News Flash! John McCain suspends campaign

John McCain has suspended his campaign in order so he can return to the US Senate and help work on a bailout bill.

McCain’s statement “America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen,” McCain said.

Share
  • dean

    Yes….the world waits with baited breath while John McCain, who knows squat about economics and less about banking, rides his white horse to the rescue. Please.

    • Chris McMullen

      McCain, Bush and Greenspan all warned congress about the inevitable failure and consequences of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. MacCain sponsored legislation to step up regulation.

      Barney Frank and Schmucky Schumer al s**t-canned the idea and proclaimed those institutions were sound.

      This meltdown is mostly the Dems fault. Maybe you should do some research before opening your pie hole.

  • Anonymous

    If we could only have dean take over. The whole country would be run like a mixture of Metro and San Franscisco.

    Just like Obama will.

  • davidg

    If the problem is that the banks can’t issue more credit under present reserve requirements, then address that problem: temporarily change the reserve requirements. But let the banks stay responsible for selling the sub-prime mortgages at whatever price they can get for them. The government doesn’t belong in that business.

    The normal legislative process is slow and usually not very effective. There is nothing to suggest that speeding up the process would make it any better. And the hysterical stampede technique presently being used for the bailout assures that major issues (future problems) will not be addressed.

  • Chris McMullen

    McCain is actually going to congress to do his job….how novel. Better than Barry sitting around waiting for someone to call him.

    Barry sure doesn’t take his job very seriously.

    • dean

      Yes Chris…that’s it. Democrats are to blame. Never mind who the president is, and who controlled congress 12 years prior to the past 2. McCain has not even cast a vote since March, but he sure takes that job seriously. And by all accounts he is the last person anyone is waiting for, including House and Senate Republicans. Plus he is running from his deregulator record of 26 years. So spin away…it won’t change reality.

      Didn’t McCain also suspend his nominating convention so that he could rush down to Louisiana to pretend like he was in charge of something? Pathetic. He is a candidate, not yet the fearless leader he wants to be. At least Obama seems to understand that distinction and has avoided grandstanding.

      • Chris McMullen

        Keep wetting yourself, Deanie. Your boy Barry has his stink all over Fannie and Freddie. Not to mention ACORN.

        Listen carefully: Bush and McCain tried to get legislation passed to regulate Fannie and Freddie. The Dems blocked it.

        Point. Set. Match.

        • dean

          Chris…there is only one problem with your argument. It was Wall Street that sunk Fannie and Freddie, not Fannie and Freddie that sunk Wall Street. Sub prime loans by definition were not backed by Fannie or Freddie, because they did not meet their standards. But since these institutions were set up to hold mortgage debt and only mortgagge, debt, their assets have tanked along with the housing bubble that burst, leaving us holding the puctured, deflated bits of bag.

          “Regulating” Fannie and Freddie would have accomplished what? De-regulating banking and holding interest rates to historic lows to finance Bush’s ridiculous reign would have happened regardless.

          • Chris McMullen

            “Sub prime loans by definition were not backed by Fannie or Freddie, because they did not meet their standards.”

            Once again Deanie, do a cursory search before you pound out more deception:

            “Fannie’s Perilous Pursuit of Subprime Loans”
            “In 2006 and 2007, Fannie Mae “carefully broadened our entry into the subprime market,” Faith said in a statement. ”

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html

            Keep trying Dean, you may get it someday.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Sub prime loans by definition were not backed by Fannie or Freddie, because they did not meet their standards.

    You’re kidding right?

    I mean you really are kidding aren’t you?

    No one can be this out of the loop, I mean no one.

    Dean, where have you been? Do you know anything about this issue at all, I mean anything at all on which you base your opinion other than Republican bad Democrats good?

