have much of a prospect for income? NO PROBLEM! Just sign here.

Can't afford to pay a mortgage? NO PROBLEM! Bush gave America his "no mortgage payments for two years" initiative.

Can't pay your credit card debt that you already have and now you want to add on a mortgage payment to your monthly expenses? Because of Bush and the Republicans that was no obstacle at all!


Turns out that Bush and the Republicans fostered legions of homeowners who couldn't afford to own homes. All it took was a little recession to knock down Bush's house of cards which then led to a very big recession where America's entire financial system was brought to the precipice.

You sure you're a counselor or whatever you claim to be? Nobody is angry or out of control here.

That said, you're the one unable to process relevancy of various things you probably read on a blog someplace, so that could be a sign of some desperation on your part. Bush's home ownership initiatives like the Dream Act were largely symbolic, and limited to fractions of 1% of total homeowners. The numbers I helpfully posted reinforced that conclusion, that there was no spike in home ownership due to any of these initiatives.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Everyone in Washington and Wall Street had their snouts in the trough.

 

[fureto]

Thank you. It was a bipartisan failure, which is why nothing will get fixed.