The White House Answers Your Questions About the Financial Crisis

We recently asked you for questions for the White House about the financial crisis. Your response was impressive.

Among the 150-plus questions, we were able to narrow it down to nine of the most representative ones, which we then sent over to the White House. Here are the administration's answers to your questions, answered by officials from both the Council of Economic Advisors and the National Economic Council.

1. Crooked Wall Street bankers should have gone to jail. Why didn't they?

First, remember that decisions on law enforcement are made independently by the Justice Department. But here are the facts:

The past five years have been one of the most prolific periods for financial prosecutions brought by the Justice Department in recent history, and the SEC, CFPB and state regulators have taken significant steps in holding Wall Street firms accountable. On top of that, the new protections that Wall Street Reform puts in place are designed to prevent the kinds of abuses that contributed to the financial crisis from happening again.

To highlight a couple of the most notable efforts to bring those who broke the law to justice have included the Justice Department charged more than 37,000 white collar defendants from 2009 to 2012 -- of which more than half were financial fraud cases, including 3,520 mortgage fraud defendants. The average sentence length of this type of fraud case has nearly doubled in the last decade. The United States and 49 States' Attorneys General completed the largest mortgage settlement in history, helping 640,000 borrowers get more than $50 billion in gross relief.

Meanwhile, as the Attorney General has indicated, no one who has inflicted damage upon our financial markets should think they are out of the woods just because of the passage of time.

2. Banks are bigger than ever. Too big to fail has gotten much worse. How do you guarantee that taxpayers won't pick up the tab the next time a large bank gets into a position to wreak havoc on the economy again?

Over the past five years, we've put an end to "too big to fail", and we've made sure taxpayers are no longer on the hook for Wall Street's reckless behavior. The landmark Wall Street Reform law did two things. First, it made sure our banks are less risky and better capitalized, which means they are less likely to fail. Second, it created new authorities to make sure regulators have the tools they need to wind down banks in an orderly manner in the event they do fail. This means no more bailouts, and it means no more "too big to fail."

Today, our banks hold more and better-quality capital than they did before the crisis. In fact, new rules will require the largest banks to hold even more capital. That will make sure they have an adequate cushion against losses, and it will reduce the chance any bank will fail. Reforms that are under way also prohibit banks that take deposits from consumers from engaging in risky hedge fund type trading unrelated to serving their customers' needs. This will make sure that middle class families aren't left holding the bag for risk-taking on Wall Street.

And if a big bank fails, Wall Street Reform ensures taxpayers aren't on the hook. The largest bank holding companies and nonbank financial companies designated for Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards also must have "living wills" to provide a roadmap for resolving these firms through bankruptcy. In addition, new tools are now available to orderly and responsibly resolve financial institutions that pose a systemic risk to the financial stability of the United States. If such plans are not satisfactory to the regulators, they'll have the authority to impose stronger capital and liquidity requirements on those firms, or order them to divest assets and business operations to ensure the safety and stability of the financial system. Finally, Wall Street Reform makes it clear that when a firm fails, its shareholders, creditors, and the financial industry will bear the costs -- not taxpayers.

3. It seems to me that the financial crisis was basically caused by greed: greed by Wall Street bankers looking for short-term profits; greed by mortgage loan companies wanting instant profits and bonuses; greed by the rating agencies who did the will of the financial institutions they were supposed to regulate... What is being done to address the problem of greed? Government can't stop greed, but it can crack down on people who break the rules.

Wall Street reforms are making sure there is better alignment of interests between Wall Street and Main Street. Here's an example: Wall Street Reform instituted important corporate governance reforms that will keep management more accountable, including new say-on-pay rules which give stockholders a voice on executive pay and bonuses. Wall Street Reform also introduced reforms for rating agencies, and has made sure they'll be liable when their ratings are incorporated into offering documents. And, the Act's risk retention rule for asset-backed securitization will make sure Wall Street firms have skin in the game when they securitize products with risky loans, which will reduce incentives to maximize short-term profits. Lastly, the "Volcker Rule" that the President fought to include in Wall Street Reform goes more directly at some of the risky behaviors behind the recent financial crisis; it will ban banks from making risky bets when they're dealing with their customers' deposits.

4. Will the White House bring back the Glass-Steagall Act?

The President made clear from Day One that we need to pursue aggressive Wall Street reform to make sure this crisis never happens again. But, it's important to note that simply going back to Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented some of the problems that led to the crisis from happening. In fact, many of the worst failures -- including Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Bear Sterns -- were not by commercial banks. That's why we actually needed a more comprehensive set of reforms to solve the roots of our crisis, which is exactly what the President undertook through Wall Street Reform.

And today, our banks hold more and better quality capital than before the crisis, which ensures that if they make a bad bet, they pay for it -- not the taxpayers. The Federal Reserve conducts regular stress tests of the biggest banks to make sure they have enough capital to be able to withstand even severe downturns and to continue lending. New rules require the largest banks to hold even more capital to ensure there is adequate cushion against losses and reduce the chance any bank will fail.

We are also undertaking aggressive reforms of our banking system to ensure that banks can't use deposits from consumers to engage in risky trading that are unrelated to servicing those customers' needs. And Wall Street Reform put an end to "too big to fail" and bank bailouts. Big banks must keep "living wills" to provide a blueprint for regulators to wind them down in case they failed, and new liquidation authorities will help us resolve them in an orderly fashion no matter how big or small they are.

5. The Obama administration has alluded to a plan where both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a decreasing role in the mortgage market, with private corporations stepping in as a replacement for this service. Can the administration please provide more information on its plan for this transition and how long they think it will take? Is the ultimate goal to have both Fannie and Freddie disappear, or simply play less of a role moving forward?

The President has a plan to create a better bargain for responsible, middle class homeowners. More than five years after the real estate bubble burst, our housing market has begun to heal. Now we need to build on that progress to make homeownership more affordable and secure -- including doing more to cut red tape and help homeowners refinance -- while also ending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as we know them so taxpayers are no longer on the hook for bad loans and bailouts.

Going back to the same bubble-and-bust housing system that caused the financial crisis is not acceptable. We need a rock-solid foundation for financing homeownership with a bigger role for the private sector, where taxpayers aren't on the hook for the irresponsible behavior or bad decisions of financial institutions. Let's finally put an end to an era where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could expect a bailout for risky behavior in pursuit of profits.

6. Why is the average family in the U.S. earning less than they were decades ago? What will the administration do to create greater availability of desirable full-time jobs?

We've cleared away the rubble from the financial crisis and begun to lay a new foundation for economic growth. Over the last 43 straight months, the economy has added 7.6 million private sector jobs, with broad-based job growth across industries. But the President knows that more work remains to be done to reverse trends that have been decades in the making. Recent brinkmanship in DC hasn't helped as the government shutdown and threats of defaulting on America's bills have done unnecessary damage to our economy. Business owners put hiring on hold. Paychecks, mortgages, and small business loans have been delayed. The benefits that seniors and veterans have paid for, earned and rely on were put at risk. And the shutdown slowed our economic growth while actually increasing the deficit.

The bipartisan compromise to end the government shutdown over the health care law is the right thing to do for the country. It reopens the government and pays our country's bills with no strings attached. With the threat of hijacking our economy behind us, it's now time to move forward and focus on creating jobs, continuing to cut the deficit, and strengthening the middle class.

In the weeks ahead, the President will keep his word to work with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to find common ground and create a better bargain for the middle class. Specifically, the President is asking Congress to pass a budget that focuses on the investments we need for our country's future and that create opportunity for the middle class. We need to invest in what works -- like education, infrastructure, and technology -- and cut what doesn't. That's how we'll build on the progress we've made to cut the deficit in half since 2009 -- through a balanced approach that eliminates tax loopholes and makes the tax code more simple and fair.

He also wants to work with Congress to fix our broken immigration system so everyone plays by the same rules. Let's help grow our economy by bringing millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and give them the chance to earn their citizenship by paying a fine and taxes, passing a background check, and going to the back of the line. And, the President urges Congress to pass a farm bill that America's farmers and ranchers can depend on, that protects vulnerable children and adults in times of need, and that gives rural communities opportunities to grow.

The President believes that no political party has a monopoly on good ideas and he looks forward to working with Democrats and Republicans. Sometimes both parties may seem far apart on many issues, but that shouldn't stop us from making progress in areas where we agree. American families have made some tough decisions over the last few years, now it's time for Washington to do its part. It's time to end this hijacking of our economy once every few months and start moving our country forward

7. Why was it necessary to bail out firms such as GM and Chrysler when the bankruptcy laws were designed for these types of situations and were readily available?

When the President took office, the auto sector was in crisis, and he chose to bet on American auto workers. GM and Chrysler in particular were on the verge of collapse, which would have cascaded throughout the American economy, particularly on the auto suppliers, auto dealers, and communities that depend on the auto industry. In fact, the nonpartisan Center for Automotive Research estimated that the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler would have resulted in at least 1 million jobs lost.

