Obamas great start

[Sownman]

I am apalled at the way this country is going. It is so much worse than my wildest fears.

1) Plans to expand the government's ability to take over "important" institutions. It's not bad enough then can seize banks deemed to be in trouble but now Obama wants to seize insurance companies when deemed neccesary.

2) How can the president of the US demand resignation of the CEO of a corporation ? If I were in Rick Wagoners shoes (GM) I would have told Obama
to stick it. You may have been elected president by the rabble but you are not King.

3) How can princess Pelosi and Prince Reed make a law targeting a small specific group of people. AIG execs who got over $250K bonus will be taxed at a 90% rate. It's unfair and unconstitutional for the government to target any specific group with a law. How about this for a new law "Black people must pick cotten for free 6 months a year and can only ride in the last 3 rows of bus seats" It is no different. I'm as apalled as anyone over bonus' going to a failed company but thats not the fault of individuals. If I had a contract at AIG for 100K per year plus 3% commission on my sales and I did a good job, I deserve my 3%. Because the rest of the company failed it doesn't void my contract. A president should stand up for individual rights even against the mob with torches and pitchforks.

4) Today on Yahoo there is an article about how lovely Michelle Obama is on the trip to London. Her wonderful clothes, jewels, and style is lauded. I recall the liberal press just a few months back turned the fact that Sarah Palin having $175K in wardrobe and hair and makeup provided by the Republican Party for the campaign was a scandal. Wheres the outrage over American taxpayers beefing up Obamas closet ?

 

[Nickodell]

Making retroactive laws is unconstitutional, and singling out one person, or a small group of persons to be punished is called enacting a bill of attainder, which is also illegal under the constitution. This was the kind of thing that used to go on in England before Cromwell put a stop to it, by which if a king didn't like someone, but couldn't have him punished legally, he could have a special law rammed through Parliament.

It is a tactic used by the very people who caused the meltdown in the first place, and received hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, while blocking any investigation of the phony bookkeeping they were up to, to divert attention from themselves by creating a straw man for the howling mob ("kill the rich!") to attack instead.

And it worked. John McCain and George Bush repeatedly warned of what was going on, and introduced bill after bill, only to have the Dems. block them. They lost. The Dems. won.

Some of the following contains extracts from pieces by various authors, principally Ann Coulter:

Clinton rewrote Fannie’s and Freddy’s rules, turning the two mortgage-funding companies essentially into nationalized, political monopolies. By 2007, Fannie and Freddy owned or guaranteed half of the $12 trillion mortgage market, and from 1989 to 2008 spent over $200 million on lobbying and political activity, granting loans to large Democratic voting blocs, granting favors and money to political allies and jobs to unemployed Democratic politicians. The top recipients of the cash were all Democrats, the top two being Sens. Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. This was the genesis of the corruption and ultimate collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

I have a neighbor who was a mortgage banker at the time. He says that they loved these NINJA Loans (No Income, No Job, No Assets) because they ran zero risk: They just bundled them up and resold them to Fannie or Freddy. Today, the guilty politicians hold up their hands in fake consternation. “We had no idea things were so bad; we’re shocked – shocked! to hear what was going on.” But the signals were all there. As early as 2003, federal regulators discovered that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were committing Enron-style accounting fraud. But while executives at private companies who engaged in similar deception went to prison, Fannie and Freddie executives barely received a slap on the wrist.

One of the main causes was House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who fought ferociously against the regulation that would have held Fannie and Freddie executives answerable and might have forestalled the financial crisis.

In vain did economists and the Bush administration warn, repeatedly, that mortgage companies were being forced to issue loans that would default as soon as the housing bubble slowed and borrowers owed more on their mortgages than their properties were worth. Bush tried to introduce regulation on Fannie and Freddy’s recklessness, only to be blocked by the Democratic congress, led by Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank. As President Clinton said a few months ago: Democrats “resisted any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me … to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

To no avail, in 2005, did then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warn: “We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk.” In vain did John McCain sponsor the Fannie-Freddy reform bill, after a 2003 investigation showed that the two companies’ executives were overstating earnings by nearly $11 billion to boost their own bonuses. On the floor of the Senate he predicted exactly what ultimately happened: “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.” Last year alone, the President Bush urged reform 17 times.

Again, the Democrats sneered. “Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Rep. Frank. Democrat Rep. Melvin Watt accused the White House of “weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.” Majority Leader Democrat Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP of trying to cripple Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

Now those like Frank and Dodd, who were most responsible for the debacle, are posing as the ones who will save the country by bailing out the very institutions who were complicit, with hundreds of billion of taxpayer dollars. Those who had cooked the books, like ex-Fannie Chairman Franklin Raines, and passed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats like Barack Obama, walked away with tens of millions of dollars in bonuses (bonuses, for destroying their companies?) and joined Obama’s campaign as financial advisers.

And the Democrats in general, and Obama campaign in particular, with the eager cooperation of the overwhelmingly liberal media, has successfully planted the idea with the voters that it is all the fault of the Republicans and John McCain, the very ones who warned about and tried to prevent it. It's the equivalent of blaming Winston Churchill for WWII when he was in fact one of the most vociferous in warning of the threat posed by the Nazis in the 1930s.

As Yossarian might have said: "That's some con game."

"The best there is."

 

[jumpinjan]

Those are some good points Nick. By the way, I'm not a big fan of our own Mike Peters (cartoonist) because he's so liberal, but today he's pokes some fun at the Prez.

 

[Bill Blue]

I am apalled at the way this country is going. It is so much worse than my wildest fears.

1) Plans to expand the government's ability to take over "important" institutions. It's not bad enough then can seize banks deemed to be in trouble but now Obama wants to seize insurance companies when deemed neccesary.

2) How can the president of the US demand resignation of the CEO of a corporation ? If I were in Rick Wagoners shoes (GM) I would have told Obama
to stick it. You may have been elected president by the rabble but you are not King.

3) How can princess Pelosi and Prince Reed make a law targeting a small specific group of people. AIG execs who got over $250K bonus will be taxed at a 90% rate. It's unfair and unconstitutional for the government to target any specific group with a law. How about this for a new law "Black people must pick cotten for free 6 months a year and can only ride in the last 3 rows of bus seats" It is no different. I'm as apalled as anyone over bonus' going to a failed company but thats not the fault of individuals. If I had a contract at AIG for 100K per year plus 3% commission on my sales and I did a good job, I deserve my 3%. Because the rest of the company failed it doesn't void my contract. A president should stand up for individual rights even against the mob with torches and pitchforks.

4) Today on Yahoo there is an article about how lovely Michelle Obama is on the trip to London. Her wonderful clothes, jewels, and style is lauded. I recall the liberal press just a few months back turned the fact that Sarah Palin having $175K in wardrobe and hair and makeup provided by the Republican Party for the campaign was a scandal. Wheres the outrage over American taxpayers beefing up Obamas closet ?

1) If the gov'ment can be called upon to bail out a financial institution, they should have the ability to declare the entity dead and take it over. If they could, we may have been spared the AIG debacle. It happens about twenty times a year with banks, even under good times.

2) He can't. But then he does not have to bail out the company, either. If you want one, you have to accept the other. The CEO got to leave with 23 million. If Obama waited for GM to go belly up on its own, he probably would have gotten much less from a bankruptcy judge.

3)They can't. But the same thing happened to the autoworkers. Do you want to use the same argument to get their CONTRACT wages reinstated? It was not their misjudgement or lack of job performance that created GM's or Chrysler's problem.

4) Who is paying for Michelle's wardrobe? Don't know for sure, but in the past I've heard the First Lady either (A) buys her clothes or (B) wears clothing lent to her, usually by big name designers, hoping for some "action" due to the favorable publicity. Also, keep in mind that they were not exactly poverty stricken when he was elected, she is known for not being a big clothing spender and he makes $400,000 per year.

Bill

 

[Sownman]

1) If the gov'ment can be called upon to bail out a financial institution, they should have the ability to declare the entity dead and take it over. If they could, we may have been spared the AIG debacle. It happens about twenty times a year with banks, even under good times.

2) He can't. But then he does not have to bail out the company, either. If you want one, you have to accept the other. The CEO got to leave with 23 million. If Obama waited for GM to go belly up on its own, he probably would have gotten much less from a bankruptcy judge.

3)They can't. But the same thing happened to the autoworkers. Do you want to use the same argument to get their CONTRACT wages reinstated? It was not their misjudgement or lack of job performance that created GM's or Chrysler's problem.

4) Who is paying for Michelle's wardrobe? Don't know for sure, but in the past I've heard the First Lady either (A) buys her clothes or (B) wears clothing lent to her, usually by big name designers, hoping for some "action" due to the favorable publicity. Also, keep in mind that they were not exactly poverty stricken when he was elected, she is known for not being a big clothing spender and he makes $400,000 per year.

Bill

1) Wachovia was a going bank and so was Wash Mutual. TARP had been passed but neither bank was allowed to try to make it in a post TARP world.
I lost a good deal of money on Wachovia stock. My investment may have been poor or maybe not but they deserved a better chance than being declared "dead" without having closed their doors or declared bankruptcy. All shareholders were wiped out. So you want the government to bail out bad real estate decisions maybe ? Wipe out bank investors who made bad decisions and save homeowners who took out idiotic mortgages ? Maybe
the government should choose which homes may go into foreclosure and declare then "lost" before the fact. The government has no business in any business other than border protection and they don't do that. (BUSH didn't either)

2) He did, watch the news

3) They did. The bill was passed, done deal and completely unconstitutional. I guess the only rights that matter are the rights of the "poor." God help any group that the liberal media decides is evil, they'll get no defense from the President or Congress

4) I don't know for sure either but one Republican woman dolling up is a scandal and the Democratic one is a wonderful thing ? So biased as to be beyond belief.

Steve

 

[Bill Blue]

1) Wachovia was a going bank and so was Wash Mutual. TARP had been passed but neither bank was allowed to try to make it in a post TARP world.
I lost a good deal of money on Wachovia stock. My investment may have been poor or maybe not but they deserved a better chance than being declared "dead" without having closed their doors or declared bankruptcy. All shareholders were wiped out. So you want the government to bail out bad real estate decisions maybe ? Wipe out bank investors who made bad decisions and save homeowners who took out idiotic mortgages ? Maybe
the government should choose which homes may go into foreclosure and declare then "lost" before the fact. The government has no business in any business other than border protection and they don't do that. (BUSH didn't either)

2) He did, watch the news

3) They did. The bill was passed, done deal and completely unconstitutional. I guess the only rights that matter are the rights of the "poor." God help any group that the liberal media decides is evil, they'll get no defense from the President or Congress

4) I don't know for sure either but one Republican woman dolling up is a scandal and the Democratic one is a wonderful thing ? So biased as to be beyond belief.

Steve

1) Have you heard of FDIC? That is the Federal Agency that bails out bad banks. Without it, most people would not put any money in banks. If you want to do away with it, say goodby to banks. Maybe not a bad idea. The bank bailouts do not rescue the investors, just the users. When you invest your money (even in a bank), you take the chance of loosing it. When you mention idiotic homeowners with mortgages they cannot afford, don't forget the bankers that sold the mortgages, knowing they would default and the bankers that declared them investment grade bonds, knowing they were not. Me? I don't think any of them should be bailed out. But if nobody is bailed out, the whole system goes up in smoke, then what??? We go back to using sea shells for money?

2) More like the dude decided it was best if he went. What could Obama do if he said "No"? The most would be to tell him good luck with his PRIVATE refinancing plans. Pretty big hammer, hunh? Absolutely no legal authority to enforce the "firing". He could still be CEO if he insisted.

3) Yeah, they "passed" a bill. It is not a law and probably never will be. Obama does not like it and he most likely would have to sign it.

4) Did you miss the fact that one woman said she bought her clothes second hand while wearing a $150,000 wardrobe? What is that called? By the way, how much has been spent on Michelle's clothing? I have not heard.

Bill

 

[MikeH]

The FDIC does not bail out banks. It insures deposits in case the bank fails. From the FDIC website:

What Is the FDIC?

The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is an independent agency of the United States government that protects you against the loss of your deposits if an FDIC-insured bank or savings association fails. FDIC insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Since the FDIC's creation in 1933, no depositor has ever lost even one penny of FDIC-insured funds.

The bank bail out is not protecting users(depositors), it is protecting the bank.

From Wikipedia:

TARP allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled" assets. "Troubled assets" are defined as "(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

 

[sunbeam74]

I am not sure this is an accurate number publish by News Corp, I have a tendency to suspect any statistics, but in 2006 Fannie and Freddie, combined, only delt in 16% of the Sub-prime market implying the rest of the sub-prime was being supported in the private sector. If this is an accurate statistic then it makes you stop and think how deep the issues go with the Financial system.

It could be an accurate figure. Up until 2002(sometime in that time frame) Fannie didn't participate in Sub-prime. Now, this isn't to say they didn't work with ALt-A. Which was a whole other issue of poop-soup. In general, our financial sector is in truly in the dumper.


Steve

 

[Lee DeRamus saoca0404]

Yes, the FDIC does insure the deposits. But the catch 22 is, you might have to wait years to get your money. When International City Bank in New Orleans
failed, the FDIC was in there for over 2 years. How do I know? Not only did I have my accounts there, I was the repairman that went there during that time to repair their telephone systems. Even having an "inside ear" to talk to didn't help.
Lee

 

[Bill Blue]

Yes, FDIC bails out banks in the sense that it makes sure all the deals made by the bank are completed, or in the current "speak" wound down. I would assume that sometimes the deals are made on a cents on the dollar basis, but usually allows participants to continue business. It does not bail out investors in stock or bonds issued by the bank or allow the bank to continue business in the form it was in when it went bust.

Steve, I hear so much about Fannie and Freddie's role in this I don't know what to believe. I read somewhere that they were writing almost 50% of the mortgages but had only 20% of the defaults. But next day I hear they are responsible for the whole mess.

Bill

 

[MikeH]

The whole issue isn't the sub-prime mortgages but also the Comunity Reinvestment Act sighed by Carter in 1977 and related follow-on legislation that made it a requirement to provide credit to all parts of a community regardless of the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood.

"The CRA followed similar laws passed to reduce discrimination in the credit and housing markets including the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA). The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires that financial institutions publicly disclose mortgage lending and application data. In contrast with those acts, the CRA seeks to ensure the provision of credit to all parts of a community, regardless of the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

 

[Bill Blue]

Mike, what percent of the foreclosures fall under this regulation? Just because it is on the books and was signed by Carter does not mean it is (or was) the problem. It seems strange that it took 30 years for the impact of the reg to take effect. A large percentage of the mortgages should be paid in full or so old there would be a very low default rate.

Nor do I see anything that requires banks to lend to people that cannot afford to pay. Its intent was to eliminate "Redlining".
Bill

 

[Sownman]

It does not bail out investors in stock or bonds issued by the bank or allow the bank to continue business in the form it was in when it went bust.
Bill

That is my point in the case of Wachovia and Wash Mutual. They did not go bust. They did not lock their doors they did not declare bankruptcy. Lehman did and I think Indy Mac did but not the other two. Wachovia had a couple billion in assets when it was taken over. A decision seems to have been made that there would be 5 survivor banks. B of A, Goldman, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan and Citigroup. The other money center banks were closed by Fed/Treasury order. Wachovia was acually in much better condition that Citigroup.