  • John in Oregon

    > *It was Wall Street that sunk Fannie and Freddie, not Fannie and Freddie that sunk Wall Street. Sub prime loans by definition were not backed by Fannie or Freddie, because they did not meet their standards.*

    FALSE

    *How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett*
    Sept. 22 (Bloomberg)

    “Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? … [The]history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally… In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation.”

    *Analysis: Reckless Mortgages Brought Financial Market to Its Knees*
    Fox News, September 18, 2008

    “Subsidies given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allow them to charge less in repackaging private mortgages that are then sold to financial institutions… ”

    “In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part–time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, _welfare payments,_ and _unemployment benefits.”_

    *Fannie and Freddie Caused Financial Crisis, Not Free Market Policy*
    Market Watch, Sept. 24, 2008

    “But it was the federally established and backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that spread the subprime mortgage risk throughout the financial world. Fannie and Freddie issued securities, which the market took as effectively government guaranteed, to raise money to buy mortgages from banks and other financial institutions. They then sold shares in pools of such mortgages to other financial institutions and investors, in America and around the world.*

    *How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable*
    INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY September 24, 2008 4:30 PM PT

    “Clinton’s HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, “made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis,” the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.”

    I noted with interest that in the sup-prime crises meeting today the architect in chief of the Fannie / Freddie explosion, Congressman Barney Frank, was described as screaming and ranting. One would have hoped that Senator Obama might have exerted a bit of leadership.

    In other news;

    *Bob Schieffer on the Early Show*

    “John McCain got involved in the bailout negotiations after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Sen. Lindsey Graham yesterday that the bailout plan would fail unless McCain came in and brought balky Republicans aboard.”

    *ABC News*
    September 25, 2008 8:26 AM

    “Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain’s request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in “good faith” “We know he didn’t do it because he’s afraid because Sen. McCain wanted more debates,” Clinton said”

    • dean

      According to the latest news accounts, McCain did a heckuva job bringing those balky Republicans along. It looks like they and he are ready to gamble on the economy going completely ass over teakettle for a phony populist political gain. Why am I not surprised.

  • John in Oregon

    Don’t you get it Dean.

    Republicans are not a monolith of party leadership enforced discipline.

    Conservatives do not look to the book of talking pints to know what to think.

    Yesterday, Wednesday I heard a breaking news report on the radio. In one report of the sup-prime crises meeting the reporter said Congressman Barney Frank was described as SCREAMING.

    I think Barney Frank has finally, one week later, understood the damage that has been done. What I can’t fathom yet, is Barney Frank still in the stage of worry about the consequences to him personally. Or, has he begun to consider the wider moral implications of the damage to the United States that he, as chief policy architect, and those around him have inflicted on our country.

    No McCain can’t, and won’t demand this, that or the other of Republicans or Conservatives. He is employing something different, discussion and debate, in short — Leadership.

    Republicans, Conservatives, McCain, David, Rupert, Crawdude, Tim, Bob, Chris, and I are debating the best way to clean up the mess. We didn’t make the mess, nevertheless the task of cleanup falls to us.

    Something needed to be said in that meeting, something the Republicans should not say. LBJ would have, JFK would have, Truman most definitely would have, in direct and blunt language. Did Obama tell Barney Frank to stop covering his ass, tell Barney to sit down and shut up???

    Dean you finger point at Senator Gramm, at Greenspan, at Wallstreet, at this guy, that guy, the guy behind the tree. Anywhere away from the GUILTY.

    But, frankly we are not interested in your finger pointing at the moment.

  • John in Oregon

    Oh and Dean you slam > *McCain did a heckuva job bringing those balky Republicans along.*

    It is true, the House Republicans haven’t been supporting the legislation, particularly the conservatives.

    So you are saying that McCain has either riled up House Republicans or failed to bring them around.

    BUT, *The Democrats control the House.* Democrats can pass legislation without a Republican vote.

    So, Dean are you saying that a majority of _House Dememocrats won’t support a deal unless House Republicans provide “cover”?_ That apparently is the case.