Five years later, as a result of the President's bold actions, the American auto industry is thriving again. The big three are gaining market share for the first time in twenty years and profitable for the first time in almost a decade. Auto sales in August were higher and growing faster than any month in over six years. And the auto sector has created about 340,000 jobs since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy in June 2009, which is the fastest pace in fifteen years.

8. I did everything financially right -- like buying a house that I knew I could afford; living below my means; saving up money and investing, etc. I lost my job and have not been able to get a job over the past four years. I have been living off of my savings and investments that were supposed to be for my future, and have managed to keep up on my bills and remain debt free (for now, at least). Where are the programs for people like me, who have done everything the right way?

The President has taken a number of key steps to support individuals who have lost a job and helping them get back to work. For example, the President fought to extend unemployment insurance, which made sure that 7 million people didn't lose their benefits in 2011 and 2012. Last year alone, unemployment insurance benefits kept 1.7 million people above the poverty line. In addition, the President has proposed aggressive investment in efforts to train workers for good-paying jobs in high-growth and high-demand industries, including through the Community College to Career Fund. The fund would invest in the nation's community colleges to help create a more skilled workforce by linking community colleges with the private sector, supporting programs that invest in apprenticeships, entrepreneurial training and on-the-job training opportunities as well as industry skill consortia that help identify and respond to pressing workforce needs.

But, President Obama knows that although we have made progress over the last four years, too many families are still struggling to make ends meet, and putting Americans back to work has to be job one. That's why the President is focused on a better bargain for the middle class. One of the cornerstones of the President's plan is to ensure that every American who is willing to work for it will have the opportunity for a good job that pays good wages. This includes efforts to simplify the tax code for businesses to create jobs and economic growth, rebuilding and modernizing American infrastructure, and supporting investment in U.S. manufacturing workers and technological innovation through the President's proposal for a national network of manufacturing institutes. And with evidence that the long-term unemployed face particular barriers in getting hired, President Obama has challenged the private sector, non-profits and government to join together in efforts to help these workers build their skills and find jobs.

9. Why does it seem we always have enough money to fight wars but never have money to keep our economy healthy?

The President ended the war in Iraq and is winding down the war in Afghanistan, all while rebalancing our fight against al Qaeda, but he knows that without a growing, thriving middle class, we won't have the resources or the resolve to solve these other issues.

As early as 2005, the President was talking about how the economy works best when it grows from the middle out, not the top down. This core philosophy has driven every decision that the President has made and is the foundation for his plan to move our country forward.

And the President understands that if we want to grow the economy and create jobs faster, the first order of business has got to be passing a sensible budget that replaces the sequester with a balanced plan that is both fiscally sound and funds the investments like education and basic research and infrastructure that we need to grow.

Furthermore, under President Obama, the deficit will have fallen by more than half by the end of the year, measured as a share of the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that under the President's policies, the deficit will drop to 4.2 percent of the GDP in 2013 -- less than half the deficit the President inherited. This reflects both a stronger economy and the deficit reduction the President has signed into law.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to reflect that White House officials from the Council of Economic Advisors and National Economic Council answered the questions.

No Pitch


Read/Post Comments (156) | Recommend This Article (59)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 4:45 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    "Here are the administration's answers to your questions." Who in the Administration supplied these answers? Without attribution, it could have been anyone, acting under no fear of responsibility.

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 5:47 PM, TMFPennyWise wrote:

    That's what I am wondering--who is the source for these answers?

    A little more background please...?

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Pr0metheus wrote:

    Whomever answered these questions, they're taking us for fools.

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 6:58 PM, cdrhi wrote:

    I like the process. Some of the answers seem to be standard spin but at least it was asked and answered. But yes whom answered for the Govt?

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 7:01 PM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    "The President believes that no political party has a monopoly on good ideas and he looks forward to working with Democrats and Republicans."

    That must be why not one Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act.......

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 7:04 PM, YanniManny wrote:

    Too much spin and not enough accountability

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, conser3 wrote:

    This is a joke, right. This article has no accountability what so ever. Who answered the questions and which Motley Fool Staff wrote the article and refused to have their name printed. Looks like the person want to throw in their political spin and they are afraid to have his or her name to be known.

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Gyre07 wrote:

    These answers are mostly bald-faced lies.

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 11:50 PM, rhpolk wrote:

    Is it me, or are these all questions coming from the left? They seem like softball questions for our "faultless" government.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 12:40 AM, LongTime108 wrote:

    How about asking "If it is the legal and moral responsibility of every working and productive citizen to contribute to the health care costs of our less fortunate, gifted or hardworking neighbors, what is the stated justification of exempting government employees in Congress and the Executive branches from our common civic responsibilities, and what will be done to correct this corrupt and elitist social injustice?"

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 1:32 AM, hotpepperaddict wrote:

    So much for asking the hard questions and getting actual answers. This is just a bunch of the same fluff that we keep hearing. From where I sit, the middle class continues to bear the brunt of all of wall streets misdeeds. And when is congress going to play be the same rules as the rest of the populace?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Gunnarsdaddy wrote:

    "Furthermore, under President Obama, the deficit will have fallen by more than half by the end of the year, measured as a share of the economy"

    Wait, what? If the deficit is falling, why are we pushing against the debt ceiling, and risking another government shutdown in a few months? As an investor, I'm glad that the economy is growing, and the debt-share of the economy is falling, but what about making some cuts and paying down our debt?

    The FIRST thing I did before recently investing a large chunk of money, was pay off my last outstanding credit card balance. This is pretty standard advice for all of us.

    I guess our government considers themselves 'too big to fail', and that we'll bail them out?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 8:15 AM, industrysales wrote:

    The rhetoric that comes from this administration (or in this case, maybe some intern?) may seem inspiring to some, but to me it seems like I am in the movie Groundhog Day.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 8:32 AM, ravenesque wrote:

    10. Is whoever pulled off this fraud "too big to fail" too?

    http://ghostinthemachines.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/pulverize...

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:59 AM, mdk0611 wrote:

    That question about greed has a glaring omission. What about the greed on the part of those loan applicants who falsified their financial data ?

    I think this is a failure both on the basis of the slant of the questions asked and the acceptance of what is basically spin with respect to the consequences.

    That auto question basically ignores:

    * That Ford got it done without a bailout, and

    * The question of whether the costs of the GM, Chrysler bailouts, including the unprecedented retention of their carryforward of their net operation losses for tax purpose were justified by by the benefits.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 12:27 PM, mwflinn55 wrote:

    "Your Fool username will be displayed with you comment" Ok.... so what about the Fool who wrote and answered these questions. You all really do think we are Fools.... Talk about political agenda's "Motley Fool" Jeessshhhh!!! I thought you guys were straight shooters.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 1:25 PM, TMFBane wrote:

    I just wanted to respond to those of you who wanted to know a bit more about how this Q&A was put together.

    First of all, the questions came directly from our community:

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/18/five-years-...

    My colleague Ilan Moscovitz and I then went through all of the responses and chose what we thought were the most representative questions. We tried to select the ones that were asked most frequently -- in some cases, the questions are presented verbatim. In other cases, we tried to capture the gist of community sentiment.

    We then sent the questions over to the White House where Administration officials from both the Council of Economic Advisors and National Economic Council answered them.

    We've presented their answers verbatim.

    We believe this was a great opportunity to hear the Administration's opinions on a wide variety of issues relating to the financial crisis. And we'd gladly publish the views and thoughts of key policymakers and business leaders that have different perspectives on these issues.

    Foolishly,

    John Reeves (TMFBane)

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 2:00 PM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    As others have pointed out, this article is devoid of meaning because it assigns the rather nebulous description of "the White House" instead of to those individuals that answered the questions.

    Furthermore, I don't mind others having a different political viewpoint than I do- but just about every question here adheres to one leftist meme or another. I am here to be educated, not indoctrinated.

    I could pick these apart but I have neither the time or the inclination.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 2:12 PM, broknrekord3 wrote:

    Why read the article if you don't want to get the answers to the questions? Especially when you're convinced you already know the answers and that the questions are spun a certain way because the Fool obviously has a left slant (?)? Seems like just another reason to complain to me. Were the answers eye-opening? Absolutely not. But did you really think that you were going to hear something new after 6 years of mostly the same faces in the White House? Sounds pretty lower-case foolish, to me.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 2:36 PM, TXObjectivist75 wrote:

    What? No questions about the CRA's contribution to the housing crisis?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:16 PM, Seighor wrote:

    Was I somehow misinterpreting what I was reading? Only after reading the comments was I assured that my interpretation that this article was, truly, totally leftist in its agenda. Fool that I am, I don't need more of this from MF.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:18 PM, 66Motorsport wrote:

    I am thrilled to see the level of sophistication in the readers.... We can not let politicians get away with such clear misrepresentations!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Cajingurl wrote:

    Who seriously believes anything that comes out of the Obama White House??

