Comments on: Don’t panic, the financial crisis doesn’t call for a $700 billion bailout http://spgg.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/dont-panic-the-financial-crisis-doesnt-call-for-a-700-billion-bailout/ Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:42:10 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: JackAcid http://spgg.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/dont-panic-the-financial-crisis-doesnt-call-for-a-700-billion-bailout/#comment-363 JackAcid Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:42:10 +0000 http://spgg.wordpress.com/?p=494#comment-363 You need to do a little more homework. This problem wasn't caused by either just the Democrats or just the Republicans, nor was it simply a result of deregulation. In fact, there are some regulations which specifically added to the problem by forcing lending institutions to give loans to unqualified borrowers if they wanted government favors - under the guise of equal housing opportunity. You'll also find that a huge amount of this happened in the mid to late 1990's with some key changes made in 1999. Surely you remember who was in charge at that time. This problem transcends party lines and is not likely to be properly addressed by either party. Despite the very real possibility of a major depression, we probably would have been better off to refuse a bailout of any kind and "take our medicine" rather than reap what's coming in the future as a result of this debacle. So from that point of view I can certainly agree with you on the "no bailout" thing, but I have to take issue with tons of your assertions and assumptions in this piece. You need to do a little more homework. This problem wasn’t caused by either just the Democrats or just the Republicans, nor was it simply a result of deregulation. In fact, there are some regulations which specifically added to the problem by forcing lending institutions to give loans to unqualified borrowers if they wanted government favors – under the guise of equal housing opportunity.

You’ll also find that a huge amount of this happened in the mid to late 1990’s with some key changes made in 1999. Surely you remember who was in charge at that time.

This problem transcends party lines and is not likely to be properly addressed by either party. Despite the very real possibility of a major depression, we probably would have been better off to refuse a bailout of any kind and “take our medicine” rather than reap what’s coming in the future as a result of this debacle. So from that point of view I can certainly agree with you on the “no bailout” thing, but I have to take issue with tons of your assertions and assumptions in this piece.

]]>