Actually, I think she will remain a senator out of her indignant pride due to the nation choosing Obama over her.
Last edited:
Defaming Bill Clintons Legacy of Hope
- Thread starter Fudd
- Start date
If you still don't know what I was talking about after reading Krustee's posts and the links he provided, I am not sure if I can make it more clear for you. I'm a lot lazier than he is.
As I said, read up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the legislation related to them and the regulation of the banking industry that took place under the Clinton administration.
As far as 'which laws', I don't think you really understand much about how laws are written in the US. It is VERY different from here in Canada. In the US just about every law that is passed has so many 'riders' hanging on that have nothing to do with what the law is about that it is quite a difficult task to sort through it all and I'm not going to dig through the 1000s of amendments to laws about pork prices to find the mortgage regulation sections.
Also you might want to check out some of the links on that 'nutjob' website, they are to good reliable sources (Clinton's ABC interview, for example). I just gave you that link because it had all the links to the information all nice and neat for you and easy to follow.
As I said, read up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the legislation related to them and the regulation of the banking industry that took place under the Clinton administration.
As far as 'which laws', I don't think you really understand much about how laws are written in the US. It is VERY different from here in Canada. In the US just about every law that is passed has so many 'riders' hanging on that have nothing to do with what the law is about that it is quite a difficult task to sort through it all and I'm not going to dig through the 1000s of amendments to laws about pork prices to find the mortgage regulation sections.
Also you might want to check out some of the links on that 'nutjob' website, they are to good reliable sources (Clinton's ABC interview, for example). I just gave you that link because it had all the links to the information all nice and neat for you and easy to follow.
Thanks for the endorsement, I have been seeing a lot of people talking off the cuff on this subject & thought it was about time someone set the record straight.
I think what you are talking about here is the pork in legislation & the most common meaning when you hear "pork" is in reference to Pork Barrel Legislation & pork laden bills headed for legislation.
What this means is that congressmen are slipping in projects which will benefit their constituents on bills headed to the House & Senate for approval.
These "Pork barrel" projects are a big reason why it takes so many months & years to get a bill through legislation.
I won't quote it here but this is a very good read which gives a good example of the practice of pork barrel politics:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193947,00.html
Also read this stuff:
As far as the differences between Canada & the US political processes for running the countries they really are not far apart, they just go about it in a slightly different manner.
The US has the Executive branch which includes the Presidency & related administration & with the Senate & House you have the Legislative branch of government which all are tasked with running the country on the federal level.
Beyond that you have the State, County & City governments.
I don't doubt there were some brokers taking advantage of the boom in sub-prime mortgages but let's not confuse the issue by implying that they are responsible for this mess.
They through their actions may have played a part & enhanced the effect of these bad loans but ultimately it was a government policy, manipulation of FNM, FRE & the CRA which caused this mess.
I think it interesting that Fudd, who started this thread with a claim that it is the greedy banks who are solely to blame for this debacle, will be unable to refute anything I have written on this subject.
Last edited:
Clinton had a very sound pollicy of helping the poor out with loans to help the low income own homes. It just that greed from mortgage brokers, banks and others ruined the whole thing.
No matter how well planned Clinton's policy it was eventually corrupted by greed. And as stated this program was intiated in 1995 and for many years it worked fine until some rich greedy bastards ruined the whole thing. Things did not started showing up until 2007 so thats 12 years of smooth operation under this program. And of course those greedy bastards had 12 years to conspire and plot thing whole mess.
This whole thing should not be about economics it should be about helping out the poor.
No matter how well planned Clinton's policy it was eventually corrupted by greed. And as stated this program was intiated in 1995 and for many years it worked fine until some rich greedy bastards ruined the whole thing. Things did not started showing up until 2007 so thats 12 years of smooth operation under this program. And of course those greedy bastards had 12 years to conspire and plot thing whole mess.
This whole thing should not be about economics it should be about helping out the poor.
Fudd & many others would have you believe that Clinton with halo tightly fitted to his holy cranium hatched a brilliant plan to save all those poor welfare, lower & middle income earners, all those hard working Americans that were trampled under foot by the wealthy Wall street fat cats & other evil conservative Neo-cons & gave them the hope of homeownership by miraculously pulling money out of thin air with no more than a quick flick of his BiC.