    They are all liars and thieves.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:34 PM, PMJ55Andre wrote:

    Reads like MF got used. Will MF disect those responses injecting reality into this or be silent and become a tool for the "WH"? Just askin!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:42 PM, prginww wrote:

    After five years a 39.4 % trade deficit, 49.7 percent of the population on entitlement programs, a healthcare program designed to reduce the work week to less than 30 hrs,....and oh yeah, we have no national budget and have had none for five years...whoopee. Let the good times roll????

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Shmulik444 wrote:

    What, may I ask, is the value to me of MF giving softball questions founded in low information assumptions to the Whitehouse and reporting the expected answers to me. I expected better from you Motley Foolers.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:48 PM, scottamerica wrote:

    I'm sooooooo surprised, the answers say nothing and ramble around a political circle. Guess we are still on our own, business as usual from our government. Thank God many people are foolishly smart enough to do the right things for Themselves. It's good to be Foolish!!!!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:51 PM, NJJ87 wrote:

    So John and Ilan were brave enough to give their names, but not of course, the names of those providing these "answers". Standard WH pabulum.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 3:57 PM, amiller410 wrote:

    To say the cause was greed from only Wall Street and Banks is I think very immature. Governments and many industries and the private sector made massive revenue from the uber hot real estate boom. Does the consumer not take any blame for their part in the greed? In the end pretty much everyone is responsible but I doubt long term we will actually learn a lesson as greed seems to always trump common sense.....

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:02 PM, mascootz wrote:

    Shame on MF for regurgitating the President's BS. You people should have seen through the political crap that was thrown out as answers. People who really know what happened know enough to include several prominant democratic leaders in Congress, Presidents, Clinton and Bush for their insistance that every American be allowed to buy a home. BS. What about out our Governments requirement to have every bank held accountable for a certain percentage of CRA loans? I thought you guys were smarter than to fall for this type of political stunt. this makes me think the wrong people are managing my funds when you are freely expressing what idiots you have been. I appreciate your desire to get people answers who are less than informed, but really, with all your knowledge and experience you couldn't have authored a piece that fully explained the aswers to these questions than to allow political BS to use your cleint distribution?

    You trully are the FOOLS!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:07 PM, wdcraftr1 wrote:

    Questions probably answered by the same people who write his speeches that he reads off the Teleprompter..

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:10 PM, julannamac wrote:

    not to be redundant, but I am pretty disappointed MF didn't stamp the WH's reply with a great big "bulls**t" and send it back.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:18 PM, PineRidgeRunner wrote:

    Same on the Fool for this nonsense. First of all the crisis was caused by Barney Frank and his lowering of mortgage application standards to increase home ownership for those who could not afford it in the first place. Next, government regulators where on holiday when regulating Countrywide, the ground zero source of the recession. Next, they did not prosecute mozello, countrywide CEO, now they are chasing the banks which they asked to pick up the pieces who did not cause the problem. I want to cancel my subscription to your service for this nonsense.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:20 PM, THBoot wrote:

    What a load of crap! Nothing but the standard BS that typically comes from the current administration....both sides.

    Motley Fool, I certainly hope you didn't buy into this junk!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Harley117 wrote:

    Sounds like the questions were asked by Elizabeth Warren and answered by Jay Carney

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:24 PM, beterlatethnnrvr wrote:

    Terrible article, reads like propaganda, the Fool should be better than this, why is my name displayed with my comments but the author hides?

    If this wasn't October 25th I would think someone is trying to play an April Fools joke.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:24 PM, bhendo88 wrote:

    A real low point for Motley Fool. Is this what I signed up for????

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:26 PM, dmr9 wrote:

    I'm thankful for all the insightful comments by fully informed FOOLS.

    dmr9

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:29 PM, trailrunnernw wrote:

    Agree with much of the sentiment that the replies were a combination of lies and political spin, with some shameless propaganda thrown in. May not be fair to blame the Fool for that, but could have been better framed, or perhaps allow a rebuttal from a conservative/libertarian point of view. Or maybe that's what we're supposed to do?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:32 PM, mrTpitiesMe wrote:

    Crock

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:34 PM, Phred wrote:

    Wow! That is the most flagrent batch of

    "newspeak" I've seen yet coming from the current administration.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:34 PM, CanesBullsCharge wrote:

    Why blame the Fool!? They asked questions. The administration provided answers. They were published with no spin. If you don't like the answers, its not in the scope of this article to bitch. Go to FB and bitch.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Wolfecane wrote:

    This is the most drivel I have ever seen in print, come one Motley fool, this is like listening to a press conference canned answer, no insight whatsoever. "Clearing away the rubble of the financial crisis", wtf, any other cliches they want to throw in there. The first time you hear a cliche you should ask a really difficult question and tell them you have more if they continue to answer in cliche-laden euphemisms.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:40 PM, golferman101 wrote:

    They forgot one of the greedy players causing the problem. Yes, it is the same one that thinks Obamacare is very good for us, but they want no part of it.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:41 PM, ctroccia wrote:

    Frankly, I was very disappointed that I spent the time to read the questions and the answers. It appears to me that we "fools" allowed the administration a forum, in which to peddle their spin that I could have easily found on one of the White House media outlets such as NBC. I would suggest that in the future The Motley Fool stick to investment strategies and leave investigative journalism to someone else.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:42 PM, gobio wrote:

    Are you sure this wasn't taped from a typical Obama news conference with leading questions from the main street media ABC, CBS, NBC or even C-SPAN . geesh!

    And the big lie, "In the weeks ahead, the President will keep his word to work with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to find common ground",

    Hasn't happened in almost 5 years, its going to start now?? NOT.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:43 PM, CanesBullsCharge wrote:

    I read the sentiment here that most people believe the President is a dictator and can do as he wishes, thus all the financial crap is coming from him? He did inherit a hole and is still towing us out of it with whatever persuasion he has. Its the Congress Fools! The fools in congress that that have prevented a robust recovery. The decline began in 1980 with trickle down policies then the Bush tax cuts and wars that enriched a few and broke the governments ability to provide services. As paychecks fell the crisis was assured. Must have wage inflation to get a return to normalcy. Need demand and demand is not there. The Congress is exacerbating the problem. Get rid of those who think the government budget is just like the one you came up with on your kitchen table. Its NOT! You can't create and destroy money!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:45 PM, mhedges2002 wrote:

    When has this President ever spoken the Truth about anything? He has more than doubled the National Debt in 5 years from 8 Trillion to just under 17 Trillion and you now say he is reducing it from highest levels ever?

    His Presidency has 1 Basic Objective: Take from Producers and Give to NON PRODUCERS.

    Anybody that believes any of the answers to these questions is a FOOL. Please better content in future.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:45 PM, frustr8teddem wrote:

    State and fed. DA,s forced banks to lend to marginal borrowers. Ignorant unqualified people went for it and bought stuff they could not afford. Both Fmae & mac agreed to buy these loans no questions asked. US Govt. enabled all this! Forced surviving banks to buy their insolvent brothers! Now they sue them in my name to line the govt. spending at the expense of investors?

    Shame on the government and voters who believe this crap!!! It's not business and the banks, stupid!!! It's stupid government and greedy consumers to blame!!! I'm so disappointed in the anti business spin put in the MF tone of the questions. I will probably drop my subscription.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:45 PM, placeonthepointe wrote:

    A very, very low point for MF. You have totally lost my attention and respect. I will use my energy letting all my family and friends know about this ridiculous Q&A.....This article is more for a high school newspaper. Again, extremely disappointed in MF.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:46 PM, gamountainhiker wrote:

    "Furthermore, under President Obama, the deficit will have fallen by more than half by the end of the year", yet, it just hit $17 TRILLION dollars, totally delusional to say it will shrink by half by the end of the year! Pure politically correct insanity....

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:48 PM, trooper113 wrote:

    Lots of spin, little substance and no accountability. This was a pretty much a Bravo Sierra exercise.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 4:51 PM, whistler109 wrote:

    Whatever white house aide that put this together is a liar. Flat out. Our administration has done nothing with banking, housing, or any other regulatory business that will work for the middle class. The pols in DC don't give a hoot about you or I and their actions prove it. They should all be voted out and the quicker it happens, the better off we will all be. Simpler taxes...hah! That will be the day. When they talk flat tax is when I'll listen. If the government would simply butt out of most of this business, that would take care of quite a few of the issues facing us as a nation.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:06 PM, tiredtaxpayer wrote:

    Your questions were "softballs" - quite disappointing. It makes me wonder about the objectivity of your recommendations.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:07 PM, oneoftheoldfools wrote:

    Actually, I thought that most of the questions were useful and something that I would like to know the answer to. Asking why nobody went to jail is not softball. The answers, as well as, the comments were all to be expected considering the sources thereof. The exercise simply adds to the proof of the divide that exists with in our nation. Unfortunately, some of it is veiled racism, but mostly it is the primeval struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots" and their various agents and envoys, sadly, exposing the raw edges of the human condition. Fortunately, it is only the raw edges and not the predominate citizenry. So, some reasonable questions with predicable and non enlightening answer together with predictable comments solving nothing. Wait, I have experienced this before???? Aha!......Yes!...Congress!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:08 PM, RLPDLP wrote:

    This is a joke, right?

