R the neo cons 2 blame for financial crisis?

are the neo cons, and their agenda to blame for the current financial crises? do you think that there will eventually be a "run on the banks"?R the neo cons 2 blame for financial crisis?
Actually, I think it's the fault of ill-educated people who can't quite bring themselves to be bothered to spell out three letter words.
There WAS a run on the banks. 700-800 Billion dollars, is the congress writing an IOU something like 3,000 dollars for every person in the country. Coupled with the war, and this administration has cost us individually something like 10-12 thousand dollars EACH.



I'm sorry but what seems to me to have gone missing is prudence and the incautious nature of this administration and the culture with which it does things or promotes around the nation and the world.



So was it neoconservatives specifically. Neoconservatives do strongly support the free market and strongly support the libertarian viewpoint with regard to business regulation. Which is one of the primary root causes for this most recent fiasco.



This means they strenuously fought regulation , or as it was regarded "over-regulation", or "hindering" of the free-market. To be fair, economists must vet their ideas against regulators, so in this way, economists are constrained to certain financial instruments which are more tangible or explainable and less theoretically advanced. While profits might be marginally down, you won't have these tremendous market collapses every 7-8 years or so.



Secondly, their inability to reconcile their delusional visions of world-economic domination or "benevolent hegemony" as they refer to it, underscores their inability to reconcile their desires with the reality of and our responsibility AS a world superpower.



In this way, both of these items can really only flourish to any extent when there is the ever-present culture of - for lack of a better word - incompetence, whereby seasoned foreign policy experts (either old-school conservative realists or otherwise) are simply not present to keep the radicals at bay.



Similarly, the economic / fiscal "conservatism" was actually nothing of the kind. Chairman Greenspan, would , at LENGTH, and in detail note his concern, regarding the overall complexity of the marketplace, and our inheirent ability - not JUST to regulate but to UNDERSTAND what types of mechanisms and dependencies existed with respect to the financial instruments and market structures which were being implemented in the private marketplaces which were constructed.



In this way, this should have, and to some was, a tremendous red-flag that the fundamentals of some parts of the economy were not sound.



Nevertheless, centrally controlled media outlets, like the WSJ, Fox and other singularly owned outlets, were "less than diligent" with regard to advocating for market reforms.



It sounds familiar from a financial and military perspective, because it is. Basically, you have media outlets and an over-eager government telling people what they want to hear, rather than what is actually the case.



That is wrong, and we are paying the price, So the REAL answers are not hard to imagine, but the answers aren't going to be shown on Fox anytime soon.R the neo cons 2 blame for financial crisis?
What causes lacking consumer confidence?

Hint:

The middle and low class which is America's majority started feeling the mone crunch when they started getting laid off as companies moved production over seas.

Things have been going downhild for quite some time. How are you going to spend money you don't have.



Trickle-down economics has once again failed as it always has. It has about as bad of record as communism.



What caused this problem is the fact that people could afford loans whent hey were given them, but it also didn't take much of an economic downturn to put them in a position of not being able to afford them.

Anyone mentioning the problem was denounced as doom and gloom libs in an attempt to make sure Republicans had to take no responsibility for the problem.
No. Its a long read, but its the truth, like it or not.



Many monumental errors and misjudgments contributed to the acute financial turmoil in which we now find ourselves. Nevertheless, the vast accumulation of toxic mortgage debt that poisoned the global financial system was driven by the aggressive buying of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, and mortgage-backed securities, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The poor choices of these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) -- and their sponsors in Washington -- are largely to blame for our current mess.

How did we get here? Let's review: In order to curry congressional support after their accounting scandals in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac committed to increased financing of "affordable housing." They became the largest buyers of subprime and Alt-A mortgages between 2004 and 2007, with total GSE exposure eventually exceeding $1 trillion. In doing so, they stimulated the growth of the subpar mortgage market and substantially magnified the costs of its collapse.

It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers (a belief that has now been reduced to fact). Thus they were able to borrow as much as they wanted for the purpose of buying mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them. By late 2004, Fannie and Freddie very much wanted subprime and Alt-A loans. Their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, and they were under pressure from Congress to demonstrate that they deserved their considerable privileges. Among other problems, economists at the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office had begun to study them in detail, and found that -- despite their subsidized borrowing rates -- they did not significantly reduce mortgage interest rates. In the wake of Freddie's 2003 accounting scandal, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan became a powerful opponent, and began to call for stricter regulation of the GSEs and limitations on the growth of their highly profitable, but risky, retained portfolios.

If they were not making mortgages cheaper and were creating risks for the taxpayers and the economy, what value were they providing? The answer was their affordable-housing mission. So it was that, beginning in 2004, their portfolios of subprime and Alt-A loans and securities began to grow. Subprime and Alt-A originations in the U.S. rose from less than 8% of all mortgages in 2003 to over 20% in 2006. During this period the quality of subprime loans also declined, going from fixed rate, long-term amortizing loans to loans with low down payments and low (but adjustable) initial rates, indicating that originators were scraping the bottom of the barrel to find product for buyers like the GSEs.

The strategy of presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing appears to have worked. Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass), for example, now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, openly described the "arrangement" with the GSEs at a committee hearing on GSE reform in 2003: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping to make housing more affordable . . . a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing." The hint to Fannie and Freddie was obvious: Concentrate on affordable housing and, despite your problems, your congressional support is secure.

In light of the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, both John McCain and Barack Obama now criticize the risk-tolerant regulatory regime that produced the current crisis. But Sen. McCain's criticisms are at least credible, since he has been pointing to systemic risks in the mortgage market and trying to do something about them for years. In contrast, Sen. Obama's conversion as a financial reformer marks a reversal from his actions in previous years, when he did nothing to disturb the status quo. The first head of Mr. Obama's vice-presidential search committee, Jim Johnson, a former chairman of Fannie Mae, was the one who announced Fannie's original affordable-housing program in 1991 -- just as Congress was taking up the first GSE regulatory legislation.

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted a strong reform bill, introduced by Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole, John Sununu and Chuck Hagel, and supported by then chairman Richard Shelby. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill wasR the neo cons 2 blame for financial crisis?
BOTH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND SENATE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE TO BLAME FOR FAILURE TO TAKE ACTION!