U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 17, 2008 08:50 PM UTC
37 Comments
Bush is at least SOMEWHAT to blame NEWSMAN? What do you think the Ownership Society was? Give people cash to buy things they can afford? Absolutely not.
Meant to post it myself.
because IBD would rather blame the borrowers for forcing the lenders and business to take advantage of them! It’s those whiney broke ass Americans fault, not the mortgage lenders! If Americans would just stop whining about the economy and deregulate the “free-market” everything would be ok, right?
You make me sick.
for needing electricity in California after McShameful and the GOP deregulated the energy markets and Enron, Duke, Williams et al purposefully screwed the consumers to make even more and more and more money.
Socialism is for corporations, GB, not people who have needs. That’s why its National Socialism, and that’s why AS loves it.
good thing McShameful was busy doing all that over sighting of the economy for the past 8 years!
McCain paraphrse
Own Republican Failure.
Clinton’s only problem was he agreed to do what the GOP wanted…
And pictures don’t lie…
And to repeat what has been said earlier, Greenspan–a Republican–said the Tax Cuts for the Rich that were wanted by Bush–another Republican–were the best thing since sliced bread.
Greenspan actually said the problem might be we’d pay off the debt too fast.
The largest nationalizing of just about anything, anywhere happened this week and not a single “free market” Republican even blinked an eye.
Own Failure. Stand up and take it like a man. It’s the GOP’s fault. Own it. Love it.
And just wonder how many welfare queens we could have given a good life instead of the billions we’re bailing out CEOs now.
Socialism…..brought to you by George W. Bush’s Sec. of Treasury!
and there are absolutely no references or statistics in the entire article to buttress the claim that the community redevelopment act, or loans to minorities, are a contributing factor to the current Wall Street meltdown.
If I were a teacher I would give this article an F. “Any evidence to back your assertion ?”. Of course not.
Crack pipe economics 101.
.
After all, Iranians nationalized foreign oil investments in the 1950’s;
Saudis nationalizing Amoco and Aramco holdings in ? 1970 ?;
the Suez and Panama Canals were nationalized.
But when I looked at the numbers, you appear to be right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…
Check out the banner under which this nationalization operates.
George Bush, world-class socialist.
.
Newsie is dog paddling on this one.
The President and your so-called “republican” nominee are now Socialists by all accounts for what that is now considered to be by all you right winger nutters!
Your obsession with all things Clinton is truly amazing….and disturbing.
I wrote not one word of the post above. The only aurthorship I own is the headline, which accurately reflects my understanding of the story that was linked. If you have a problem it’s with Investors Business Daily, not me.
Now I happen to agree with the story and have know these things for over 2 years. This is widely known and acknowledged in investment circles. Unintended consequences of liberal good intentions. The Congress set this up just like they did the S and L crisis.
The 1986 tax reform act that changed how passive losses were handled is what triggered the S & L crisis. The Keating greed was an also ran, that effected only a small portion of the market.
I personally lay the blame at the feet of the liberal Democrats in the Congress for the current banking and financial crisis, Bill Clinton is just an unindicted
co-conspirator.
Now, who gets the woody when they hear the word “deregulation.” Conservatives or Liberals?
Obviously Dems climbed onboard the Republican Deregulation Express, but the underlying causes of this mess are decidedly Republican in spirit and execution.
This post is almost – almost – as bad as AS(S)’.
Another part of Reagan’s voodoo economics, if I recall correctly.
First, you linked to an opinion page. Would you be persuaded if I linked an opinion from a website with titles like, “McCain’s Double Dealing Diplomacy”, “Prison of War in Chief”?
Second, if Clinton put the Community Redevelopment Act ‘on steroids’, why didn’t the Republicans change the policy? They had plenty of time to do so before losing power. This tells me that Bush Republicans were too pansy about standing up for what they believed and chose to exacerbate the situation instead of fix it. Or, maybe they had no idea it was a problem.
Finally, are you really willing to say that the low interest rates, encouraged by Bush to promote his Ownership Society, had no role in the current debacle we find ourselves in?
when the discount rate will be lowered. The Fed didn’t lower it this week, but you know they’re going to–they have to curb inflation somehow. What will that make it, 1.75%?
We are selling our country to the rest of the world for pennies on the dollar.
I don’t begrudge the government stepping in to avert financial catastrophes. I don’t begrudge them helping Americans buy homes.
I do begrudge them the partisan blinders that limit their ability to govern.
What NEWSMAN fails to point out is Clinton had the moxie to take on his party, work with the Republicans and straighten out the budget.
Yet, I don’t know of a single Republican who is saying America is better off eight years later.
to avert disaster, and I applaud their decision to take over AIG (without it, the entire world’s economy could have been badly wounded.)
I have yet to hear anyone make the claim that we’re better off now. That’s because it’s simply not true.
IIRC, not one R voted for Clinton’s proposed 1993 budget. And I don’t remember much Kum-by-ya in other matters of budgets.