    Every response is a mix of fantasy, faux 'facts' and meaningless gibberish.

    Come on, Fools - please don't tell me this expect this to be taken seriously.

    Let's look at a few facts:

    1) Obama TRIPLED the national debt, so halving it still leaves it ridiculously high.

    2) The Census Bureau reported today (10/24) that: Means-Tested Government Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers - see details here: http://tinyurl.com/l6l4d9q

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:10 PM, dfra wrote:

    One- Jobs- try being an unemployed, Bachelor degree, worker not able to return to their last position because they to upgrade or gain knowledge than would allow them to be employable in a related position and be competitive. Through WIA in CA tried and was denied, their reasoning, "well the jobs do not say certification is needed" when WIA allows certification and customer (me) to choose a related training in or out of state. The positions related to my employment required, several years of experience, some listed a certification and almost all said "vocational training"...i.e. this usually leads to certification! Jobs don't have to post "Certification needed" when you go for an interview they could tell you there. WTF does not advertising it as needing Certification have to do with it?!

    Two- Money-yes you can create or destroy money. Create it is just printing it often called Fiat money. Problem is create more "paper" and each piece of paper is worth less than the amount of gold that backs it. Destroy "old currency" removes some in circulation and could increase the value of each piece of paper in relation to the gold that backs it...all in theory of how it is supposed to work.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:11 PM, pdyson wrote:

    An observation:

    The difference between republicans and democrats since 1938. Some republicans lie, all democrats lie...

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:13 PM, HurricaneJohnson wrote:

    Waste of bits and bytes and bandwidth.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:13 PM, luchando wrote:

    Who is the White house? Nobody went down memory lane and remember Jimmy Carter started it with the Community Reinvesting Act Bill Clinton expanded it and the finishing touch was given by Barack Obama then attorney for that fine now defunct institution Acorn suing Citibank in 1994 and forcing banks to lend to people that could not afford it. This is an example of government meddling in the private sector it always end bad and we the taxpayer pay the price.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:17 PM, no1baron wrote:

    The whole article is hogwash to put it mildly. Now

    It's clear why it's from an organization called The

    Motley Fool. Total liberal bias. Pathetic and disappointing in my view. I like it better when you stick to picking investments.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:18 PM, mdk0611 wrote:

    Disagreement with an administration's economic policies is thinly veiled racism? Bull excrement !

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:18 PM, jsparky wrote:

    The Motley Fool is the right name for your left wing foolish answers

    Who asked these foolish questions and who was the fool who answered them?

    To add insult to injury I've actually been a fool using yout site

    Goodbye

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Cubs518 wrote:

    The response to question #8 was a total dodge!

    They might as well have answered under this administration people who are personally responsible for themselves are ignored in the effort to create a reliable bloc of voters who depend solely on the government for everything.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:22 PM, christjnjn wrote:

    Lots of rediculous spin. Soft ball questions and no answers! Fool quit cluttering up my e-mail with this Bs!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Clb2 wrote:

    Here are some questions that I'd like to see asked of the President :

    1. How much of the annual increase in medical care costs are due to government regulations?

    2. How much of the annual increase in private medical care costs are due to Medicare not paying the full cost of services provided to seniors?

    3. How many existing doctors are projected to retire or otherwise leave general public practice due to Obamacare consequences?

    4. Does the President ever plan to say anything encouraging to the business community that might foster increased investment and hiring?

    5. Since the President has expressed a refusal to negotiate on debt reduction, but indicates that he intends to reduce the debt, can he provide some specifics on how he intends to do so without increasing taxes which will further strangle the economy?

    6. What percentage of people were the insurance companies told to assume would or would not sign up for Obamacare? What will the consequences be if the actual number signing up is lower than planned? What is the President's plan if the resulting rates are unaffordable?

    7. We keep seeing new crisises, to help us forget about the previous ones. Is there a plan? Spying on the rulers of foreign nations will have serious consequences that may be crippling to trade. When do we start adding all of these crisises together and begin asking more fundamental questions about our leadership?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:25 PM, georgetag wrote:

    From what I've read in the comments I hope all of you get to the poles on election day.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:33 PM, sheav wrote:

    It's a wonder anyone could walk around the White House the day they answered these questions because their noses were so long. You just lost all credibility on this one. Will the NSA be monitoring these comments or are they too busy listening in Germany.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Manifest wrote:

    Article needs an "Avoid" button for equal time with the "Recommend" button.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:38 PM, 092326 wrote:

    The Housing crisis started under President Carter when the congress passed and the President signed the Community Reinvestment Act. Acorn then began to intimidate banks to make loans to individuals who were not financially able to make the payments. President Clinton issued an executive order which did not permit the banks to ask borrowers to prove that the income on the loan application was correct. I am surprised that an investment advisory service would print information that is obviously so biased that it borders on the absurd.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:39 PM, ESD3 wrote:

    Forget the WH response to our questions. What were you expecting? Truth and honesty? On the flip side the real meat here is the opinion of the readers. Some of the remarks were highly accurate and sophisticated. One writer circled close to the root issue by mentioning the Community Reinvestment Act.

    Why no mention of the Collateralized Debt Obligations or even the Mortgage Backed Securities? Come on people. Are you really that simple? The CDO derivative was the most damaging scam in the history of the US. Hello?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:40 PM, KenMcC wrote:

    Does not accout for Dodd Frank Act exempting Family Run Hedge funds being exempt from SEC review and reporting requirments (aka, George Soros Family Hedge Fund) created immediately after the act passsed (by kicking out all non-family members). Does not address why freddie mac and fannie mae are buy up new under qualified loans as fast as the morgage companies can write them. If so many jobs were created, why are more people out of work and/or on food stamps than when President Obama took office? I also agree with most of the above, as for the others in my opinion they have not researched what actually happend.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:41 PM, SamDev wrote:

    From what I've read, most of these responses resonate with me. These responses from the office of the POTUS are absolutely BS. Does the Fool expect me or us to be fools by such nonsense?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:42 PM, dgwc777 wrote:

    I would like to cancel my fool service if the fools believe this. This service should know better. Your just as bad as the Goverment!!!!!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 5:59 PM, ESD3 wrote:

    One more thought on the root cause of the financial meltdown. Both the S&L crisis and the CDO scam evolved from fundamental changes with our federal regulatory agencies. Would it make sense to eliminate federal oversight and replace this with a commercial agency? This change would involve replacing the FDIC as well...................................

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 6:11 PM, gowest67 wrote:

    Drivel and fairy tales.. This is a joke, right?

    how long with the American people continue to believe the pie in the sky rhetoric that comes from the White House?

    WAKE UP PEOPLE !

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 6:13 PM, rmarm wrote:

    Many are questioning who wrote this. It must be the Iraqi Information Minister. Remember that guy? Now we know know where he wound up.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 6:26 PM, peripat wrote:

    This is such a load of waffle, it's quite clear a spin-doctor wrote it. I should think with the amount of money Obama raised in his techno-fundraiser, he could afford more sophisticated weaseling. We may be Motley Fools, but not complete idiots.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 6:38 PM, CRIEHMJR wrote:

    Here are some questions I'd like to see added to Clb2's list:

    1. It's now clear that the Quantitative Easing program has enhanced the wealthy by making cheap money available to them, widened the income distribution gap, and not stimulated any net jobs--exactly the opposite of what is intended. Why does the President let it continue to increase our debt?

    2. Since the President's policies have not created jobs, does he understand exactly how jobs are created?

    3. Why have the SEC regulators and the congressional banking committee members not been chastized or punished for allowing the banking crisis to develop? Is it because they are Democrats?

    4. The deficit is decreasing primarily due to the sequester, which the President fought. How can he claim credit for it?

    5. Nothing he has done for the economy in the past four years has worked as he portrayed it would? Why should his current & future proposals have any credibility?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 6:46 PM, grabaroot wrote:

    I fear that Motley Fool is an apt moniker. Whose idea was this? What morons asked these questions? Surely they weren't subscribers. I'm getting sick of idiot savants. I don't even need to read the White House responses. They are lies and only a credulous, muddle-headed third-grader would say that they were satisfactory.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 6:49 PM, edanish wrote:

    I continue to be surprised that the book "Unintended Consequences" doesn't ever get mentioned in these stories. While we pillory the banks and Wall Street, the authors of the legislation that pushed Freddy and Fanny to issue these "no downpayment" loans was our own government! They forced the issue and continue to push these programs while blaming the bankers who did their will for its failure.

