It seems there are a number of causes of our current financial crisis. If you've been reading this blog, you know about the big ones: Congress, shady Democrats in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Republicans for not standing up sooner, the Clinton administration, illegal immigrants, etc. We can now also add to the list social planning and more social planning. Of course, this may be redundant, because it is the Democrats who routinely engage in social planning, not Republicans.
For those of you who think it's incorrect or unfair to somehow implicate Democrats in this, consider the following (on top of the arguments and fact I've already posted about over the past few days):
A look at those darned Federal Election Commission records for individual contributions reveals this:
According to my calculator, that's a total of about $3.4 million to the Democrats and about $1.7 million. Looks like Wall Street is almost as biased in favor of the Democrat party as the media, doesn't it?
Ann Coulter adds some more implications to the mix:
While there are multiple causes of this mess, it's amazing how many of them come back to the Democrat party, don't you think?
Regardless, the FBI is now investigating for potential fraud at some of these institutions. Good.
Victor Davis Hanson has a great column at RealClearPolitics.com that identifies the people ultimately responsible for the current financial mess: the voters of America. The key excerpts:
For those of you who think it's incorrect or unfair to somehow implicate Democrats in this, consider the following (on top of the arguments and fact I've already posted about over the past few days):
To liberals, the financial meltdown results from recklessness by Wall Street's "big banking boys" who, as socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) explains, were "empowered by the extreme economic views of [former] Senator Phil Gramm, President George Bush, Sen. John McCain," and their ilk.
Beginning in the 1990s, this narrative goes, free market, Republican extremists told government regulators to take a hike so the barons of high finance could indulge in an economic free-for-all, thus producing our current travails. Numbered among these extremists, it seems, is retired liberal Rep. Jim Leach (R., Iowa), who coauthored a deregulatory measure now being ritualistically denounced by the Left.
This narrative assumes that the typical Wall Streeter takes time off from Caligula-style orgies of predatory capitalism only to reread tattered copies of The Road to Serfdom. Or anything by Ayn Rand. Also assumed: that employees of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, and all other institutions now seeking Uncle Sam's assistance must be the financial muscle behind the modern conservative movement and the Republican party. How else could things have gone so terribly awry?
"Isn't it ironic," one pundit asked recently in the Washington Post, "that the same firms that preached free-market capitalism are now the ones begging for a taxpayer bailout?"
But are these firms really staffed by legions of modern-day Adam Smiths?
Beginning in the 1990s, this narrative goes, free market, Republican extremists told government regulators to take a hike so the barons of high finance could indulge in an economic free-for-all, thus producing our current travails. Numbered among these extremists, it seems, is retired liberal Rep. Jim Leach (R., Iowa), who coauthored a deregulatory measure now being ritualistically denounced by the Left.
This narrative assumes that the typical Wall Streeter takes time off from Caligula-style orgies of predatory capitalism only to reread tattered copies of The Road to Serfdom. Or anything by Ayn Rand. Also assumed: that employees of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, and all other institutions now seeking Uncle Sam's assistance must be the financial muscle behind the modern conservative movement and the Republican party. How else could things have gone so terribly awry?
"Isn't it ironic," one pundit asked recently in the Washington Post, "that the same firms that preached free-market capitalism are now the ones begging for a taxpayer bailout?"
But are these firms really staffed by legions of modern-day Adam Smiths?
A look at those darned Federal Election Commission records for individual contributions reveals this:
At Bear Stearns, 157 investment bankers, managing directors, senior managing directors, and other financial sophisticates contributed over $264,000 to Democratic candidates. In contrast, 77 of their colleagues sent about half that amount — $122,000 — to Republicans.
At JPMorgan Chase, the Democratic advantage, at 3 to 1, was even larger. Contributions to Sens. Obama, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, and Edwards totaled $275,000 from 238 elites in that firm. Republican presidential aspirants had to make do with $93,000 from 83 equally important-sounding people.
The story was much the same at Lehman Brothers. There, the Democratic field swept up over 560,000 pre-bankruptcy dollars from 272 former Lehman employees. Republican candidates received less than half that — $256,000 — from 145.
This Democratic advantage in both total contributions and number of employees contributing also holds at the latest casualties on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Goldman employees cut checks to Democratic candidates totaling an astounding $789,000. At Morgan Stanley, the generosity was even greater: $818,000. Goldman Republicans contributed less than a third the amount of their Democratic colleagues; those at Morgan Stanley less than half.
But someone must have spiked the water coolers at Merrill Lynch. Alone among Wall Street's storied firms, Merrill Lynch's workforce favored the Republicans ($490,000) over the Democrats ($399,000). I'll leave it to others to decipher why the ideological leanings of Merrill's employees stand apart from the rest of the Street.
Employees at now-defunct American International Group also voted overwhelmingly Democratic with their dollars. According to FEC records, 118 AIG executives contributed $104,000 to the Democrats, about three times the $33,000 sent to the Republicans. AIG's Democratic tilt, moreover, mirrors the Democratic presidential field's strong performance in the insurance industry as a whole, as a review of contributions from employees of Met Life, New York Life, Prudential, The Hartford, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide, Geico, Allstate, and State Farm reveals.
The donation disparity is even more pronounced at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those hybrid creatures of power politics that touched off the whole messy shebang.
Overall, 152 Fannie executives airdropped $146,000 on Democrats this presidential cycle, more than seven times what Republicans received ($19,700). The contrast between Sens. McCain and Obama was even greater. Sen. McCain received slightly over $7,500 from nine Fannie employees while Sen. Obama raked in 13 times as much (about $96,000) from 97 employees. At Freddie, the Democratic advantage was less overwhelming, but still daunting. Democratic candidates enjoyed a 4 to 1 edge, receiving $64,400 (Obama has received about $23,500) and Republicans $16,300 (of which McCain gets roughly $9,000).
At JPMorgan Chase, the Democratic advantage, at 3 to 1, was even larger. Contributions to Sens. Obama, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, and Edwards totaled $275,000 from 238 elites in that firm. Republican presidential aspirants had to make do with $93,000 from 83 equally important-sounding people.
The story was much the same at Lehman Brothers. There, the Democratic field swept up over 560,000 pre-bankruptcy dollars from 272 former Lehman employees. Republican candidates received less than half that — $256,000 — from 145.
This Democratic advantage in both total contributions and number of employees contributing also holds at the latest casualties on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Goldman employees cut checks to Democratic candidates totaling an astounding $789,000. At Morgan Stanley, the generosity was even greater: $818,000. Goldman Republicans contributed less than a third the amount of their Democratic colleagues; those at Morgan Stanley less than half.
But someone must have spiked the water coolers at Merrill Lynch. Alone among Wall Street's storied firms, Merrill Lynch's workforce favored the Republicans ($490,000) over the Democrats ($399,000). I'll leave it to others to decipher why the ideological leanings of Merrill's employees stand apart from the rest of the Street.
Employees at now-defunct American International Group also voted overwhelmingly Democratic with their dollars. According to FEC records, 118 AIG executives contributed $104,000 to the Democrats, about three times the $33,000 sent to the Republicans. AIG's Democratic tilt, moreover, mirrors the Democratic presidential field's strong performance in the insurance industry as a whole, as a review of contributions from employees of Met Life, New York Life, Prudential, The Hartford, Liberty Mutual, Nationwide, Geico, Allstate, and State Farm reveals.
The donation disparity is even more pronounced at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those hybrid creatures of power politics that touched off the whole messy shebang.
Overall, 152 Fannie executives airdropped $146,000 on Democrats this presidential cycle, more than seven times what Republicans received ($19,700). The contrast between Sens. McCain and Obama was even greater. Sen. McCain received slightly over $7,500 from nine Fannie employees while Sen. Obama raked in 13 times as much (about $96,000) from 97 employees. At Freddie, the Democratic advantage was less overwhelming, but still daunting. Democratic candidates enjoyed a 4 to 1 edge, receiving $64,400 (Obama has received about $23,500) and Republicans $16,300 (of which McCain gets roughly $9,000).
According to my calculator, that's a total of about $3.4 million to the Democrats and about $1.7 million. Looks like Wall Street is almost as biased in favor of the Democrat party as the media, doesn't it?
Ann Coulter adds some more implications to the mix:
Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.
Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee."
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.
When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.
In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.
A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off.
Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.
Instead of looking at "outdated criteria," such as the mortgage applicant's credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named "Caylee."
Threatening lawsuits, Clinton's Federal Reserve demanded that banks treat welfare payments and unemployment benefits as valid income sources to qualify for a mortgage. That isn't a joke -- it's a fact.
When Democrats controlled both the executive and legislative branches, political correctness was given a veto over sound business practices.
In 1999, liberals were bragging about extending affirmative action to the financial sector. Los Angeles Times reporter Ron Brownstein hailed the Clinton administration's affirmative action lending policies as one of the "hidden success stories" of the Clinton administration, saying that "black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded."
Meanwhile, economists were screaming from the rooftops that the Democrats were forcing mortgage lenders to issue loans that would fail the moment the housing market slowed and deadbeat borrowers couldn't get out of their loans by selling their houses.
A decade later, the housing bubble burst and, as predicted, food-stamp-backed mortgages collapsed. Democrats set an affirmative action time-bomb and now it's gone off.
Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.
While there are multiple causes of this mess, it's amazing how many of them come back to the Democrat party, don't you think?
Regardless, the FBI is now investigating for potential fraud at some of these institutions. Good.
Victor Davis Hanson has a great column at RealClearPolitics.com that identifies the people ultimately responsible for the current financial mess: the voters of America. The key excerpts:
The profiteering was not just the result of a few thousand scoundrels on Wall Street or in Washington, as greedy and as bonus-hungry as many of them no doubt were. Look at the housing market as a sort of musical chairs in which everyone profited as long he grabbed a seat when the music stopped. Then those left standing -- with high-priced loans and negative equity when the crash came -- defaulted and stuck taxpayers with debt in the billions of dollars. But until then, most owners who had sold homes cashed out beyond their wildest dreams.
We created the cultural climate for this shared madness. Television shows advised how to "flip" a house after putting in cosmetic improvements. Real-estate seminars and popular videos convinced us that homes were not places to live in and raise a family but rather no different from piles of chips on a Vegas table.
We created the cultural climate for this shared madness. Television shows advised how to "flip" a house after putting in cosmetic improvements. Real-estate seminars and popular videos convinced us that homes were not places to live in and raise a family but rather no different from piles of chips on a Vegas table.
We created the phony populist creed that everyone deserved to own a house. So lawmakers got the message to relax lending standards in service to "fairness." But Americans forgot that historically nearly four in 10 of us aren't ever ready, or able, to sacrifice for a down payment, monthly mortgage bills, home maintenance and yearly taxes -- and so should stick to renting.
He goes on about how that same mentality translated into investing and other financial market segments. I would add one more thing to his suggestion: the American people kept voting for these Congressional hacks. Over the past few months, I've come to the conclusion that if you don't know who to vote for in a particular race, always go for the new guy and ditch the incumbent. I think it's a worthwhile rule of thumb (unless you are 100% certain the incumbent is actually a good one), for just this reason. If you have any doubt, throw the bum out.
Depending on who you listen to, there is a substantial amount of anger on the part of the American people right now, along with a substantial amount of fear on the part of our elected 'leaders'. That's a great combination for actually getting something done...if it's done RIGHT.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment