Mr Gross. The last thing we need in today's politically charged environment is partisan finger pointing.

So the Treasury finally takes note and steps up to the plate in a meaningful way to address the issue. Had they not, I'm sure they'd soon be getting loving spoonsful of 'Katrina' style criticism. I can somewhat appreciate the low profile manner in which the Fed and Treasury had taken from the point of view of not conflating the issue and further dampening consumer confidence, but time was overdue for them to step in and give some direction. (I say 'direction', not bailout....we don't need another taxpayer funded bailout)

Barney Frank is drawing attention to the problem as well, should raise we an eyebrow and snark: "what's in it for him?", "what Wall Street 'buddies' is he helping?" or should we simply be relieved that our government officials are actually doing something that we pay them to do, other than snipe at each other. Kudos to Mr Frank as well as to Mr Paulson for joining the party, albeit more than fashionably late.

The fact of the matter is that most actors in the fiasco carry some responsibility for the current mortgage debacle, as another commentator noted in the link above. "The truth is that all parties played a role here. Banks ignored their own warning flags, and borrowers got in way over their head."

Had they not made risky loans (which is the subrprime market specialty) they'd have come under fire for a boatload of other presumed 'reasons'. I, as a real estate professional of 14 years have seen similar 'crisis' in the housing industry and rise fall cyclically. 10 or so years ago, (during the Clinton administrations oversight), radio advertisements could be heard regularly for lenders willing to refinance your home for 125% of its current value. (shock!)

I used to be stunned, but sadly, I've become accustomed to this type of greed in our society. It knows no political boundaries. So while I appreciate you airing the matter , attempting to suggest solutions would be better than attempting to tie the subprime meltdown and credit crunch to a political party.

David Hucker

Actually partisanship does belong in the subprime debate. Minorities, people in big cities, the poor, and the young foreclose at a higher rate than old wealthy whites in the country. It's nearly a demographic certainty that more democrats are foreclosed on than republicans, because every pattern that leans people towards voting dem is also a risk factor for foreclosing.

<link>

note, of the 17% that say they're "falling behind" 74% voted dem in 2006. That 12% dem voters falling behind to only 5% rep voters.

Bush's tax cuts caused deficit spending. Deficit spending accelerates inflation. Inflation leads to speculative home buying. BUBBLE!

Well then, its simple isn't it....

It's BOOOSH's fault....

That seems to be the knee jerk reaction these days, but greed on the part of investment bankers and short sightedness on the part of home buyers are the major factors here. Nobody put a gun to the heads of the 'poor or the colored or the old' and made them get a subprime mortgage. There are other viable options for retired persons and elderly such as reverse mortgages or simply renting. Poor people can rent until their credit (if impaired) is improved sufficiently to get a mortgage. Heck, anyone regardless of circumstance can get an FHA loan.... There are literally millions of 'poor' people who have gotten them over the years. So the 'only thing available to them' excuse doesn't wash.

Please, lets try to be rational. Its economic, not political.

The subprime market caters to people with bad or poor credit...(you mentioned the word 'risk' in your statement and that is exactly what the subprime takes on when lending to people with impaired credit.

or other extenuating circumstances like self employed income (which
includes a lot of 'wealthy white' folks. Racial demographics don't enter into the equation due to civil rights, housing laws (redlining) etc. So please lay the blame where it belongs...which is equally distributed amongst all players.

If politics played such a role here, where was the Democrat Congress in trying to stem the tide of foreclosures? They are after all the majority....I have yet to see a bill encouraging regulation of this fallout.

"Nobody put a gun to the heads of the 'poor or the colored or the old' and made them get a subprime mortgage."

You don't need guns when you have teaser rates, numbnuts!

The deficit spending that caused the bubble happened when republicans controlled congress and the presidency. Dems were helpless, until Katrina blew them into office.

And, I am not a kneejerk Bush-basher. Ask fucking anyone who regularly posts here. I'm glad Saddam's dead, even though I must admit the war was botched horribly.

Actually, it's too bad that Saddam is dead - before he had a chance to testify in the US, in public hearings, about his dealings with members and former members of the last few administrations. I think it would be interesting to hear about the extent to which we armed both Iraq and Iran, knowing that any war either of them was involved in would be an excuse for US forces to enter the region.

I would guess that, for at least a few decades, much of the fighting in the Middle East has been facilitated by weapons supplied by the US. A couple of months ago, there was a news item about some 200,000 weapons which belonged to the US had gone missing in the Middle East. Quite significant was the detail that most of the missing weapons were AK-47s. Now, if that doesn't hint of trying to set up some pretext for "plausible deniability", then nothing does.