    Shame on Congress and the White House for not acknowledging their complicity in creating this crisis.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 6:53 PM, Taxman44035 wrote:

    Amazing! 5 yrs after Bush and 9 yrs after Dem.s took control of congress...ItsSTILL Bushs fault! Congrats readers, you obviously have a better grasp on reality than these authors! (Editors wherefore art thou?)

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 7:00 PM, mickeyfm wrote:

    Whine, whine, whine....At least you all have money to invest (evidently); I'm up 28.7% for the year. Yet you all whine like prissy babies about every little thing.

    Non-hackers, all ! Grow up !

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 7:06 PM, wdw wrote:

    I'ev read this article and did not see anywhere whether or not MF agreed with the answers or even thought that they were creditable answers to the questions they asked. I feel as most everybody else that commented here, that the answers were just more hogwash out of the mouths of the representatives of our government. I'll go one step farther and say that I do not think our government represents the people of our country anymore, but they represent themselves and the rich firms and people that pay them to be in office and do their bidding.

    I'm not sure why MF even asked these questions or what they expect to achieve by doing this. But, I do see an out come from all of this. The questions got asked and answered. Does anybody here even think for a minute that they would have gotten any better answers from those asked? Do they think think for a minute that any of these questions would have been answered with truth and integrity from those they were put to. I would say that if you did then the name of motley fool is more fitting than it is meant to be in this group. What other answers could you possibly expect to get from the White House or any one in our government today?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 7:27 PM, motie10 wrote:

    I don't think we should blame our MF colleagues for asking the questions; it might have been a public service had the questions been good and the answers something other than spin. However, I am surprised at the tone of the questions, particularly if they came from us, as reported. They clearly didn't come from the people responding so far to this article! (Take just questions 1 and 3, which as pointed out earlier seemed to blame bankers exclusively for the financial crisis and not remember the housing bubble, which had its beginning in the CRA and got its legs from the self-interest of buyers, lenders, Barney Frank's and Maxine Water's significant others at Fannie and Freddie, Acorn, investors and, yes, I admit it, even bankers.)

    It's nice that the President seems to think he has "cleared away the rubble of the financial crisis", but until he addresses the spending and deficit issues, in my opinion he hasn't accomplished the thing that is the biggest problem we face, and holds the most danger for our future. If you had up all the debt (just federal, not state or local!) and divide it by the US population, every man, woman and baby in the country owes almost $200,000 each, and the amount increases by about $3,000 per person per year. So all the crowing from the administration means nothing. We are leaving an enormous debt for our children that they will be unable to pay and which will visit significant hardship on the economy. In spite of a previous comment by someone that the debt doesn't have to be dealt with like a family budget, that's not true. The irony of the recent debt ceiling debate, where the President warned we would default if it wasn't raised, is that it serves as validation of the fact that we can't pay our debts - we can only not default if our lenders will extend more credit. If you were a banker, you wouldn't loan to a person who said they couldn't pay unless you just gave them more credit to do so. What must the Chinese and others think the likelihood that we will ever pay them is?

    It seems that people never ask the right questions, and I think that's what we're complaining about to our MF staff. But: the reality is that the administration never answers any question they haven't framed themselves, so don't shoot the messengers!.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 7:29 PM, jvere wrote:

    What a lot of pro Obama questions it appears[as an Englishman] to be very left wing this not what I expected from Motley Fool.

    Dr Julian Vere

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 7:51 PM, btbrown33 wrote:

    Vote the socialist pigs out of office ... require valid photo-IDs ... push for term limits and tax reform. Our grandchildren need us to regain our freedom and reduce the size of government.

    It's obvious the Fool has exposed their liberal bias for solutions not in the best interest of investors.

    I will not renew next year.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 8:09 PM, army68 wrote:

    This detracts from your mission to make us better investors. What happened to your advice to stick to the fundamentals and ignore politics. What did YOU learn from this claptrap?

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Rexito wrote:

    I appreciate the comment above from the member who said, "consider the source."

    I appreciate the author's listing the references in his reply to comments. We are the sources for the questions to the Whitehouse. The rest has been detailed by the author in the reply above. Looks like the community was represented well, though certainly a number of member rants and spin outs did not get further air.

    Even more, I appreciate that the Fool got us in line to get answers - and got them. Try doing that as an individual with your senator or representative, whether Democrat or Republican. The form letter you receive in reply is likely to be much less focused on your questions- has been in my experience.

    I think it is important to recognize that the replies were made to specific questions, and some of those questions were honest expressions of need from among our community. What can we do to help our fellow fools? At least bring a little humor and a good ear.

    Happy trails all. We are getting through it together. It has been a long haul in the ongoing recovery from the great recession, which started...how?, when? (Actually, TMF intelligence brought me to Jeremy Grantham's newsletters, in which the housing bubble was clearly defined well back in '06.)

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 8:22 PM, mzis6 wrote:

    The Fool has shown me that you no longer deserve my money so you can cancel all my subscriptions. Anyone could have answered these questions using the same answers whether they are a donkey, elephant or whatever the symbol for Progressives and Liberterians might be. Because these are the same responses, excuses and lies we have heard from day one out of this White House.

    Bush wound up making some sorry decisions that started us heading in the wrong direction and This president has no idea what he is doing other than playing the dirtiest politics of any president in our history, including Tricky Dick Nixon.

    How does the Fool propose the U.S. can ever get out from under the $17trillion that we have accumulated? Will legalizing 15 million illegals solve that problem? Will going $trillions more in debt with Obamacare save us?

    This was a stupid stunt on the part of MF that has backfired. Just look at the responses. Maybe You can pick some stocks but it is also this kind of thinking and actions (listening to this confused, mixed up administration) that has dragged us under water. Are you happy with this White House? If so, you need to get out of your offices and look at the real world.

    Look forward to your responses to all the comments you have received.

    Best wishes

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 8:39 PM, drrdanderson wrote:

    What a complete waste of time for investors. I have certainly lost respect for MF---- Whomever came up with this idea should be replaced.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 8:58 PM, kyleleeh wrote:

    After reading the comments on here, I'm very surprised that even on an investment website very few people understand the difference between "the national debt" and "the budget deficit" they are NOT the same thing.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 9:39 PM, usnvet wrote:

    If this is a sample of what we can expect in the future and the mf continues to be a shill for this administration I see no reason to continue our relationship on any basis. I hope this is a one time thing

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 9:48 PM, phakr wrote:

    I believe it was a mistake for the Motley Fool to publish government propaganda without giving its own opinion of the answers. Your organization is built on a capitalist foundation. You seem to have forgotten that Barack Obama was raised and educated by Marxists. He is an avowed anti-capitalist, and as a Chicago politician, he has knowingly put this country on a path towards the destruction of capitalism. Unlike some others, I will probably not cancel my subscriptions; but you have severely disappointed me. I hope you will think hard about where your bread is buttered, and perhaps comment in this venue that you support capitalism and not socialism.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:05 PM, hardog01 wrote:

    Reading the above comments from your readers. it Is hard to believe your readers formulated these questions.

    There Is no point in moaning about our current political situation because it will not change until the man and his cronies are out of Office.

    Many naïve people elected him the 2nd time, and the same still support him.

    Americans need to wake up, and vote by knowing the facts, and voting resposnsibly

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Lloyd44 wrote:

    I would like our MF brain trust to give us their summary analysis of the WH response. That should be very interesting!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:17 PM, aarrdy wrote:

    Wow.. You really did step in it..!!

    I will be canceling my Fool subscription since I have lost all respect for your opinion. Anyone who can not see the damage this administration is doing to our economy will not be guiding any of my financial decisions. I suggest you apologize for this 'Foolish' Foolish article, and use your platform to educate the membership on American Capitalism, not banana republic Socialism..

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:22 PM, Goddessofmusic wrote:

    I find it fascinating that most of the commenters here are so angry with The Motley Fool for publishing the questions and answers. These same people have enjoyed the benefit of the Fool's wisdom and financial acumen for at least a little while, and probably longer, but as soon as the Fool publishes something that goes to the heart of their irrational hatred of the President, suddenly they are no good and worthy of being "dropped". It is to laugh.

    Thank you, Motley Fool, for publishing this story.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:25 PM, slolrn wrote:

    I have to tell you I am pretty alarmed by this obviously political move by the Motley Fool Staff. I subscribe to two different services and up until today I thought David and Tom were looking after our investments. I now realize that they have decided that not only should they offer financial advice but they also need to push the progressive liberal agenda down my throat.