    Which raises some questions.

    Do the House Democrats lack the courage to act without cover to prevent an economic meltdown?

    OR

    Is Nancy Pelosi too ineffective to whip her troops into line to prevent an economic meltdown?

    OR

    It casts doubt on the wisdom of the deal in the first place. If it was the right deal House Democrats wouldn’t back away or need cover.

    Which shows just what a non-factor Obama is in all of this. So, I ask this. Why hasn’t Obama helped the House leadership obtain sufficient support from House Democrats?

    Remember that Barney Frank was acting like a child.

    • dean

      John….congressional politicians are rarely profiles in courage, on either side of the aisle. From what I read, the House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and White House were all in agreement on the basics of the bailout, the dollar amount, a phasing in of funding, limits on executive compensation, and an equity stake for taxpayers. The House Republicans sent an emissary to the meeting (this was prior to the meeting at the White House) who had been given no authority to negotiate anything. Once that was revealed, he left or was booted out, I’m not sure which.

      Later at the White House meeting the House Republicans showed up with an entirely different proposal that Paulsen had already said earlier would not work, amounting to loans and insurance but no purchasing of the bad debt. McCain sat on his duff and eventually sort of supported the House Republicans but not really.

      A bailout of this magnitude is unprecedented. It is like “reforming” social security in a week. Lots of oxes are going to get gored, and yes, the Democrats in the House, who are up for re-election in a few weeks, are not going to hand the Republicans a phony yet potentially deadly populist club to beat them over the head with. Its either all on the bus or no bus. That is bi-partisanship, which is what McCain has been preaching. So yes….if he is going to stop the presses and fly off the DC to help broker a deal for the good of the nation, then he had beter get busy as the new leader of his party with his own party members.

      Now to be clear…I really don’t know who is “at fault” and who isn’t, or to what degree, And I don’t know enough about the world of finance to know whether the solution on the table will work, or if it is the best one out there. I also don’t know that the world would end if they ended up doing next to nothing.

      What I do know is that this crisis happened on the Republican economic watch, and after 28 years of steady deregulation and bowing to the wonders of the free market and evils of government. I think the majority of the American people are also getting that point. That government, meaning us, is either going to provide a solution or it isn’t. THe free market will not. And trying to lay the blame on Barney Frank is pathetic. He was in the minority position for 12 of the past 14 years on the banking committee.

      “Do Democrats lack the courage…” No John, they lack the stupidity to recalibrate the nation’s banking system on the fly while REpublican “free-marketers” stand around and harrumph.

      • Chris McMullen

        “What I do know is that this crisis happened on the Republican economic watch…”

        Jeezus Deanie, give it up already. It’s really sad that you can’t come to terms with your neurosis.

        • dean

          I have an anxiety disorder that compels me to point out basic facts? Only a Republican would make such an accusation.

          • Chris McMullen

            You have a personality disorder that prevents you from admitting when you’re wrong.

            I would assume the same affliction possesses you to lie, as well.

  • John in Oregon

    Three bits of information that are relivant.

    First and interview with House Whip Roy Blunt. Highlights are mine.

    Yellin: Well, Secretary Paulson and the Democrats could reach an agreement and they can reach without you being there in the room at all.

    Blunt: I think we need to be together on this and work together on this, but it means more than take it or leave it. We have been down the take it or leave it road, and you know, *until John McCain came back to Washington this week, the House Republicans were very much on the leave it side of it* and we were arguing for more insurance or loans and protections, but everyone else is rushing for a deal *and frankly John McCain came back and said, the House Republicans have the taxpayers in mind and I am with them.*

    The second is a portion of an email from Congressman John Shadegg to John Hinderaker

    “For the first time since the potential crisis confronting our nation’s banking system arose, I am cautiously optimistic. *The proposal initially offered by Secretary Paulson was irresponsible* and woefully lacking in safeguards for American taxpayers. *Thanks to intervention by Senator McCain, both the White House and Congressional Democrats appear to be moving toward a more responsible rescue plan.”*

    The third is comments from Dick Morris about McCains going to Washington to deal with the negotiations of the proposed bailout package. For those that may not know, Dick Morris was affiliated with the Clinton presidency and is now on the “outs” with the Clintons.

    “”McCain has *transformed a minority in both houses* of Congress and a *losing position in the polls* into the *key role* in the bailout package, the main man around whom the final package will take shape. …”

    “Knowing how *unpopular the bailout is with the American people,* the Democrats are *not about to pass anything without broad Republican support* even though their majorities permit them to act alone. Instead of signing on with the Democratic/Bush package, the House Republicans are insisting on replacing the purchase of corporate debt with loans to companies and insurance paid for by the companies, not by the taxpayers. That, of course, *is a popular position. McCain would be comfortable to debate this issue division all day. …”*

    “The Democrats are not about to be stubborn. They know their package is a lemon and need the political cover of Republican support. So the Republicans can write their own ticket…and they will. John McCain will be at the center of the emerging compromise while Obama is out on the campaign trail kissing babies. If the deal is cut before Friday’s debate, my bet is that McCain shows up in triumph. If it isn’t, he shows up anyway and flagellates Obama over the differences between the Democratic package and McCain’s.”

    From the comments of both Blunt, and Shadegg it looks like many of the objections raised here are at least being heard.

    • dean

      John…you are quoting spin. First, the bailout has been proposed by Bush an Paulson, not Democrats in congress. Second, Democrats and some Republcian senators came back witha modified proposal that improved conditions for we the taxpayers. Then HOuse Republicans came in stamped their feet, and came up with a different proposal that is basically DOA. They will likely get some face saving “option” on loans or insurance that will be toothless but will allow them to claim some sort of victory for the little guy. I think we are both too smart to buy any of it.

      Bottom line is that the legislation that passes, if it passes, will be substantially that which was on the table before the hissy fit and McCain’s useless grandstanding.

      What did you think of the debate? I called it a draw, but early polls suggested undecideds favored Obama, and those are the folks who matter at this point.

  • John in Oregon

    > *First, the bailout has been proposed by Bush an (sic) Paulson, not Democrats in congress.*

    True, what does that have to do with what Blunt, Shadegg, and Morris said. You missed the point.

    > *Second, Democrats and some Republcian (sic) senators came back witha (sic) modified proposal that improved conditions for we the taxpayers.*

    Essentially true, I question the “conditions” part, however what does that have to do with what Blunt, Shadegg, and Morris said. You missed the point.

    > *Then HOuse (sic) Republicans came in stamped their feet, and came up with a different proposal that is basically DOA.*

    Sticks and Stones.

    > *They will likely get some face saving “option” on loans or insurance that will be toothless but will allow them to claim some sort of victory for the little guy. I think we are both too smart to buy any of it. Bottom line is that the legislation that passes, if it passes, will be substantially that which was on the table…*

    We shall see.

    > *before the hissy fit and McCain’s useless grandstanding.*

    You missed the point.

    First what Morris said.

    *Knowing how unpopular the bailout is with the American people*

    He is right about this. The approval ratings are about Congress 9, — Bailout 21, – Bush 30. More important is who and why the American people oppose it. On the more left side, they dislike the idea of business getting breaks. Conservatives tend to see the bailout as so far outside the proper scope of Government you cant see it from here. Both are saying why reward people who screw up?

    Morris is also correct when he said the Democrats *need the political cover of Republican support.*

    Now what Blunt said was *it means more than take it or leave it. We have been down the take it or leave it road*

    What he is telling you here is the Democrats and some Senate Republicans handed the House Republicans (and some silent Blue Dog Democrats) a plan and said you have two choices. Take it or take it. To which the House Republicans said, well … NO.