Sorry for the above I couldn't resist.
Well, let's look at the REAL record - let's look at the truth & draw conclusions after the info is on the table.
To start, please take the time to read the following article and keep in mind the date it was written:
Hey Fudd, did ya notice how many Democrat names are on that list?
Sorry for the above I couldn't resist.
Well, let's look at the REAL record - let's look at the truth & draw conclusions after the info is on the table.
To start, please take the time to read the following article and keep in mind the date it was written:
Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame
By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:30 PM PT
Congress says it likely will adjourn this month having done nothing on the most important issue in America right now: the financial meltdown from the subprime lending crisis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Congress just walk away from a problem it helped create? Maybe, maybe not.
There's now some talk of a grand deal between the Treasury, the Fed and Congress for a "permanent" solution: creating a government agency to buy up all the bad subprime debt, just like the Resolution Trust Corp. did with bad real estate in the 1980s and 1990s.
Already, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the subprime crisis from crashing the world economy. The collapse of twin mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the failures of Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, expose taxpayers to more than $1 trillion in liabilities.
Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, "no one knows what to do" right now.
Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked "no" at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.
Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.
"The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.
Only one problem: It's untrue.
Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn't have.
But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.
Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."
Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.
"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
It's pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.
As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush's plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we're now in.
"If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005, "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
Sounds like McCain was spot on.
But his warnings, too, were ignored by Congress.
To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.
Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.
These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.
Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.
Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.
It was economic hardball.
"We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible," Clinton's comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.
And they meant it.
In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.
Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.
That's how the contagion began.
With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.
Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.
As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in "community development," giving money to local housing rights groups and "empowering" the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.
Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.
Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).
The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.
Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.
They got the bonuses. You get the bill.
Hey Fudd, did ya notice how many Democrat names are on that list?
Makeup of US Senate in 2004:
Republican 55
Democrat 44
Makeup of US Senate in 2006:
Republican 49
Democrat 49
Makeup of US House of Representatives in 2004:
Republican 232
Democrat 202
Makeup of US House of Representatives in 2004:
Republican 202
Democrat 233
You make it seem as if Congress consisted only of Democrats.
Give us vote breakdowns on the proposed changes - otherwise an obviously biased columnist spouting "Democrats halted attempts to stop the madness" rings pretty hollow to me.
Republican 55
Democrat 44
Makeup of US Senate in 2006:
Republican 49
Democrat 49
Makeup of US House of Representatives in 2004:
Republican 232
Democrat 202
Makeup of US House of Representatives in 2004:
Republican 202
Democrat 233
You make it seem as if Congress consisted only of Democrats.
Give us vote breakdowns on the proposed changes - otherwise an obviously biased columnist spouting "Democrats halted attempts to stop the madness" rings pretty hollow to me.
Hollow or empty Bart, should be familiar to you.
The above statements are quotes from the President, Senators & the donations received also are a matter of record so I fail to see how you can feel comfortable patently ignoring them.
Also Bart, what the hell does the makeup of the congress have to do with the Clinton administration forcing CRA down the throats of the financial institutions?
Last edited:
What does the makeup of Congress have to do with it?
Duh.
Also - not ignoring, just looking for additional context.
Republicans had majorities (albeit slim ones) in Congress. Why didn't Bush's supposed regulation bill pass?
Republicans also had majorities in Congress during Clinton's reign. "Ramming down our throats", you say?
Although party loyalty plays a smaller role in American politics, it is not irrelevant.
The article, and some of your arguments, paint a broad stroke that is missing some context. I'm not saying there is zero blame to be had by politicians of both stripes....but ignoring Wall Street's outright criminal behaviour, and trying to pin it all on one party is just plain absurd.
And the reason you don't see more "R's" in that fundraising chart is because all the GOP money is coming from Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, and Bechtel. Oh, and Saudi Arabia
Duh.
Also - not ignoring, just looking for additional context.
Republicans had majorities (albeit slim ones) in Congress. Why didn't Bush's supposed regulation bill pass?
Republicans also had majorities in Congress during Clinton's reign. "Ramming down our throats", you say?
