Ashrak,

The only reason I'm supporting Paul is because of the uphill battle its been to get people to see the truth of what happened. By and large, they don't, or won't. Yes, derregulation went a long way toward causing this mess.

If perhaps you are a rigid buff of the gold standard, its easier to seperate government from controling the means of production. But, in banking, unless you buy into the flaws of the gold standard, you raise the burden of regulating capital requirements on things like mortgage lending and insurance.

I don't come to the libertarians easy because they struggle with all sorts of things that can protect the stability of the economy, as we know it. Liberty shouldn't exist for Credit Default Swaps, naked short selling and other things that may as well be legalized theft with the way these institutions break down.

I'd like to take a crack-

"In a nutshell, Countrywide would issue mortgages and bundle them off within a week and sell the bundle to Fannie or Freddie who would then sell them off to private investors. "

FNMA/FHLMC HELD the sub-prime mortgages. They did not return them to the market, because, remember, they were told to prop the market up and this isn't something selling them would do.

"Fannie and Freddie did not do their due diligence in vetting the loans."

Yes, they should have known what they were BUYING, but it was the private originators whose credit verification began the fraud. There are things called "reps and warranties" on these loans, and BOA just lost a lawsuit filed by insurer MBIA, for the Countrywide loans. Now, we know Countrywide engaged in verifiable FRAUD.

Time hasn't done you "CRA", Alinsky, ACORN dreamers much good. Look up MBIA's suit, if you don't believe me. Assured Guarantee is in the middle of another suit, as I write.

"The Wall Street banks were the ones left holding the bag after they passed through Fannie and Freddie. "

See above. It is ridiculous to suggest Big Government was sophisticated enough to package CDO's. Look up Goldman's "Abacus" deal to take a closer look (no government involved).

---This is what broke my Republican back.

"How many of those 84% were GUARANTEED by Fannie and Freddie? "

Fannie and Freddie bought around 350 billion in privately underwritten sub-prime mortgages in 2006. I don't think they guaranteed them, because they weren't conforming loans.

The agencies were allowed to buy mortgages, as well as have loan originators write and guarantee them on their behalf. There's a big difference. Like any corporation, that can go out and buy securities, it was the instruction to do this that stung them. If the agencies stuck with conforming loans, their problems would have been far less. This doesn't change the fact that all sub-prime and alt-A started life at the private firms, who were willing to write them to just about anything that could "fog a mirror".

That's what happens when banks don't income verify. They were selling the loans to the CDO mills, so what did they care?

I'm not surprised illegals got loans. Just surprised I'm on the hook for the banks that gave them away. Surprised that my taxes went to pay for the "insurance" AIG wrote, just in case an illegal walks.

You have a passion

for ignorance.

Look MystWlker,
>>>Except that the housing crash, drastically reducing property values, led to the economic stall and it's resultant job losses, which in turn caused myriad defaults on otherwise secure home loans as the homeowners lost their means to make the payments.

What he originally told you was correct. Sub-prime was lent to people in new developments, typically in a 20-50 mile radius from major urban US centers. Anybody reading this from California knows sub-prime was rampant within the Inland Empire regions of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Chriss Street's article, right here on Breitbart, yesterday, confirms this because Cal got half the settlement money.

The sub-prime crisis DID NOT manifest in blighted urban (minority) "CRA" areas. Study Nevada, Florida and Arizona, and think for yourself.

Missy, My complements to your dialing it down.

The agencies wrote "conforming" loans, mostly made up of instances where 20% or more was put down, or where PMI applied. They wrote a combined 6 trillion in mortgages. They capsized, like all the housing underwriters did, private, or public. In their case,

1-fraud in having insufficient capital reserves.
2-the sub-prime they were instructed to buy (700 billion of the 1,800 billion market).

I've given up on the mixed narrative of Big Government AND Wall Street causing this crisis because too many refuse to open their minds. Besides 61 billion is nothing but another opportunity for establisment politicians to multiply something that makes them look good, by ten (over 10 years). Housing lost 6 trillion in equity, and the score on principal modification is overwhelmingly in favor of the banks. Heck, they're still talking interest rate mods.

Hey Dave, Haven't had the chance to reply to your drivel in some time. Sooooo many banks weren't under the CRA, which I'm sure your Daddy told you to cite whenever anybody suggests there may be criminals out there.

A "stiff fine" paid by the federal government, would come out of our pockets.

Welcome to bailout nation.

Obama's biggest liability. Personally, his stewardship of a 10% deficit to GDP ratio is what I would call radical. He is Left in so many other ways, but radical only in this one. Normally, the ratio is 3%, or sustainable with the growth in GDP.

Romney/Santorum will be marginally better. What's worse, is their mission will be for 8 years, where Obama has nothing to lose in his last four. Its Presidential re-elections that bring endless tax cuts, prescription drug benefits, "ownership societies", big navies and war, because every one of them artificially stimulates the economy, through Big Government borrowing.

Remember, the last President to stand against borrowing only lasted four years.

The big spenders, and the Laffer termites, have screwed this country. And most of us voted for it.