    I hired you for financial advise, if you are out drumming up voters for Obama then maybe I should hire someone who wants to drum up dollars for me.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:37 PM, DaveRan wrote:

    Instead of asking questions from people that you know will provide answers that are spun and slanted I think we need to be looking at and analyzing the current state of the market. The question of not if but when there will be a major correction.

    In looking at QE3 I can only come to one conclusion.

    The current market is way overvalued and now might be the time to move to precious metals and ride out the storm that is looming on the horizon.

    Dave R

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:53 PM, snidely wrote:

    The Administration says that a million jobs would have been lost if GM and Chrysler had gone into bankruptcy. Are we to believe that bankruptcy equals liquidation? Most companies that go into bankruptcy have their debt and obligations restructured and come out stronger. They do not liquidate. Even so, Ford would have had to pick up a lot of new jobs if GM and Chrysler ceased to exist and there would not have been a million jobs lost. They must literally take us for fools.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 10:53 PM, richak28 wrote:

    Guess I really am in a Pack of Fools...

    I've known all the questions and all the whys and

    wherefores ... Did anyone in this Pack of Fools

    really expect any straight answers from the Fools

    in DC ??? Does any of these fools remember Sen.

    Dodd and Congressman Frank...The answers lie

    directly with the actions of those 2 Fools ...

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 11:25 PM, kipp33 wrote:

    The answers to these questions sounds just like the crapola Carny puts out daily!

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 11:37 PM, rmfool100 wrote:

    Thanks for giving these jerks another opportunity to spread their propaganda (as if they needed you). I thought you might have more respect for your members judgement and intelligence than to publish this rubbish. I expect far more from MF.

  • Report this Comment On October 25, 2013, at 11:55 PM, roulette911 wrote:

    I agree with most of the posts. I don't think the POS has the ability to tell the truth and the part about GM bothers me. Maybe MF shoud read the letter from the chairman of GM written by Porter Stansberry of Stansberry Reasearch.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 12:46 AM, frenchman21111 wrote:

    Who in the hell decided to be the mouthpiece for this Joseph Goebbels-inspired piece? Monday morning I'll be calling in to cancel my subscription, which I've been considering for sometime-- your stock-picking speaks for itself, but imagine how much better your record would be if you spent half the energy which is spent on your Agora Publishing-type "teasers."

    This clinched it for me in terms of your powers of judgment. Adios, MF's...

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 1:06 AM, TNjoe wrote:

    My goodness! We're quoting Stansberry! Talk about a pack of Fools. I can't believe all this sniping about the auto bailout. And everyone seems to forget the economy was in freefall and Obama inherited a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. He wasn't in office a month than the Republicans were blaming him for the deficit. We had our chance at fiscal solvency in 2000, but Antonin Scalia chose the Biggest Fool to be president. And Barney Frank didn't tell anyone in Wall Street Investment houses & banks to abandon their responsibilities to their shareholders, investors and depositors. Remember, if you but into the Republican mantra that the government is evil; that the government is the problem, then you are saying the American experiment in self-government is a failure. Also the only way to cut the deficit is to grow our way to prosperity. Austerity is a recipe for disaster. We were lucky in the Clinton years that those big gains in productivity came along and saved our collective hides. Or have people forgotten the endless deficits all saw in the 1980s. George W. killed all that and I don't know if we will get lucky twice. I do know we can only cut our way into poverty and despair. We need government to prime the pump, not disconnect the pipes. Obama's big mistake was to buy into concern about the deficit way too soon in his first term. He has actually governed very conservatively.

    BTW- our modern history is filled with good programs passed by progressive Democrats without any Republican support. The ACA is just another example- and a very conservative one at that.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 1:25 AM, lewwwww wrote:

    The FOOL'S posting guidelines mentioned 'intelligent and responsible' people, of which little of those qualities was communicated by many of these responses. Sounds like ya'll wanted to shoot the wrong messenger. Have you ever seen the White House's tripe published widely as presented by the Fool's reference? You sophisticates may know it all but tons of us are a bit short. And if some of you are as upset as you seem, please convey to any listeners that MF will always rate a '10 plus' in my book. Sure like to know should you find anyone better. Lewwwww

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 1:45 AM, thirdrock3 wrote:

    Looking at the comments and adding what I know:

    A primary cause of the financial trouble was that banks were forced to lend money to borrowers who had no hope of paying it back. Housing bubble resulted and burst.

    The owners and bondholders of the auto industry were robbed and their property was handed to the UAW.

    The financial institutions I held stock in lost well over 90% of their value, none of which has been returned to me.

    The young have suffered disproportionately from the continuing lack of jobs, and incentive destroying regulations. This is especially true in the big city ghettoes where 18-25 year olds have at least double the real unemployment rate which has hovered around 14% unless you leave out the discouraged who are on welfare.

    ACA is the icing on the mudcake we are being given. Forget saving $2,500 per family, keeping your insurance and the doctor of your choice, and getting the care you need.

    The uninformed will remain so until the ongoing economic disaster hits them. Bless their hearts. Most of them are not ill-intentioned.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 2:58 AM, FoolsWeR wrote:

    Wow fellow Fools,

    This is my first ever comment after being a member for years. I am surprised how angry and judging so many members are being of this article. Judgement shuts down communication. Before ranting, please read article carefully and read comment made by --TMFBane on Oct.25 at 1:25 PM-.

    This article in my opinion was presented as a service to us members. If you don't like the answers, write to the White House. Write to your congress. I called the white house to oppose the Iraq war before it started. There is usually a much cheaper solution than war. That is where half our taxes go folks. America put depleted uranium in bombs, sent them to Iraq, wrote them a constitution demanding health care for all with us footing much of the bill, and now they have one of the highest birth defect rates in the world. (just google all these claims-many credible sources) That's where the money goes folks. The things Americans are getting so upset about today are a drop in the bucket compared to war. In my opinion, the stories which are too horrific to believe (but are true) just get ignored and all the energy goes to these trivial items. Without war we could easily afford to fix our problems here at home and save money to help friendly countries when they need help. Then if others attack us, we would have the rest of the world behind us. Be solution oriented.

    What if American people spent as much time making a positive difference as we do complaining? We are becoming a culture of complainers , partly because i think the complainer is seen as "the one who really knows what is going on..." That's just a myth radio hosts can profit on. Make a difference. But please do not attack MF for working hard to provide us with information (they are just quoting the White House). There seems to be a trend that the angrier the comment, the less knowledge or thought there is behind it. Thanks for the article MF. I actually learned several things I did not know before. Fool On.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 6:05 AM, matthewinuk wrote:

    The lies right from question one are blatant. Anyone with cash at the bank will be bailing out troubled banks in the future. As occurred in Cyprus. This has been clearly outlined in a joint document between the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Bank of England. (The document is entitled 'Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important Financial Institutions' December 2012)

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 6:34 AM, chuckbarteck wrote:

    These answers are laughable. There is not one answer that holds anyone inside the Whitehouse responsible for anything. Typical Obama shell game. He's a political toddler who has gotten us deeper and deeper into debt, has appointed incompetent people into positions of power, has had one disaster after another(Benghazi, IRS scandal, Obamacare, Caught spying on the German Chancellor's phone) that even Hillary and Bill and a load of other democrats are starting to distance themselves. He has totally pissed off our allies by treating them with his typical arrogance and is now on an island by himself at a time when we owe more money to other countries than ever before. He is now and will prove to be the worst President we have ever had. Jimmy Carter knew he was a disaster but at least he was a nice guy. Obama is so arrogant he can't see how incompetent he is. He thinks he's right about everything from school lunches to foreign policy to the design of the Marine hat.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Frank3858 wrote:

    The questions were naive and the answers propaganda. As I read the article, I became more and more disappointed with MF for putting out such trash. The bright spot was the comments by the majority of MF subscribers. They were more informed and intelligent, than the staff that put together the article. What did this article contribute to me, as an investor? It gives me no pleasure to say I started to question the competence of MF. Somebody at MF should get their posterior kicked. We expect you (MF) to be smarter!

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 9:15 AM, TMFMurph wrote:

    This political commercial brought to you by TMF!

    Bad form...and NOT TMF's mission.

    " And we'd gladly publish the views and thoughts of key policymakers and business leaders that have different perspectives on these issues..."

    So, did TMF seek out and supply the same questions to "others" at the same time? If not, then this is NOT objective journalism....just a disguised commercial for Obama.

    Shameful!

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 9:39 AM, cmalek wrote:

    Horse puckey!!!

    Typical political BS, lots of talk without actually saying anything substantive.