Although party loyalty plays a smaller role in American politics, it is not irrelevant.
The article, and some of your arguments, paint a broad stroke that is missing some context. I'm not saying there is zero blame to be had by politicians of both stripes....but ignoring Wall Street's outright criminal behaviour, and trying to pin it all on one party is just plain absurd.
And the reason you don't see more "R's" in that fundraising chart is because all the GOP money is coming from Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, and Bechtel. Oh, and Saudi Arabia
Ah yes!Republicans had majorities (albeit slim ones) in Congress. Why didn't Bush's supposed regulation bill pass?
Republicans also had majorities in Congress during Clinton's reign. "Ramming down our throats", you say?
The article, and some of your arguments, paint a broad stroke that is missing some context. I'm not saying there is zero blame to be had by politicians of both stripes....but ignoring Wall Street's outright criminal behaviour, and trying to pin it all on one party is just plain absurd.
And the reason you don't see more "R's" in that fundraising chart is because all the GOP money is coming from Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, and Bechtel. Oh, and Saudi Arabia
Now I see where you are coming from -
you are also a low income earner who is miffed at those fat cats on Wall St.
So, just because you have a bias against those who earn more than $50,000 per year there is no amount of evidence that will convince you the Clinton administration was so inept that they sold the country a bill of goods or in this case a bunch of securities that were worthless?
By the way what do you mean by "context"?
Did you bother to read the detailed background I laid in my previous posting?
All of what I spelled out can be verified by too many sources to count.
We're not talking opinions here Bubba these are facts that are a matter of record so how can that be out of context?
I agree with you here but what the record reflects is that Clinton enjoyed strong party loyalty on the CRA rules being enforced on the lenders.Although party loyalty plays a smaller role in American politics, it is not irrelevant.
What's more is the apparent influence all those campaign fund donations made to both the Democrat & Republican congressmen which ensured the status quo remained further exa****ating the situation.
This is mostly bs
I've read most of your posts and by and large they are very intelligent. However, I don't believe they tell the whole story and it seems to me your viewpoint is very slanted. Let's start with this post, then when I have time I'll comment on the CRA issue.
Are you for a second suggesting that regulations regarding mortgage brokers were actually being enforced? How ridiculous. Not only that but it's pretty obvious that banks were complicite with respect to underwriting loans they knew or ought to have known were bogus. This is pretty obvious based on the following:
1. They never required verification of income....hmm how prudent is that? Especially when people started reporting 6 figure incomes?
2. In some cases it didn't seem to matter if the applicant was employed ..again how prudent is that?
3. Tax return verification, out the window.
4. Debt servicing ratios..were apparently non applicable.
The reason they behavored in this manner has nothing to do with the CRA, it was a simply business decision based on what later turned out to be an illusion that they were pawning the risk off to others and getting paid handsomely for it.
Now I can follow financial documents fairly closely, but rest assurred this is not the norm, I can pretty much guarantee you that those individual who signed those contracts didn't understand those reset clauses, and if asked the typical answer was not to worry about it, your house is going to go up during this period of time and we can renegotiate this later.
Yes an individual has some onus to understand what they are signing but they also have a right to full and truthful explaination as to what it is they are signing. I've signed numerous mortgage documents and I don't recall telling them I'll take it home and let my lawyer persue it as being an option.
Nor should one have to resort to those extremes to get the truth.
The real crime is that these individuals were under the illusion that the mortgage brokers were actually working for them!!! Turns out things could be further from the truth.
Here's a real example. Did you know that a mortgage broker is under no legal obligation to get the best deal for you they can?? There are stories of a broker who could have gotten someone say a 5% rate for 30 years and instead getting them a mortgage in which the teaser rate was 3% and the final rate was in excess of 7%. And legally the broker has done nothing wrong. There were other stories where someone's FICO rate would have allowed him to get rates of 6% and instead he was steered into mortgages with higher rates.
Why would he do that, simply the commisions on the less favourable rates paid more.
You've got a lot of theory mixed up with facts on the ground. Regulations don't mean dick if they aren't being enforced, or if they don't protect those that they are intended to protect.
Why would a bank or broker grant a loan to someone when they knew the debt servicing ratios weren't going to work after the teaser rate ended. That's the real question.
