1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Eliot Spitzer

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Guest, Mar 16, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    The following oped by Eliot Spitzer was published barely a month prior to the unfolding scandal and his demise as Governor of the State of New York.

    Does the scandal bear any relationship to Spitzer's intent to reveal the criminal nature of the subprime mortgage scam and the role of the Bush administration? Was the scandal intended to silence Eliot Spitzer?


    Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
    Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer – Washington Post February 14, 2008

    "When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers."

    (Eliot Spitzer, former Governor of the State of New York)

    Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

    Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

    Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

    What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.
    Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

    Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

    In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

    But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

    Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

    When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.
     
  2. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    American politics is whacked.  The bloke has never said he's Mother Teresa has he?  For mine all he's done is shown he has a bit more class than to settle for a $50 an hour whore.

    If he was a Jimmy Swaggart I'd judge him differently, but his wife is obviously frigid so who can blame the bloke?
     
  3. Zep

    Zep Active Member

    1,692
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0
    the whore looks like she was worth 4.5k a night... i heard she is getting her own made for tv movie: the spitzer and the swallows
     
  4. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    And at least Spitzer was seeing a younger hottie, not inviting a male to have a threesome with his wife like his successor. 
     
  5. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,462 / 74
    Imagine if he married a woman with the surname Swallows and they hyphenated their names?
     
  6. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    Was he a private schoolboy?
     
  7. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    6,405
    89
    Ratings:
    +121 / 0
    Well which is it baby, Miss Spits or Mrs Swallows
     
  8. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    3,475
    37
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0
    you put the gerrr in swinger Douggie
     
  9. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    6,405
    89
    Ratings:
    +121 / 0
    Goldmember was on Channel 10 last night.
     
  10. Zep

    Zep Active Member

    1,692
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0

Share This Page