Sorry Ira, I know you mentioned the mortgage crisis. I added to it but now realize I should have stated I was recognizing your initial commentary and adding to it. It looks like I did not realize you had made the statment on the lending schemes. My bad.

Thats what I said. We both could add to your statement I am sure.

Thats what I said. We both could add to your statement I am sure.

The house of cards economy you speak of was seen by many a long time ago. The only reason it performed well from 2001 to 2006 was due to the housing market. The sub-prime mortgages allowd people to enter the market who should not have been in it, that drove up demand, which in turn drove up prices. As prices went up people were able to borrow against this new found "wealth" called equity. The problem was that the rest of the economy stunk: real wages stagnated; inflation skyrocketed (and still is); job growth was tepid and mostly in the lower paying service industry where benefits are lower and part timers are utilized more often. And we continue to bleed manufacturing and high-tech jobs profusely. Until recently Wall Street has done well though as corporate profits have been at record paces along with corporate taxes being at record lows (as a % of gdp). Good for companies and investors, not necessarily for workers as shown in high stock performance and lavish executive pay vs no growth in employee pay (after inflation).

Carl, it was obvious to me before the problems appeared what the obvious outcome would be. However, no one in the current goverment was going to lift a finger in an action that may slow the economy. We have far more money going out than in. If the ponzi mortgage schemes had not been allowed to operate the emperors clothes would have appeared as they truly are much sooner. Many people in this country made a choice on what kind of economy they would prefer with their votes. One would have to be a tad bit slow to think that Bush/Cheney intended to be economic gurus that would lead us through the dark times.

When you loan other peoples money, to people who don't qualify for the loan, with "No Document Loans" and "Interest Only Loans" and "Variable Interest Rate Loans", you're looking for trouble. Just because you qualify for a certain mortgage amount, doesn't mean that you should necesarily borrow that much. It's not how much you can borrow, its how much you can pay back! These are not strange, new rules to lenders. The real estate sellers and the mortgage lenders just gave other peoples money away and they need to be held accountable for it.

Shall set you free: The repeal of parts of Glass-Steagall had bi-partisan support and even majority leader Trent Lott was on record stating how both parties had been trying to accomplish the reform for years. Clinton did not veto the legislation that was supported by the Republican controlled houses in both chambers. I really wish that some day we could get off this Clinton is to be blamed for everything train. There are those who believe that this legislation did help pave the way for the sub-prime market to come into existence and bring about huge rewards at first but now huge losses. But no matter what, the Repubs share as much blame for the situation as Clinton does. Some people need to get over themselves and admit that their "side" also shares blame many times.

That does not quite explain the repubs refusing to fix said problem when they had approx 10 1/2 years of majority control in both houses of Congress including the majority of incompetent Bush's eight years in office. The blame of those yester years include very recent years of republicans' rule.

First of all, liberals are not just democrats. Most of Congress is liberal on fiscal issues. The sub-prime lending issue is the result of several factors. One of them is the federal government "coercing" lenders into lending money to borrowers who were, in the past, bad risks. Another is competition. Some may call it greed, but when lenders are allowed to make questionable loans, others tend to follow suit. It fed the real estate market and drove the values up which allowed borrowers to borrow more money. This is a natural correction, just as there was a fall in the stock markets after they were overbought in the late 90s. As for golden handcuffs, when in the history of capitalism has it been ok to limit what one should earn? These company heads are getting a ton of money, but when is it we should dictate what they are worth? Isn't that what the boards, stockholders, and consumers are supposed to do. Companies don't do well sometimes, get over it. Sell your stock, vote someone on the board, and stop buying what these companies sell. It's not that tough.

As stated by Robert Kuttner:
"Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999....super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s – lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn’t paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas." Glass Steagall was established in 1933 to keep commercial banking and investment firms separate, to avoid another depression. Guess who repealed Glass Steagall? That's right...good old Bill Clinton. I wonder if this is also part of the vast experience that Hillary's bragging about. Let's not kid ourselves, friends....this is not going to end well.

So the libs are at it again I see. Congress is to blame. Well the last time I checked the Repubs controlled both houses from Jan 1993 to Jan 2007. The sub-prime market started to show its weaknesses before the 2006 elections. So the Dems are to blame because they were not in control of congress? Sheesh! Talk about an argument based on no facts and only partisan hyperbole. Noone forced lenders into sub-prime loans. It was pure greed driven by record low lending rates and an industry wanting to make the most money it could by letting unqualified home buyers buy houses through questionable practices. The market did this one not the boogey men liberals who for some seem to be at fault for everything that has or could ever go wrong.

But if you are to send them off with Golden Handcuffs then you had better arrest and handcuff the People in Washington who forced the lenders to take on the shakey morgages in the first Place. And I am almost willing to be the most supporters of forcing the Banking industries to accept the shaky morgage practices in the first place started right in congress and their party sign is a donkey's BUTT that is right the Liberal Democrats have struck again and now are trying to place this blame on the republicans when they are the ones who forced these practices on the banking industries yrs ago. So let's place the blame where it really belong on congress of yester years.