And to give you an idea of how much things have changed, I bought a condo in the US in January and dealt with 3-4 US mortgage brokers when doing so.
They asked me for the following:
1. Tax returns for two years, personal and corporate, and NOA
2. A copy of the latest pay stub
3. list of all debts and monthly payment obligations verified through a credit agency (Transunion & equinox have international operations)
4. copies of all bank and investment accounts for 3 months, including RRSP's
5. A declaration of where the down payment was originating from
6. Appraisal of current property and proof of income
This was just for starters. And at the end of the day they decided the income in the property I wanted to buy wouldn't count but the newly acquired debt counted against my debt servicing ratio
This is about as far from a NIJA loan as you can get. But you know what, that's pretty close to the right way to do it.
Noticed a gaping hole in your regulation arguement when I briefly looked at wikipedia
"As of 2007, in the United States the federal law and most state laws do not assign a fiduciary duty on mortgage brokers to act in best interests of their customers"
Well I'll be damned, that would make these regulations almost meaningless
I've read most of your posts and by and large they are very intelligent. However, I don't believe they tell the whole story and it seems to me your viewpoint is very slanted. Let's start with this post, then when I have time I'll comment on the CRA issue.
I think what you are missing is the liability the brokers have for providing accurate information.
Brokers & lending agents have to be licensed or registered
The majority of mortgage brokers are regulated to ensure compliance with banking and or finance laws in the jurisdiction of the consumer; however, the extent of the regulation depends on the jurisdiction. Only one state within the U.S. has no laws that govern mortgage lending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_broker
Further to this these broker agencies need to be insured so if an agent screws up a couple loans he gets to be banned from filing until he or she is reinstated.
So for an answer to your questions above you should consider these facts.
The scenario you paint above being the culprit in this mess is not very likely in the grand scheme of things.
Are you for a second suggesting that regulations regarding mortgage brokers were actually being enforced? How ridiculous. Not only that but it's pretty obvious that banks were complicite with respect to underwriting loans they knew or ought to have known were bogus. This is pretty obvious based on the following:
1. They never required verification of income....hmm how prudent is that? Especially when people started reporting 6 figure incomes?
2. In some cases it didn't seem to matter if the applicant was employed ..again how prudent is that?
3. Tax return verification, out the window.
4. Debt servicing ratios..were apparently non applicable.
The reason they behavored in this manner has nothing to do with the CRA, it was a simply business decision based on what later turned out to be an illusion that they were pawning the risk off to others and getting paid handsomely for it.
Now I can follow financial documents fairly closely, but rest assurred this is not the norm, I can pretty much guarantee you that those individual who signed those contracts didn't understand those reset clauses, and if asked the typical answer was not to worry about it, your house is going to go up during this period of time and we can renegotiate this later.
Yes an individual has some onus to understand what they are signing but they also have a right to full and truthful explaination as to what it is they are signing. I've signed numerous mortgage documents and I don't recall telling them I'll take it home and let my lawyer persue it as being an option.
Nor should one have to resort to those extremes to get the truth.
The real crime is that these individuals were under the illusion that the mortgage brokers were actually working for them!!! Turns out things could be further from the truth.
Here's a real example. Did you know that a mortgage broker is under no legal obligation to get the best deal for you they can?? There are stories of a broker who could have gotten someone say a 5% rate for 30 years and instead getting them a mortgage in which the teaser rate was 3% and the final rate was in excess of 7%. And legally the broker has done nothing wrong. There were other stories where someone's FICO rate would have allowed him to get rates of 6% and instead he was steered into mortgages with higher rates.
Why would he do that, simply the commisions on the less favourable rates paid more.
You've got a lot of theory mixed up with facts on the ground. Regulations don't mean dick if they aren't being enforced, or if they don't protect those that they are intended to protect.
Why would a bank or broker grant a loan to someone when they knew the debt servicing ratios weren't going to work after the teaser rate ended. That's the real question.
And to give you an idea of how much things have changed, I bought a condo in the US in January and dealt with 3-4 US mortgage brokers when doing so.