    Congressman Shadegg said *The proposal initially offered by Secretary Paulson was irresponsible*

    In other words the House Republicans said, well … NO.

    So the Democrats needed cover and the Hours Republicans said NO. You can call that a hissy-fit if you wish, but that sounds like a stalemate to me. Hummmm isnt that what McCain said before he went to DC.

    Beyond the Democrat talking points, I can see why Senator Reid thought he lost ground when McCain came to town. Reid thought he was in a position to offer take it or take it to the House Republicans.

    Blunt also said *John McCain came back and said, the House Republicans have the taxpayers in mind and I am with them.*

    Short version, McCain didn’t ignore us.

    Congressman Shadegg also said *Thanks to intervention by Senator McCain, both the White House and Congressional Democrats appear to be moving toward a more responsible rescue plan.*

    Short version, when McCain came back Bush and the Democrats stopped ignoring us.

    Now here is the key take away. Morris said *McCain has transformed a minority in both houses of Congress and a losing position in the polls into the key role in the bailout package, the main man around whom the final package will take shape. …”*

    Translation. McCain unified the House and Senate Republicans with which the Democrats will now have to deal. Two results.

    The stalemate can be broken,
    And
    The Republicans have an opportunity to change the legislation.

    How that unfolds we will see in the next few days.

    *What did you think of the debate? I called it a draw, but early polls suggested undecideds favored Obama, and those are the folks who matter at this point.*

    I don’t hold much stock in flash poles.

    Obama avoided a serious Gaff. McCain stayed well away from the attack mode which he can’t use with Obama.

    Obama didn’t show depth of understanding. I don’t know more about him than I did before.

    McCain started weak the first question. Obama talked over McCain, puckered, and used McCains first name. All somewhat rude.

    • dean

      John…oops…I use your first name. Sorry for being rude.

      On the bailout….tell me what substantively the Republicans in the House have changed about the plan that was on the table when they walked into the White house meeting. What I read in the papers says they may get some language that gives Treasury an “option” to issue loans or insurance rather than purchase on the lousy paper. Insurance is basically idiotic. Its like buying fire insurance AFTER your house has burned down. Too late. Loans as an option were already there implicitly, and as a tool they have been dissed by Paulsen as not workable.

      So….the hissy fit has led to what exactly? Its about a political fig leaf, so they can pretend to their constituents they did something. Like you said, this bailout is extremly unpopular amongst proletariat both right and left. For the left, it is money that could have been used to extend health care, build needed infrastructure, or recover endangered species sent to Wall Street investors who tend to not be Democrats. For the right, it is BIG GOVERNMENT to the rescue of their church of the free market. Embarassing at best, a major setback to any further deregulation at worst.

      How could such a program ever be “popular?” Other than for those getting bailed out, which is a small number of well heeled investors, it can’t be. Its like wanting to go to the dentist to get a root canal, necessary and very expensive, but not popular . The problem is, not doing it MAY lead to a credit crunch that freezes up the economy, leads to very high unemployment, an even steeper decline in home values, possible loss of money market funds that are supposed to be the answer to Social Security, and so forth. You want unpopular? Now THAT would be unpopular. If Democrats were as nasty as you on the right think they are, they would let the collapse happen, blame it on the House Republicans who whined about the bailout, and let Bush go down as the second Republican president who initiated a great depression. The last one led to 50 years of Democratic political dominance.

      Back to the debate…on style points, McCain’s 90 minute grimace and inability to look Obama in the eye probably did not do him well with the undecideds, who are mostly women from what I hear. On foreign policy substance, both knew the terrain, and that works to Obama’s favor since he is the untested one. On economics, both were unwilling to acknowledge the deep pickle we are in, and how it makes McCain’s proposed tax cuts impossible (especially with a Democratic Congress), and Obama’s proposed spending programs unlikely.

      Still a close race, with slight edge to Obama as we move into the home stretch. And McCain better hope Palin can remember her lines next week and not have a meltdown in front of 60 million people.

