For anyone intereseted in the facts of the 1999 Banking act go here:

http://banking.senate.gov/conf/

Not the vote was 90 to 8 in favor and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

I saw this a few years ago when I was doing furniture removals... hundreds of people were having their houses repossessed by the banks and having to go into rental home... some of the rental homes we moved some people to were actually repossessed homes of people we had moved weeks before... the housing market was slow so the banks employed agencies to rent them out instead.

I'm no expert, either... but one thing I do know, while it's bad now... it's going to get a bloody sight worse

Thanks for this.  I read the executive summary and didn't see a thing in there directing any banks to lower their lending standards for anyone.

Sen. Phil Gramm, isn't he the guy that just recently called us a bunch of whiners because of our financial woes. I think he also had something to do with Prop. 13 in California. I think he is a jerky kind of guy (sort of like Stark) but has been a long proponent of less taxation.

I concur, it only provides provisions so that they deregulate/expand their, at that time, current financial activities. the Devil is in the details (remember Enron)

Hmmmm... there are over 170 vacant rental propreties in my sister's suburb (and it aint that big) yet there is a growing number of homeless people in the area.  Why are they vacant?  Because it's a working class area and people can't afford 250 - 300 bucks a week in rent... and the agents/property owners would rather see them empty than make the rents more affordable.

9:00 PM EST tonight we will find out.

Well that told us nothing except that the Prez is scared as shit and fealt it necessary to calm the public.

I think we all know that something will be done to bailout the sub-prime mortage loans losses but I am glad to see that both sides is fence have qualms about passing the bill that was presented. The American people are 90 to 1 against the bailout (surprise?) on general terms. This will be tough one for those that pass the bill and will be seeking re-election with those kind of numbers.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean but, a near unanimous opinion within the general public, not likely.  For example, the failure of WaMu bank which began in its sub-prime lending area and accelerated into it's ARM mortgage area shows, at first glance it could appear, had largely to do with its own banking practices. 

While there should be no sympathy for any company that destroys itself through its own stupid choices, at least not as far as a government bailout, such failures are rapidly becoming widespread and economic strain can fairly quickly spread through a large swath of the banking sector and from there everywhere else.  

How many more times can the private banking sector and the FDIC for that matter absorb these hits.  Especially, 300B+ size hits.  Have people conveniently left out of the debate the much larger problem of bank runs and financial panic?

How many of you who post here will be singing the same tune when long term chronic unemployment and under employment are in your homes, cities and states?  What will happen to you when you look in the offices and businesses you work in and large numbers of people are no longer at work or the entire operation is scuttled?  Do you even realize that farmers this past spring were struggling to find financing for the spring planting?  What will happen next spring?  Who will be financially sound enough to lend to the farmers?

The real problem with the bailout is its hastiness, its size and the manner in which it was presented namely act now within this one week or else.

The government doesn't have the option to do nothing.  True, lawmakers can bicker and complain about socialized capitalism and other such meaningless nonsense if that's what they want to do, but will they still be in office if the FDIC fails?  What would happen if 10% or more of banks began to fail?  What will you do if your plastic doesn't work anymore and whatever you thought was in the bank can't be accessed, its frozen, because there's no longer an FDIC to step in and your bank has failed.

How bad and widespread is this problem?  That question needs to be assessed by lawmakers and a plan of action adopted to address the problem.  I think the failure of WaMu is a good indication this problem is today too big for inaction, it is widespread and, its still growing. 

Furthermore, given how widespread this problem appears to be, it cannot be from anything other than a lack of regulation and enforcement.  A mortgage just isn't a safe loan for a bank when there is less than 10 - 20% equity that the buyer has to have in addition to paying all buyer fees.  Instead mortgages began being sold to the public like credit cards were. 

Fees were being lumped into the mortgage, leveraged fees, leveraged stock purchases in the 1920's.  Leveraged mortgage interest during the first few years of the home loan.  Teaser interest rates.  You name it the banks and their executives who approved this garbage were considering only the immediate appearance that "profats" were being produced therefore their "profat" bonuses and salaries would need to be increased again.  The only thing that mattered to them is the loan didn't go bad during the first couple of years.

So yes, why bail them out of their own mess?  Because to do nothing will mean, I think, the failure of the FDIC, double digit unemployment and wide-spread homelessness. Already tent cities are showing up in various parts of the country.  It's going to get worse.  Get ready for bad news I think.

I've been watching this bad new approaching for the past 5 - 6 years. I was/is inevitable because banks/lending institutions have had free reign to oiperate as they please... to maximise quick profits at the expense of those who can least afford it... and those usually are the working backbone of any country.... and when you put these people on or below the poverty line and they struggle to make ends meet, even the greedy bastard who put them in the position suffer also, because reduced/limited propensity to pay means decreased profits, revenue, capital, thus they go guts up and cry broke after they've bled society dry.

I have something to relate of an acquaintance who got well and truly duped/screwed by these very same people here in Oz... but later, it's 3.30am and I'm tired... so tomorrow cos Igotta go to bed now.

Like most of you have been repling, the economy world wide did not just end up here overnight.  Logic applied, the fix will not be able to change things overnight, it will take time.  No doubt we, collectively, are here for but one reason and one reason only GREED.   It shows up in the desire in a few to have Power, Money, Control whatever we want to call it.

To get back on track, Governments need to balance the Budget.  Our National Debt keeps rising each year because of deficit spending.  What are both Presidential Candidates promising, Tax Cuts.  How fiscal responsible is it to promise tax cuts if you don't have a balanced Budget?  Do you hear either of them promising to balance the Budget?  It will stimulate the economy, BS.  Think about it, if the Government isn't borrowing money, that means there is plenty available to stimulate the economy in the private sector.

Cut waste, yeah everyone's favorite two words.  Fact, it is true.  One example, we know we are going to pay federal and state taxes, its's what keeps everything running.  How we go about getting it done is wastefull,  Two words, Flat Tax.  Everyone has tax deducted at common rate, no sliding scale.  Earn as much income as you want. No minimum or maximum.  Each pay check it goes to the Treasury.  That's it, no tax forms to file, no trying to figure out what deductions are there.  Oh my we just cut out the IRS, money saved.  No checks to cut for refunds, hmmm, money saved again.  Just one example.  There are others.

Get off the credit (buy today and pay tomorrow) spending spree and get our nation back to saving again.  Not talking about big items like housing and cars, talking about the impulse buying that we all do on a day to day basis.

Okay, just my opinons here and I am sure that folks will take exception.  As I said above the problem just didn't happen overnight.  It will take hard work and just plain common sense to turn it around.

No politician would ever say such a thing in writing.  However, this act greatly expanded the definition of what a "bank" was  and suddenly there were all kinds of new "banks", companies that could give mortgage financing.  The big negative as it turned out was that these companies did not have to keep the same leverage percentage of debt to equity as a commercail bank.  Commercial banks stay by mandate in the 11/10 to 1 range.  These new investment "banks" could leverage up to 30 or 40%.  They began taking weaker and weaker paper as did Freddy and Fannie.  There was no oversight except two futile attempts to rewrite the regs.  One by McCain in 2003 that went no where and another in 2005 by the Bush administration in 2005 that was rerejected by evry single democrat and the republicans did not have the 60 votes to bring it to the floor.  Barney Franks comment was (paraphrased) The Freddy and Fannie were fine and the doom and gloom republicans would dry up the morgage changes for the lower middle class.  Of course, he sings a much different tune these days.

The republicans also did not do enought to clear up the mess when they had tthe chance by pushing harder for the legislation.  I am not taking sides here as there is always enough blame to go around, but this is what happened to the best of my understanding.