They asked me for the following:
1. Tax returns for two years, personal and corporate, and NOA
2. A copy of the latest pay stub
3. list of all debts and monthly payment obligations verified through a credit agency (Transunion & equinox have international operations)
4. copies of all bank and investment accounts for 3 months, including RRSP's
5. A declaration of where the down payment was originating from
6. Appraisal of current property and proof of income
This was just for starters. And at the end of the day they decided the income in the property I wanted to buy wouldn't count but the newly acquired debt counted against my debt servicing ratio
This is about as far from a NIJA loan as you can get. But you know what, that's pretty close to the right way to do it.
Noticed a gaping hole in your regulation arguement when I briefly looked at wikipedia
"As of 2007, in the United States the federal law and most state laws do not assign a fiduciary duty on mortgage brokers to act in best interests of their customers"
Well I'll be damned, that would make these regulations almost meaningless
I will respond to your post later, but I warn you, in doing so I will be exposing a litany of charges against the Clinton administration the likes of which no one on this site has seen heretofore & unfortunately, few will bother to read let alone understand.I've read most of your posts and by and large they are very intelligent. However, I don't believe they tell the whole story and it seems to me your viewpoint is very slanted. Let's start with this post, then when I have time I'll comment on the CRA issue.
Are you for a second suggesting that regulations regarding mortgage brokers were actually being enforced? How ridiculous. Not only that but it's pretty obvious that banks were complicite with respect to underwriting loans they knew or ought to have known were bogus. This is pretty obvious based on the following:
1. They never required verification of income....hmm how prudent is that? Especially when people started reporting 6 figure incomes?
2. In some cases it didn't seem to matter if the applicant was employed ..again how prudent is that?
3. Tax return verification, out the window.
4. Debt servicing ratios..were apparently non applicable.
The reason they behavored in this manner has nothing to do with the CRA, it was a simply business decision based on what later turned out to be an illusion that they were pawning the risk off to others and getting paid handsomely for it.
Noticed a gaping hole in your regulation arguement when I briefly looked at wikipedia
"As of 2007, in the United States the federal law and most state laws do not assign a fiduciary duty on mortgage brokers to act in best interests of their customers"
Well I'll be damned, that would make these regulations almost meaningless
But, for those who thirst for the truth & truly want to understand what caused the subprime mess & many other economic ills we are seeing ....
STAY TUNED!
No need to warn me about anything. Me and Clinton aren't related, hell we're not even friends, so discrediting him doesn't much bother me, as long as it's done in a factual manner.
Last edited:
I agree. I was on another thread and it was pretty much the same thing. I wrote maybe 5-10 sentences on average and he replied with a novel. Funny thing is he was still wrong, just as Krusty is wrong to suggest that the regulations on mortgage brokers in the US are designed to protect consumers, and had no impact on the housing debacle, when in fact nothing can be further from the truth.Krusty thinks the more he types/cuts & pastes the smarter it makes him look. Fact of the matter is, short and to the point works much better. But if you enjoy putting it all together Krusty(even though no one reads it), keep up the good work
Good to hear.
The above statement shows just how narrow minded & limited your capacity for understanding is.Krusty thinks the more he types/cuts & pastes the smarter it makes him look. Fact of the matter is, short and to the point works much better. But if you enjoy putting it all together Krusty(even though no one reads it), keep up the good work
IF you had spent any time in college or had any experience dealing with legal matters you would know that research is the core of developing empirical evidence to bolster your argument.
I would assume you don't win too many debates with those who are above average intelligence.
No one is forcing you to read my posts & I certainly don't expect that all will understand nor am I naive to the fact that few will have an appreciation for the effort it takes to do this research.
For those who truly want to know why this happened & do not trust the media to disseminate without spin or bias then what I write may be very interesting indeed.
Jesus man, can you be anymore short sighted?... just as Krusty is wrong to suggest that the regulations on mortgage brokers in the US are designed to protect consumers, and had no impact on the housing debacle, when in fact nothing can be further from the truth.
The regulations ARE designed to protect consumers!
The fact that they are not enforced or the brokers choose to not abide by them does not negate the purpose of them.
I do not deny there was "predatory" practices going on by many brokers but to suggest they were the major cause of this mess is pure naivety.