    Those who got convicted in the bank fraud were mid and low-level sacrificial flunkies. Working drones are doing time while senior management, whose policies the drones were carrying out, is still walking around free. The fish starts rotting from the head, so that is where the prosecution should start, with the CEOs, CFOs, COOs and then go down to the VPs.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 10:05 AM, detocqueville wrote:

    I am extremely disappointed in MF for allowing such blatantly political commentary on your website. You bring into question your judgment about investing as well.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Viking1931 wrote:

    Seems that those who are the most ignorant about how we got into this debt mess are the ones who are the most angry about it. They forget that the agreements worked out between Clinton and Gingrich had our nation on a path to eliminate our entire national debt. Then we had the Bush tax cuts, his generous Medicare expansion, and his fiasco of War In Iraq. Remember how the war was to pay for itself with the revenues from Iraq oil? Then we had the financial crash and Wall Street bailout in the final Bush year. As a White House Budget Staffer during the Nixon and Ford years I tend to look at these things from a technocrats perspective. From that perspective I think Obama is doing quite well, though I would have liked some more forceful participation during the shutdown.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 10:24 AM, starchase1 wrote:

    These softball political questions edited by TMF are bizarre. Imagine the answers to the same questions if they were asked to the Republican leadership! In fact, that perspective should have been presented. Most of us are sick of nothing being done about the national debt. These questions and answers make it sound as if everything will be fine if we just trust the government.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 10:27 AM, htw71 wrote:

    Yes, the answers are spin, but what about the questions? They use accusations like "greed" and blame "Wall Street" for the the financial crises, while ignoring the root cause. The Federal requirement that banks lend to unqualified borrowers to meet quotas. The banks had to make the risky loans or face prosecution and Freddie and Fannie enabled them by easing credit and down payment requirements.

    The cause of the crises was Federal Intervention in a marketplace that worked for over a century.

    Disappointing that The Fool doesn't seem to know this.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 11:04 AM, NoMoreMoney wrote:

    This question (especially) and answer session totally confirms the impression gained over the last few years that The Fool is essentially a Dem-Bama spokesman when needed.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 11:12 AM, mjmce wrote:

    While it is obvious that Fool carries the Obama administration's water, I can't believe that the supposed questions and answers were not scripted by the admin's spin corps. Most significant was the "too big to fail" non-answer. anyone who can read knows that too big has just gotten bigger and that the american taxpayers are still exposed to catastrophic risk. This continues because the Obama benefactors like the big risks and rewards made possible by taxpayer bailouts which are now part of the Wall Street business model, thanks to the Bush - Obama administrations. I seriously question Motley Fool's ability in investigative journalism or critical thinking when a topic involves their collectivist world view. Could their financial analyses be much better?

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 11:26 AM, JED96S wrote:

    It is a waste of time reading more posturing by this administration when they have already proven themselves to be totally unreliable and lacking in concern for the American people they are suppose to represent.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 11:35 AM, mindguy1 wrote:

    Reading the comments left me thinking that I am in a wackadoodle community rather than a Foolish one. These are the administrations answers to questions from this community. They are not supposed to be some OBJECTIVE TRUTH!

    For instance- In 2002, If you asked the W Bush admin: Why did we go into Iraq? They would say that we are eliminating WMO's and creating a more stable gov't in Iraq that is in the interest of the USA. That would be what they believed and if you reported on it you would be clarifying that belief or policy objective NOT saying that it was the TRUTH.

    Clarifying why government's do things helps everyone understand them. There's NO implication of TRUTH telling.

    In a wakadoodle community, not a Foolish one, clarification of a contrary opinion implies conspiring to support that opinion.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Sully9173 wrote:

    While I support and will continue to support this President 100%, more than just a few thiings I see written in this article, is simply stock answers. The same Bankers and Major Players are still in place and still have a Bank Account. While those they destroyed financially are often on the street.

    These same people still deal with and hold jobs that control the finances of the Public. This kind of work should be taken from them "FOREVER". As well as their assets such as, bank accounts, properties, college funds, retirement funds, and homes sold to recover the losses their victims have lost due to their dishonesty.

    The Justice Dept must put all the names, addresses, pictures, and former positions of convicted Bank officials and Financial these convicted people on a dedicated FREE Web site for just this purpose. Numbers of such people mean absolutely nothing, absolute identification of these convicts will count for something.

    The penalties for destroying the National trust as well as the financial infrastructure MUST be so severe that those convicted, stand as an example for the generations to come. Only by doing such a thing will this kind of skulduggery be possibly prevented.

    The final results for the BAIL OUT/Federal Loans to the Auto Industry must also be publicly presented in accredited form, on a Web site precisely for that purpose, for all the American Public to see. I have no problem with Loans that ARE paid back by Private Industry to Our Government. But an accounting to the cent must go with that LOAN. Just as I would expect from any bank loan repayment.

    There is a huge difference between a Loan and a BAIL Out, we should make that distinction.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 12:06 PM, trikeedick wrote:

    The questions asked seem like the ones the administration passes out to the favored reporters at their news conference's to which the answers were already loaded into the teleprompter

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 12:45 PM, cheeryjuice wrote:

    The answer to #7 is total crap. The people who saved the auto industry are the SECURED CREDITORS who got screwed and the U S taxpayers who funded this fiasco with special tax breaks that gave GM especially a huge cost advantage over the most successful of the "Big 3" (Ford) who got no help at all. And let's not forget the transplants who now make up a very significant % of the U S auto industry and who got no help (nor asked for any) from the brilliant minds in the Obama Administration

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 1:44 PM, gr888t wrote:

    It is disappointing that MF would be yet another vehicle for disseminating half truths and outright lies that the President and his administration have pushed on the public for years. I thought you guys could see through the political smog. I think it's pretty clear that the majority of us who cared enough to share our thoughts here have a similar opinion.

    You have the pulpit to clearly state your view on each biased answer and I hope you do.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 2:30 PM, 4soli wrote:

    Where in the world did these "Fool"-ish questions come from? "It seems to me that the financial crisis was basically caused by greed . . ." Fool-ishly false, but Ironic indeed coming from an investment advice website. But most Fool-ish is asking such questions of the White House -- this is analogous to assuming a fox in charge of the henhouse, then questioning it about what happened to the chickens.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 3:54 PM, TurboJohn wrote:

    In the elegant old White House Executive Office adjacent to the White House are offices for a few hundred of Obama's top advisors. The number of them that have real business experience is zero. This administration's agenda is topped with wealth shifting from producers to non-producers. I know, I work in the govn.

    When appointments among top career positions (who will stay after Obama goes) to persons whose top priorities are not performance of the agency but touchy feely agenda items, you see the effect. My agency is a good example; K. Sebelius and HHS is another. This administration has had five years to execute on plans mentioned in the answers, and businesses faces more, not less, regulatory roadblocks.

    Coal power is being regulated out of business, the Excel pipeline is blocked - these are two good examples. When most of the stock market increase in 2013 is due to inflationary effects of "monetary easing," and the administration has no intent of decreasing the federal deficit, you understand the negative effects the administration is having on the economy. See the Footnote following.

    Footnote: On October 1, the President sent a 13 paragraph letter to all Federal employees. Paragraph 11: "This shutdown was completely preventable. It should not have happened. And the House of Representatives can end it as soon as it follows the Senate's lead, and funds your work in the United States Government without trying to attach highly controversial and partisan measures in the process."

    So debt reduction is a controversial and partisan measure?! Obama's aversion to working on debt reduction could not be clearer. Just like the Q&A published above, this paragraph, too, was published by the White House.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Prepper13 wrote:

    Couple of comments, regardless of political affiliations; my Foolish Associates, above, have opined on the deficit, but what about the interest we are paying on the deficit? This is the elephant in the living room, that everyone ignores. We have about a year, and then no debt ceiling discussions can hide the fact borrowing money to make the payments on the money we borrowed does not an economy make. Ink on paper currency is like having no money in the account but still having checks! This is entirely unsustainable, and we are headed for The Wall at high speed. Everyone will act surprised. Famous quote;"That which is unsustainable will not be sustained", and another from Carl Sagan "The problem with exponentials, is that they gobble up everything".I believe that we are in for a "revaluation" of the currency, or hyper inflation, the only two ways out; because cut as we may, the debt will not go away. Yeah, we have growth, on the 1% level; and we have jobs, but not the jobs we lost. This will not save us.

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 6:14 PM, 1jforrest wrote:

    Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, Ha,Ha, you get the picture!

  • Report this Comment On October 26, 2013, at 7:05 PM, rdsbobby wrote:

    Interesting that all of the questions were ones the Whitehouse could answer by placing blame. What about the important questions such as the deficit and the national debt? Does the Whitehouse, who while running for political office in I think 2006 came down hard on deficits, think they matter now? Why not ask the real hard questions. Here is my take on all of this; every move the Whitehouse makes buys votes. He can do it cheap with health care and amnesty. Amnesty opens up a path to taxpayer healthcare provided to courtesy of the DNC and the taxpayer. Millions more votes. If the MF was complicit asking these questions maybe it is time I cancelled my paid subscriptions to the MF!

