[StBernard] Is it Dems or GOPs?

[Westley Annis]

Seems to me, the Dems have a lot of hands in pot of economic woes. Was it
just plain deceit or was it a conspiracy for select members of the Democrat
Party make some HUGE bucks while in the process converting the US from a
capitalist to a socialist country?

Let's see, first we have Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, the
"Mistress of Disaster". After ruining the AG's office, she moved to
FannieMae where she would take in $26 million as VP even though she had no
experience or training in finance. (Wonder if that lack of experience is
what led to the $10 billion accounting scandal?)
http://tinyurl.com/6yx6lf

Now, let's take a look at DNC power house Barney Frank, ranking Democrat
back in 2003, now CHAIRMAN of Senate Financial Services Committee. Now, why
do we look at 2003?

Well, in 2003 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH proposed a new agency to
oversee both Freddie Mac and FannieMae that would "determine whether the two
are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios."

The plan "was an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which together have issued more than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt - is broken. A report by outside investigators
in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead
investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge
against rising interest rates."

Who opposed it? None other than Barney Frank, who said "The more people
exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies,
the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (I guess he forgot
saying this when he started the run on IndyMac back in July.)
http://tinyurl.com/6lp5qu

But who caused all of this? How could we get into such a mess? I guess we
need to travel even further back than 2003. 

Seems if we go back another decade to 1992, the Boston Federal Reserve
released a study that claimed lenders were using race as a basis for
determining who would be approved for a loan. Based on this faulty study,
the Fed came up with new REGULATIONS that stated "discrimination may be
observed when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated
criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority
applicants."

Just what could this arbitrary or outdated criteria be? Why none other than
the borrower's credit history, income verification, and the size of the
mortgage payment relative to income.

So who was President during this time? GASP! The horrors! It was Bill
Clinton. How could he allow such a thing to have happened? Why, he's suppose
to be the greatest President in the 20th Century (not counting those over
liberal stalwarts such as FDR or JFK).

Mortgage Lending to Minorities: Where's the Bias? http://tinyurl.com/3t3lpx

And this Slate article seems to be pretty bi-partisan (one mustn't forget
that Slate is a liberal rag). Both parties have their hand the cookie jar,
although it appears the Democrats had a bigger hand:
http://www.slate.com/id/2200160/

Does Obama wish for everyone to have a casa they can call "Mudd Manor"?
http://tinyurl.com/47zzzg

Apparently the DNC is real good at covering the hide of their operatives.
http://tinyurl.com/62ajb2

Could the government cleanup of Enron have led to AIG's failure?
http://tinyurl.com/4unu6k

Now, I realize as a faithful yellow-dog Democrat, you are just not going to
believe a single word in this posting, but I will pass it along none the
less. Don't worry, the author does have good things to say about Clinton and
bad things about Bush, but you can't pick and choose what you're going to
believe out of this. It's an all or nothing deal.
http://tinyurl.com/3ozee8