  • John in Oregon

    Hummmm. Which bubble to prick first.

    > *So….the hissy fit has led to what exactly? Its about a political fig leaf, so they can pretend to their constituents they did something.*

    So lets see who exactly is throwing the hussy fit. Nancy Pelosi had the gall Saturday to go before cameras and say that House Republicans non-participation made them, quote “unpatriotic.”

    When one examines the facts the following is found. The House Republicans were excluded. So you can’t change the meaning of excluded let me give you the definition. The Republican negotiators failed to attend a meeting of which they were not notified, and were not invited. (American Spectator and Lindsey Graham)

    But you are right about the Legacy Media spin that not being invited is being unpatriotic. I noticed that it’s gotten so bad that Brit Hume made some comments about it Sunday.

    > *[T]ell me what substantively the Republicans in the House have changed about the plan that was on the table when they walked into the White house meeting. What I read in the papers says they may get some language that gives Treasury an “option” to issue loans or insurance rather than purchase on the lousy paper.*

    The Republican negotiators failed to attend a meeting of which they were not notified, and were not invited. So what part of not invited don’t you understand?

    But you ask a fair question about what was accomplished. I understand you don’t know from reading the legacy media.

    *O* The Republicans put strings on the availability of funds beyond $250 billion. Congressional approval required for the last $350 billion.

    *O* The Republicans added a requirement that Treasury establish an insurance program which would be funded by participating companies. (This may be a big deal or may not.)

    *O* The Republicans established a bipartisan oversight committee, rather than a committee run only by the Democrats, as Dodd and Frank had proposed.

    *O* The Republicans took out special interest boondoggles for unions and for ACORN, the voter fraud organization.

    *O* The Republicans removed a provision that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to arbitrarily reduce mortgages, an ill-conceived measure that would have aggravated a central cause of the current crisis, the difficulty of evaluating mortgage-backed securities. (The get out of mortgage free card.)

    *O* The Republicans mandated a GAO study on the impact of the mark-to-market accounting rule, implicitly encouraging regulatory agencies to revise or abandon that principle, which is a key reason why banks that have little to do with the origins of the crisis are currently threatened.

    *O* The Republicans amended the Democrat provision set compensation for all companies. It’s now only those that are taken over.

    *O* The Republicans deleted the Democrat “say on pay” or Union Proxy rule to sit on boards.

    *O* The Republicans deleted Government ownership of equity of all firms who have bad Fannie or Freddie paper. Now applies to firms taken over only.

    *O* The Republicans added the ability of Community Banks to take losses on bad Fannie and Freddie paper against income.

    By my count that’s something like ten changes.

    > *How could such a program ever be “popular?” Other than for those getting bailed out, which is a small number of well heeled investors, it can’t be.*

    Dean you are wearing blue tinted glasses.

    The bad Fannie, Freddie, and CRA paper is impacting a lot more than a small number of well heeled investors. Its impacting 401K and pension funds all the way to banks that did the CRA loans.

    > *For the right, it is BIG GOVERNMENT to the rescue of their church of the free market. Embarassing (sic) at best, a major setback to any further deregulation at worst.*

    You should give that up Dean, like the regulation of Fannie and Freddie that Barney Frank proposed? Oh wait, he opposed it. He liked the House and Senate doing the oversight. He also liked the CRA inspired government manuals that stated that outdated banking practices like credit history and down payment are evidence of discrimination. Frank and Dodd did a really good job didn’t they, Fannie and Freddie are sound and chugging along fine?

  • John in Oregon

    I just ran across an article that is relevant to the current crises.

    *O’S DANGEROUS PALS
    BARACK’S ‘ORGANIZER’ BUDS PUSHED FOR BAD MORTGAGES*
    New York Post
    September 29, 2008

    The first paragraph begins;

    “WHAT exactly does a “community organizer” do? Barack Obama’s rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here’s a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit. ”

    The article continues;

    “In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.”

    “The seeds of today’s financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act – a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.”

    Read the whole thing, its informative.

    • dean

      Geez John….community organizers did this? No kidding? That is desperate reaching my friend.

    • John in Oregon

      One step at a time.

      Do you agree that the present “crises” is due to sub-prime loans given to applicants who are unable or unwilling to keep current with payments?

      BTW, the news article said “help to” it did not say “was the only cause” as you implied in your comment.

      • dean

        John…broadly speaking yes. Sub-prime loans, offered by private capital, accepted by those who were overextended or under resourced. Then the re-packaging of those loans with good loans, sold to unsuspecting or uncaring investors under AAA bond ratings. It was a Ponzi scheme based on ever rising real estate values. When interest rates went up and real estate values stopped going up, many sub-prime borrowers defaulted on their loans, and the house of cards began to collapse.

        But….”community organizers?” I’ll put it this way, they have been around a long time. Why did they not cause a housing bubble and collapse until this moment?

  • Pingback: tickled()

  • Pingback: contoh wacana()

  • Pingback: pengertian hasil belajar()

  • Pingback: contoh qiyas()

  • Pingback: contoh variabel penelitian()

  • Pingback: perbedaan demokrasi langsung dan tidak langsung()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas dan terikat()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas dan terikat()

  • Pingback: pay4you()

  • Pingback: pengertian budaya()

  • Pingback: pengertian disiplin()

  • Pingback: flight and hotel deals()

  • Pingback: pengertian demonstrasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian hasil belajar()

  • Pingback: limbah domestik()

  • Pingback: contoh limbah rumah tangga()

  • Pingback: karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: manfaat keberagaman budaya()

  • Pingback: limbah domestik()

  • Pingback: contoh wacana()

  • Pingback: karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: contoh limbah rumah tangga()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas()

  • Pingback: contoh karangan()

  • Pingback: pengertian hasil belajar()

  • Pingback: run roshe homme()

  • Pingback: nike store online uk()

  • Pingback: 10M Hdmi Cable()

  • Pingback: test()

  • Pingback: lace wigs()

  • Pingback: iherb neocell collagen()

  • Pingback: iherb ek()

  • Pingback: iherb black garlic()

  • Pingback: rabattkode iherb 10()

  • Pingback: sac louis vuitton pas cher()

  • Pingback: 1/2-Inch Drive Click Torque Wrench()

  • Pingback: hey()

  • Pingback: learn more here()

  • Pingback: learn more here()

  • Pingback: go here()

  • Pingback: discover more()

  • Pingback: circuit moto vietnam()

  • Pingback: go here()

  • Pingback: custom resume writing service()

  • Pingback: buy essay writing()

  • Pingback: read more()

  • Pingback: click this link()

  • Pingback: visit the site()

  • Pingback: buy plagiarism free essays()

  • Pingback: hoverboard with lights()

  • Pingback: top custom writing service()

  • Pingback: go here()

  • Pingback: find out more()

  • Pingback: you could try here()

  • Pingback: check my site()

  • Pingback: read more()

  • Pingback: cute beach comforters()

  • Pingback: cute designer comforters()

  • Pingback: click this link()

  • Pingback: cute hipster comforters()

  • Pingback: cute blue comforters()

  • Pingback: cute comforters cheap()

  • Pingback: cute beachy comforters()

  • Pingback: cute cheetah comforters()

  • Pingback: oakley fuel cell()

  • Pingback: cute comforters()

  • Pingback: ofertas oakley()

  • Pingback: cute affordable comforters()

  • Pingback: charles oakley()

  • Pingback: 【送料無料】 Pelikan Souveran ボールペン K800 緑縞 グリーンストライプ ペリカン スーベレーン()

  • Pingback: cute comforters()

  • Pingback: cute bed comforters sets()