Steve

 

[Nickodell]

What are the actual facts? The lunatic, liberal philosophy behind it can be summed up by an article in the Chicago Sun-Times in April 1995: “You’ve got a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” The article went on to tell people fitting this profile to contact a group of far-left “community organizers” (where have we heard that name before?) called ACORN, now under investigation in several states for fraud. (It also emerged, a few days ago, that a New York Times investigative reporter discovered illegal activities by ACORN that might well have tipped the election to Obama in at least one state, but her Editor told her to can it).

The beginning of this madness was President Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which pressured Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to aggressively lend to minorities. In 1995 President Clinton ramped it up by directing the Treasury Dept. to rewrite the Act to now force financial institutions to abolish traditional common-sense requirements for borrowers, like - uh - proving an ability to meet the monthly mortgage payments. These, the liberals said, were discriminatory, and some, like Democratic Congressmen Barney Frank and Charles Rangel called them racism.

Clinton claimed: “Our homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent.” Attorney General Janet Reno (arguably the worst A.G. in America's history, and most crooked since Nixon's) went further, threatening severe penalties against banks and mortgage companies that did not comply. This Clinton/Reno pressure on lenders was Regulation, the opposite of the Free Market (remember this the next time you hear a Dem. claiming that the financial mess was due to "eight years of Republican deregulation"). For the first time, down payments were eliminated, welfare payments were accepted as proof of sufficient income, and interest-only loans were granted, all presupposing an endless surge in property values.

Democrats boasted that they were "bringing affirmative action to house ownership." Political Correctness, that had already eviscerated education and immigration law, had now done the same to fiscal sense.

But, stop the average Joe Sixpack and ask him who is to blame, and 80% of the time you'll get "The Republicans!"

 

[sunbeam74]

Not that I am an expert on the subject of banking but Wachovia went wrong by buying Golden West for what is now considered a premium and it came with a ton of issues. (I couldn't friggin believe it when Citi was fighting Well Fargo to buy Wachovia. Citi had enough issues without Golden West - and the Feds were pushing Citi to do it!)

However, you are right in thinking there has been some serious waffelling on which banks will survive or not. It certainly didn't help BofA/Citi/even Fannie etc. to have Bernanke or any official annouce "the government will step in". It only led to equity flight. Why would you invest in any of these companies knowing the government would step in and your investment is gone?

I am not sure there was any alternatives in methodologies but there was a good bit of guessing.
They should have just set up a dart board for making decisions.

Of course, there are severe problems with the financial sector. Don't give any of these major banks/investment firms credit for sound business practice regarding the sub-prime/toxic asset issue. I am pretty sure all of them played in this pond. Face it, there was a lot of money to be made by issuing these loans - In fact, this created incentives to play in the higher risk market. Of course, times looked good 3-4 years ago.

Why wouldn't you participate other than a sound sensibilty of risk? (don't make me say it... which none of them seem to have)


Steve

 

[Jim E]

In one aspect of Mr. Obama's time in office he is perfect at least by the measurement used often for Mr. Bush. He has kept us safe, there have been no attacks on American soil.

The subprime thing I find really intersting I also happen to be pretty close to someone who wrote loans. So have heard about the day to day on the ground dealings that went on to deliever these loans to folks buying houses. It was all about money and lots of it. While there were S/P loans wrote to poor folks trying to get into a $60k crap hole the real prize loans were made to over extended doctors and lawyers buying another million dollar house. Not just poor folks have bad credit and cannot cover the monthly nut. Oh and you can believe the big loans were fought over and tended to have more bends and twists than the smaller loans. Took just as much time to get either one thru only on the one you made a lot more money, all the way up the food chain. My point is may of these S/P loans had nothing to do with affirmative action and in the end it was not a democrate or republican issue it was a money thing.

 

[Bill Blue]

In one aspect of Mr. Obama's time in office he is perfect at least by the measurement used often for Mr. Bush. He has kept us safe, there have been no attacks on American soil.

The subprime thing I find really intersting I also happen to be pretty close to someone who wrote loans. So have heard about the day to day on the ground dealings that went on to deliever these loans to folks buying houses. It was all about money and lots of it. While there were S/P loans wrote to poor folks trying to get into a $60k crap hole the real prize loans were made to over extended doctors and lawyers buying another million dollar house. Not just poor folks have bad credit and cannot cover the monthly nut. Oh and you can believe the big loans were fought over and tended to have more bends and twists than the smaller loans. Took just as much time to get either one thru only on the one you made a lot more money, all the way up the food chain. My point is may of these S/P loans had nothing to do with affirmative action and in the end it was not a democrate or republican issue it was a money thing.

Dammit Jim, didn't you even skim through Nick's post? Minorities are deadbeats. None of them should have gotten a loan. Never, ever. Besides, if a millionaire defaults on the loan on his third house, that is not morally, or economically, the same as a poor person doing the same. Don't ask me why, it just isn't.

Bill

 

[Jim E]

The S/P thing did a death spiral the qualifing bar just kept getting lower,in the end the only rule as far as I can tell was will someone buy this loan if I write it. I know when Mr. Carter and Clinton decided to help poor folks get loans in the beginning the bar was higher the market for these more risky loans was just not there. I think it would be interesting to see how the early loans did compared to the later loans as far as default rate and ethinic make up. The average size of the loans over the years would be interesting.

 

[sunbeam74]

You hit an interesting aspect, Jim. I will admit many of the homes in trouble around me are fairly high dollar homes (and lots of duplex/multi-families)

Years ago I thought NINA loans (no doc loans) I thought were really to provide lending for the self-employed, people who owned their own buisinesses, where income verification could be a problem. Of course, a larger down payment and even higher interest rates would be paid.

I believe the second you eliminate the "owners" stake in the form of a sizable down payment you've created a situation where there is little incentive to stay in a home during declining markets.

Why would you stay in a house if you're under water by tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of dollars? Clearly, there are financial pressures on some families but I have seen a few instances first hand where an owner just decided it wasn't worth it to them to continue living in the house given the current value of their home.

But overall, there has been horrible decisions by government and bad business practices that have led to a cumulative failure of the realestate market/financial market. It is so convoluted to the point of insanity.



Steve

 

[Nickodell]

Dammit Jim, didn't you even skim through Nick's post? Minorities are deadbeats. None of them should have gotten a loan. Never, ever. Besides, if a millionaire defaults on the loan on his third house, that is not morally, or economically, the same as a poor person doing the same. Don't ask me why, it just isn't.

Bill

Ah, Bill. This is plumbing the depths, even for you. And it is the usual liberal hogwash - whenever you guys can't debate you cry RACISM!! Which is, of course, exactly what the unedited criminals like Barney Frank did, when opposing any investigation of Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac, while pocketing their money. Nobody said anything about minorities but you. It reminds me of Obama's campaign, when he was the only one to use race ("They'll tell you that I don't look like the other guys on the dollar bills." "And did I tell you; he's black?" Etc.) while artfully planting the idea that it was his opponent who was racist.

You either "skimmed" through my thorough detailed description of the cause of the meltdown so fast that you didn't understand the words with more than one syllable, or, more likely, you understood them very well but couldn't stomach the undeniable truth. Here it is again:

A series of Democrat administrations, starting with, Jimmy Carter (when he wasn't "lusting after Poles" or escaping the killer rabbit out of Monty Python and the Holy Grail [look them up]), forcing lending institutions, under threat of severe penalty, to give mortgage loans to people who could not afford them, irrespective of whether they were minorities or just po' white trash.

Common sense dictates that you don’t lend money, for any purpose, to people with no way of paying is back. But Political Correctness, plus the familiar scrambling for votes, forced this government REGULATION on banks and mortgage companies.