The Funny thing is the Community Reinvestment Act has been around since the 70’s, and yet, it’s only causing problems now? I had another Conservative tell me recently that the whole financial meltdown could be traced back solely to the existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite the fact that Fannie Mae has been around since 1938 and Freddie Mac since the 50’s. Sure took a long time for those problems to occur! Or maybe they are just full of it!
which encouraged home ownership for returning World War II veterans. If the parents of the parents of today’s subprime borrowers hadn’t owned homes, the expectation never would have been there and the speculative real estate frenzy of the early ’00s never would’ve gotten off the ground.
Also Levittown. And the Interstate Highway System.
What I do find amazing, again and again, is the wingnut’s ability to find ways to shift the blame for their own failures onto Liberals and minorities. It is quite a developed talent. I’m sure there has to be some room for blame in there for the Jew run media.
Maybe IBD has been reading Pols, since our Very Own Nancy L Baldwin posted essentially this same thesis a few days ago. I’m too lazy to look it up now, but I remember it. I think she forgot to blame Bill Clinton, though, being an (alleged) Hillary Clinton fan.
That was, I think, the first post of Nancy
With The Period…um….
Here’s the brief edition: Before lenders were pressured into approving more loans for minorities, the default rate for whites and minorities was almost exactly the same. The CRA, which is actually a long series of legislations, came along and told the lenders to do more with poor credit risks.
Well, just like what goes up must come down (pre rocket days!), a loan made to a riskier individual has a greater chance of going into default. And it has happened a lot in the last two years.
Now, where NEWSMAN and Nancy get it wrong is the percentage of problems at the GSE’s that are due to the CRA efforts. It’s pretty small.
Blaming “multi-culturalism” for this crisis is preposterous. You post unsupported propaganda and seem to imply that the dominant culture has members all of good credit.
You also falsely state that Clinton deregulated oversite.
between putting a stop to red-lining, and sending the mortgage industry on a drunken, speculative spree, is immense. Clinton did one, his successor (and Alan Greenspan) did the other.
Jeez, man, I just went through this running of the gantlet last week. I am NOT “blaming multiculturalism,” just what the changes of politically correct underwriting have done to the overall quality of loans. Banks WANT to make loans, but they don’t want to make them to people with a history of income instability and credit lates, white, black or polka dotted. And sadly, many of those people are minorities. Making loans to less creditworthy people means greater defaults. It’s that simple, bottom line.
Making a loan to Uncle Ralph who spends afternoons at the track is a lot riskier than to Uncle Bud who works for the post office, generally, no?
I spent a decade in the mortage business, brokered and underwrote loans, did a lot of what we called back then B and C paper (now subprime,) and did sales and underwriting consulting to morgage brokers.
Now, what did you say your credentials in this argument are? Besides hurling invectives?
Well, you got me there. I didn’t sell sub prime loans to people that couldn’t afford them.
Your statements implying that minorities contain more risk is neither substantiated nor documented.
I also recognize prejudice when I see it.
Paul has the courage to be honest about what actually happened.
That’s debatable. What actualy happened is a number of things. First mortgage brokers wrote business with a high disregard for the rules. Secondly, investment bankers bundled the materials into derivative securities and sold the assets away from the original insitution. Finally, the US govenment adopted a policy of no regulation nor oversight, massive deficits that weakened the dollar, and war profiteering.
To blame the “mortgage” crisis on minorities is flat bigotry that hides behind the mask of institutional racism.
Those who make bigoted statements and hide behind an anonymous username remind me of a klansman that hides behind the sheet:Mr.”Newsman”
Are from different political parties and disagree frequently.
We both are on record on issues of fairness and inclusiveness.
To tell the truth about the changes the government made during the Clinton administration pushed by Acorn, Obama, Jesse Jackson, Blarney Frank, and Chis Dodd are not racist, unless you thing the unvarnished truth is racist.
If I read this editorial right, it claims that the reason for the tremendous deregulation was some underlying attempt to be politically correct and allow more minorities access to loans? While I am all for people being able to reinterpret history and re-examine certain things, I think that this as a thesis is flawed.
The reason for deregulation, while I have no proof of this, is that Gramm’s bill was to ensure that investment banks and mortgage lenders could increase the number of mortgages so that they could be sold as securities easier. I don’t think that altruism, political correctness or any other factors really fell into this. The NINJA loans weren’t a way to get more minorities, but to get more loans. If you have more investors looking to get into mortgage securities than you do actual loans, you need to increase them. To do that, you need to give out more loans, easiest way to do that is to reduce the restrictions on the loans.
Not saying that those that chose to misrepresent their income or anything like that are free from guilt, but trying to place blame for the subprime situation on President Clinton is a bit reaching, especially saying that its because those investment folk were just trying to follow his lead and let more minorities and poor people find out what its like to have a home.
Here is what the IBD story actually said:
What actually happened is a number of things. First mortgage brokers wrote business with a high disregard for the rules. Secondly, investment bankers bundled the materials into derivative securities and sold the assets away from the original insitution. Finally, the US govenment adopted a policy of no regulation nor oversight, massive deficits that weakened the dollar, and war profiteering.
To blame the “mortgage” crisis on minorities is flat bigotry that hides behind the mask of institutional racism.
Those who make bigoted statements and hide behind an anonymous username remind me of a klansman that hides behind the sheet:Mr.”Newsman”