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 9:04 AM, joannemary wrote:

    The whole premise of this exercise was appalling to me. The authors of this idea belie their political affiliation. Thank the Lord for the comment section. Reasonable and informed persons replying to the hogwash answers from the WH. Better MF stick to evaluating stocks. Truly makes me wonder if I should continue my subscription.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 9:46 AM, mickeyfm wrote:

    You'll all be glad to hear(?):

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/nobody-s...

    Just thought all the whiners would love to read this....HA!

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 10:44 AM, mikeythefool100 wrote:

    Typical left wing B.S. written by a spin doctor. Totally without merit.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 11:27 AM, garfq wrote:

    Just what we should expect; political posturing.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 11:46 AM, cturnerxray wrote:

    You should change your name to the Motley Idiot if you actually think you got any reasonable answers to your questions. I'd be embarrassed to have these questions and answers associated with my name! Don't waste my time with this political spin crap!

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Slaloms wrote:

    From a financial point of view, what is the point of this article?

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 3:22 PM, 4pepper wrote:

    This is utter garbage. I could hardly avoid throwing up.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 4:02 PM, 3Pea wrote:

    I hope that Motlel Fool is not fooled by this and would give equal time to the other side to state their point of view and facts on these questions. If not I would question if I should be a member of this group.

    MB

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 5:33 PM, 1oldfool wrote:

    Sadly this sounds like material straight off the DNC printing presses from the 2012 campaign. When I think of GMC I think of the millions of small shareholders, bondholders and suppliers that got their clocks cleaned while the Union pension funds stayed in tact. I'm disappointed that the Fool would allow campaign spin on this site.

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 5:43 PM, Mathman6577 wrote:

    Did they really need to ask the Obama administration anything about the economy, never mind the financial crisis? It would have been easier to just say George W. Bush was responsible for everything and save all that space on the page.

    I agree w/ 3Pea. Where's the other side(s) of the story?

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 6:11 PM, jbacva wrote:

    glad I didn't waste my time reading this during the work week

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2013, at 8:32 PM, circa1850 wrote:

    The U.S. will begin to thrive again when it's citizens, including politicians begin doing thing for the good of the order i.e. the best thing for the country as a whole.

    Am happy for the current administration to hear what we all are feeling and thank Ilan Moscovitz and John Reeves for their culling the gist of our feedback and presenting it to White House. Hope that Administration officials from both the Council of Economic Advisors and National Economic Council have made the President, Advisors, Senators and Congress aware of the country's concerns.

    As for the responses-standard WH pablum regurgitation, as some put it. It stains our shirts!

    Feel we need to vote in new members of both houses, scrap our current tax code and reform it to an uncomplicated flat tax in which all pay their share.

    Thumbs up anoldfool and Clb2.

  • Report this Comment On October 28, 2013, at 8:25 AM, lcr1946 wrote:

    Stupid is as stupid does and there's a whole bunch of stupid in these comments. I've never the like of folks complaining about something they should have known what they were getting. This was no secret White House communication to infiltrate the Fools. This article did exactly what it said it was going to do. Just where did any of you get the idea this was going to be some dig up the dirt, root out the evil lurking in the White House expose? Was somebody in the Administration supposed to provide some real inside dirt that would confirm all your idiot suspicions about how the Obama Administration completely screwed up our banking and financial system?

    You are an idiot! What were they supposed to say about your grade school playground whining about others that got loans that you didn't get. All you self-serving weenies that just can't quit worrying and complaining about others would probably find your lives greatly enhanced if you pay more attention to yourself. The CRA didn't cause this. The Administration, Clinton, Bush or Obama didn't cause this problem although Clinton and Bush laid the groundwork. The problem as usual was a group of charlatan mortgage originators supported by a bunch of incredibly greedy bankers and ignored by government regulators.

    Although it is now a common practice, anytime you go to breaking up debt into small chunks and parceling it out, control of it is going to be lost because it's but a small piece of a large investment. I've seen claims that capital deficiencies were not the cause of the financial crisis. Well, that's true. The cause was a complete systemic failure by anyone with half a brain to oversee the business. How does one explain or justify the liar loans generated by the mortgage originators (the loan applicants were pawns in this deal, most were not sufficiently equipped to deal with the mortgage application and just knew they were going to get a house), the interest only loans and a host of move in with nothing down we'll roll the fees into the mortgage amount loans.

    The main transgression in this piece of idiocy was the failure of Geithner at the Treasury to move these banks into receivership and turn them around or parcel them out. His single minded effort to save the banks has provided us with a drag on the economy that still holds us back economically. Why would anyone want to put their money in a bank that invests for it's own accounts? There is no defense for the banks or other Wall Street players and there is no substitute for the stupid displayed in these comments.

    What did you expect? If you respond, choose your thoughts and words carefully. Most of you are too amped up on anti-government and anti-Administration rhetoric to do anything but provide an offsetting whine.

  • Report this Comment On October 28, 2013, at 2:07 PM, moneytrail wrote:

    Sounds like the questions were created by Housel and Lomanx with "guidance" from the hapless White House.

    Best be careful; Motley Fools may soon come to be known as Motley fools!

    Pathetic.

  • Report this Comment On October 28, 2013, at 2:35 PM, mbirdlebo wrote:

    I'm concerned that, contrary to the WH assertion that jobs are its top priority, we have yet to see any meaningful focus on what it will take to engage all those who are un- and under-employed in work worthy of their skill. Yet, this is the only way to grow and sustain an economy capable of digging us out of the debt and deficit crises. It makes no sense to dump more money into education and job training when current graduates of such programs can't find work.

    This article and the vociferous responses have succeeded in diverting us all from useful contemplation of either the problem (huge deficits leading to unconscionable debt) or the solution (full employment).

    Both parties have abdicated. Shame on us if we continue to look to them for leadership…but where else can it be found?

  • Report this Comment On October 28, 2013, at 11:46 PM, Samskiman wrote:

    This is by far the most foolish attempt at 'education' I've ever seen here. Yes, that's a small f.

    Focus your energy on investing, stock picking, etc., we can figure out all by ourselves what's going on and how we view issues without this type of sad, insulting, sophomoric, faux Q & A.

  • Report this Comment On October 29, 2013, at 2:33 AM, JP50 wrote:

    I thought I joined an economic/market reporting site, not a propaganda/political spin mill.

  • Report this Comment On October 29, 2013, at 11:54 AM, nands33 wrote:

    The few fools that blame the banks, can I ask one question! Do the democrat politicians that lowered the 'money down' requirement for buying a house get any blame? More federal regulation? I think not, the Fed butting it's nose in the housing market is what started the whole mess. The free market was working just fine, not everyone can afford a house. There is not such thing as Utopia.

  • Report this Comment On October 29, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Larry0716 wrote:

    Motley Fool: You have significantly fallen in my estimation with this piece of #####. Any one who has studied the issue realizes that the government caused the crisis with its desire to have anyone, no matter how financially irresponsible, buy a home. Barney Frank - wanted to "roll the dice.." well he did and he destroyed many american lives. The government via bank regulatory powers and forced banks to go along with lending to the irresponsible. Basil II capital regulations strongly encouraged banks to own mortgage backed securities. Then there was mark to market accounting which forced the downward spiral and also. Idiot politicians. No lenders would have lent with no money down to these folks without government coercian.

  • Report this Comment On October 29, 2013, at 6:09 PM, yevrah30518 wrote:

    Typical and total spin. It's very scary that people actually believe the BS answers.

  • Report this Comment On October 29, 2013, at 8:24 PM, SlowThought wrote:

    Who the @$#% are you to nod your head on my behalf at the administration's lame excuses? If you used your access as a fairly influential representative of a group of savvy investors to call the administration to account, then I'd say bravo. Instead, it seems you've used your group of savvy investors to tell the administration "we have something to sell!".

  • Report this Comment On November 01, 2013, at 1:40 PM, danderson4320 wrote:

    Complete Garbage...... Causes of the real estate bubble and financial crisis range from the Federal Reserve, to Barney Frank, to Chuck Schumer, to Goldman Sachs, to Fannie Mae, and very stupid renters becoming temporary home owners. But there is only one cause for the very slow economic recovery the last 5 years; the incompetent in the White House.

    Please cancel my Motley Fool subscription .

  • Report this Comment On November 06, 2013, at 8:05 PM, varon wrote:

    The answers are mostly political spin for the administration and negative comments for the other side. Several answers have similar comments. It's mostly useless.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2013, at 5:20 PM, rapid72 wrote:

    What bull re. improved "quality of assets," held by banks, helping those who behaved responsibly and holding greedy bankers responsible. Those improved assets are Treasury obligations, purchased with money borrowed from the Fed at zero percent, providing all the cash to heal banks' balance sheets so quickly. The impact of that vast subsidy on responsible savers and investors has been to create negative real returns as our "reward" and incentive. I'm not impressed with numbers of prosecutions; how many top managers have been put into the dock, let alone put away?

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2698497, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/28/2014 12:29:28 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement