My post, with citations, appears to be in moderation.

Perhaps it will be released soon.

So, do you agree or disagree with what WC stated about Tet?

Johnny Cat,

Did WC tell the truth to the American people regarding Tet?

Cronkite was a lib, which is perfectly fine.

He used the nightly news cast as his very own bully pulpit, telling America what he wanted them to hear and, consequently, getting them to believe what he wanted them to believe. That is not fine.

Cronkite's history was not stellar in the truth and accuracy department.

He didn't do America, or her servicemen, any favors by blatantly lying and editorializing about events in Vietnam. Conversely, Cronkite soured American public opinion while simultaneously encouraging the enemy to fight on a little longer. His words may not have been direct encouragement, but the result was the same.

It's amusing to me to see Neatorama commenters get themselves all lathered up over history and politics, subjects of which the knowledge here is obviously very limited.

People who know history and have a firm anchor in reality wouldn't be so quick to make public spectacles of themselves.

I think President Obama should outlaw this kind of criticism. These kinds of articles do nothing but provide ammunition to those who would seek to destroy what He has planned for our country. I love my country and thank God every day that President Obama has taken control and is leading our nation to a better place. People who try to run down our coutnry and our President should be in prison.

Wow....

It's hard to tell if that is sarcasm or serious.

Please clear that up for us JMM.

Economics and politics.

Two subjects that Neatorama is not good at.

AIG has contractual agreements with their employees that go something like this:

If "A" happens then we will pay you "X" dollars in bonus money.

They (AIG) are contractually (legally) obligated to fulfill the terms of these contracts.

Now that we, the taxpayers own approx 80% or so of AIG, we own their obligations as well.

If AIG fails to meet the requirements of their contracts then the employees can sue AIG (and the US taxpayer) for failing to fulfill the obligation.

It's interesting that the Dems don't want to cancel the UAW contracts that are sinking the auto industry while, at the same time, wanting to cancel the AIG contracts.

This situation is another prime example of why it was never, ever a good idea for the fed gov't to put money into a private company.

Gov't regulations have a place in business only to the extent that they prevent illegal activity, etc.

Gov't interference in the private markets lead to problems each and every time that they are tried.

I approach the Free Market in the same fashion that the Founding Fathers did. They believed that the gov'ts only role was to prevent monopolies and ensure competition.

Here's a NY Times article from 1999 which pointed out the problems which were already evident regarding this issue.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

You indicate that you feel that there was not sufficient oversight during the past eight years. I disagree. Too much oversight and gov't intervention is what forced the banks to make the bad loans.

President Bush made multiple attempts to reform F&F but each time his efforts were rebuffed by those in Congress who were blowing smoke about the stability of those two entities.

Again, there is no possible way that the people who led us into this tar pit should be the ones who are trusted to lead us out.

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this issue with me in a rational fashion. So many people here aren't up to that task.

Trotter,

I pointed out Obama simply because he was the attorney for the group that sued the bank in the red lining case.

I mentioned Obama and Dodd because they were the number one and two recipients of campaign cash from Fannie/Freddie.

If the number one and two spots had been filled with Rep names then I would have named them instead.

The other names that I mentioned were former employees or board members of F&F.

I didn't mention their names due to party affiliation on their parts or party loyalty or mine.

To be honest, I despise both of these parties. I believe that they will be the death of this country.

I am simply laying out the facts. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Whether or not the bankers would have come up with sub-primes or some of the other "exotic" ideas is an issue that is subject to speculation.

What is not speculation is the fact that the Fed Gov't (specifically HUD) forced the lowering of qualification standards in the interest of social engineering.

Realistically, I don't see the banks willingly doing things to expose themselves to more risk.

By the way, here's a name I forgot to mention before.

Penny Pritzker.

She was the head of Superior Bank which collapsed in 2001 due to bad mortgages.

What's she doing now you ask?

Serving on Obama's economic advisory commission. She was also his campaign finance director.

Don't you all find it just a little bit disconcerting that the very hands that led us down the path we are now on are now occupying, or have access to, the halls of power and influence?

That's like asking the doctor who botched your surgery to operate on you again.

James M,

It’s an all too common tactic to paint a situation as a single party’s doing.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and who was behind the S&L Scandal then that predeeded, but also directly served as a catalyst for, it.

“Free market” greed coupled with Reaganomics economic policies… Or have people already forgotten about what the ‘Ol Gypper did as well?

Pot. Kettle.

I have pointed to the facts of the issue. I have not named one party over the other. Just the facts.

You've failed to show how the CRA was NOT a factor while I have repeatedly shown that it was.

The "free market" didn't do this.

Banks were forced to make loans that normal business practices would have prohibited.

The interference of the Fed Gov't in the free market is what led to it.

Moi,

Facts are my forte. Truth is my passion.

Facts are not malleable and half-truths lies.

Sid,

You claim that the CRA provisions were a non-issue. Unfortunately, you are incorrect.

You claim that CRA requirements have been the same for years but neglect to mention that HUD under Clinton passed a requirement that 50% of all Fannie/Freddie loans had to be to minorities.

You also fail to mention that ALL banks who desired access to the secondary markets were REQUIRED to comply with the standards set by F&F. In other words, the banks issue the mortgages and then resell them on the secondary markets to free up their money to issue more mortgages. In order to be able to sell that mortgage paper, the banks were forced to lower their standards.

Lowered standards for one group (minorities, etc) resulted in lowered standards for everyone because banks are not allowed to discriminate against borrowers by offering one group sweetheart deals and then deny the next group.

People that want to ignore the CRA, and the lowered standards (quotas) required by HUD, either have no grasp over the economic reality of the situation or they have no problem deluding themselves to promote a political agenda.

You point to various cities and states where the foreclosure issue is particularly prevalent. But you stop there. You don't carry your analysis the remainder of the way to discover how all those people were able to qualify for the loans on $500K houses.

You've done nothing to negate my point that lowered standards forced upon the banks were a key factor in getting this ball rolling.

Moi,

The video "simplifies" at the expense of a very key piece of information.

The Fed Gov't forced the banks to make the loans which ultimately led us to where we are today.

Overlooking that is like not seeing the water when you travel to Niagara Falls.

Wouldn't a clothes line work just as well?

These videos do a relatively good job explaining the issue but they do indeed leave out the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and requirements that 50% of all FannieMae/FreddieMac loans be to minorities and that "red lining" was to be prohibited.

Why is that important you ask?

Well, F&F are known as the secondary market. In order to have access to the secondary market as a place to sell the mortgages they were writing the banks had to comply with F&F standards for those loans. F&F, under the direction of HUD drove the standards down so that more people would qualify. Thus, the banks who wanted access to the secondary markets had to comply with those same standards.

Many banks were sued to force them to make loans that they didn't want to make.

One of the Plaintiffs? ACORN.

One of the attorneys for ACORN? Barack Obama.

The train was on the tracks and moving.

Then, F&F began issuing default insurance on those same risky loans in order to assure the nervous investors who took the mortgages off the hands of F&F.

During the time all of this was going on, the execs of F&F were getting rich. Really, really rich. While they were getting rich they were kicking millions of dollars toward Democrat candidates and the Democrat Party. They were also cooking the books and committing accounting fraud at the same time.

Who were these people you ask?

Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Rahm Emanuel, and others. The same people who drove F&F into the ground are now acting as advisers to the Obama Administration.

Who was the number one recipient of F&F campaign money?

Chris Dodd.

Number two was Barack Obama.

When F&F collapsed the investors realized that their insurance policies were worthless and they were stuck with time bombs as the videos illustrated.

Add spiraling housing prices to the mix and you have the perfect storm.

It's a very tangled web but easy to decipher when you start putting it together.

I was wondering where Bill Clinton was hanging out these days.