Bail Out Money

  • Thread startermuleman
  • Start date
SaltandPepper98 said:
Well said my friend. (?) and thanks for trolling me in here and setting me up so Ro could kick my ass again. But at least you know what I'm talking about. (?)

Half the politicians out there should be shot and the other half should be jailed. But its our own fault. As a whole, people now vote for whats in it for themselves instead of voting for the good of the country.

Norm
Click to expand...

You got it , norm ,lol.

I just don't understand this need some have to blame one party or the other and then proclaim they're independents. They are all at fault and we put them there.

Money for nothing.......
 
Let me try to explain it this way Ro. This is why the blame thing is so important to me on this particular issue.

I don't blame the Dems for not bringing the Iraq war to a halt. I blame Bush for starting it. I could say that a lot of Dems voted this way and voted that way and kept the Iraq war going but I don't. It began with the Reps. And if they now blamed everybody but themselves, I'd be just as pissed.

But the Dems started the snowball rolling downhill on the issue of forcing the financial industry to make bad loans. I'm not going to blame the Reps for not stopping it once it got out of control. Very tough to stop a government program once its started. Especially any program dealing with "the poor".

Its important to me that the Dems take the blame because they STARTED IT and now those hypocrite bastards are blaming the very banks they sued to enforce their stupid idea to begin with. Yes there is plenty of blame to go around for everything that came afterward. I agree with that. But it BEGAN with the Dems. Pure and simple. There is plenty of blame to go around with the Irag war but it BEGAN with the Reps. They started it. Pure and simple.

The Dems are cowards for giving in to the Iraq war and the Reps are cowards for not having followed their beliefs on this issue.

Oh by the way, I don't care how small a role Obama had in suing banks to make bad loans to low income people, the fact that he had a role at all and willingly got involved in it proves that he endorsed it and believes in that kind of crap thinking. Now he's basically using those same banks as poster boys for whats wrong with the financial system. Not enough regulation according to him and Barney Frank.

Norm
 
NO one has explained to me how the dems started it. All I hear and read is people saying they did with no evidence whatsoever.
Saying it's so , doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you say it.

Regarding ther lawsuit, partisan blather aside. Here's what the lawsuit was about - Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

Here's how the case was settled - The parties settled the case on May 12, 1998, with an agreement that provided for waiver of some fees for class members, should they reapply for a loan, and also for various procedures to ensure that Citibank followed its own loan policies in a race neutral way.

Now explain for me again how this is ' suing banks to make bad loans to low income people' and how the dems started it , please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am now just incredbily pissed that Obama wants to bail out the newspapers. I am sorry but the world is changing we are moving away from newspapers and we should let them go. It would be as if they tried to save the telegraph when the phone was invented. Newspapers had their day they need to adapt to the new technology if they want to survive.
 
Yep Phil gramm should man of the decade... considering he may have passed the most influential bill this past decade. made us all forget about iraq. i'd have to say that someone out there would literally have to set off a doomsday device--in the stylings of dr. strangelove's soviet leadership- in for them to take the "most influential person of the decade" place from Philip. Needless to say good deeds don't have that much influence.

I agree with Ro...the Gramm-Leach_Bliley act is directly responsible for getting rid of the fine line between risk and certainty. That is to say it is safe when investment firms are just investment firms and when banks are just banks. When the two combine like citigroup or aig.... it is a hybrid between order and controlled chaos, i.e. quantum physics. Believe me it is not good to have quantum physics as the basis of banking...the sheep says bahahahahahahahahahad. It really turns into a ponzi scheme...especially when it is being run by uber-capitalist king cobras, i mean goat rats, i mean vampire locusts, uhmmm i mean people. :eek:



RoSquirts said:
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which was the landmark deregulation bill that most economists credit with bringing about this crisis - was Republican sponsored, past by a Republican congress.
Just what bills ' supporting these destructive policies' were enacted that caused this financial debacle? You said in an earlier post "The reason why the investment banking firms failed was because congress legislated a change to mark to market pricing on thinly traded assets." As I've pointed out to you, there is no such legislation nor did the accounting rule changes force market valuations on thinly traded assets.
Love those Fox 'middle' of the road videos,lol. Regarding congressional attempts to regulate Fannie Mae. First, They interview the guy from the American Enterprise Institute, telling how the legislation would have prevented the crisis.
Ironically, the AEI opposed the bill - AEI - Short Publications - H.R. 1461: A GSE "Reform" That Is Worse than Current Law
In fact, the bill was not brought to the senate floor because republican leadership made a deal with Fannie Mae - lend more to bolster a weak economy and we'll leave you alone. Although it's in fashion now to blame the Dems, this is the real reason republicans dropped the bill. The weakest economic recovery in modern history was supported almost entirely by these sub-prime loans and the housing bubble, killing them would have been political suicide for whoever was in power.
Video#3 - still cracks me up. The white house supposedly wanted to reign in Fannie Mae as did the Republicans in congress and yet barney frank(who btw I think is an incompetent jerk) stopped them all.
No one wanted to reign in fannie mae, they were just practicing CYA and to believe otherwise is just kidding yourself. In fact the administration wanted a clause in the bill to REMOVE the president's authority to appoint members to Fannie's board. The only plausible explanation for this is that when problems occurred, the president wouldn't be blamed.
In addition, McCain and 16 other Republican Senators voiced their support in a letter for this bill in May 2006 ( yes, a congressional election year), a full 9 months after the bill was effectively dead. Senate Bill S190, look it up.
Yep, congress is at fault but before you absolve the Bush administration, Let's talk about the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In 2004 29 states had laws on the books or were in the process of passing laws to reign in predatory lending practices, a sub prime issue directly leading to mortgage defaults. They did this because of the lack of federal action on the problem. The OCC ruled states were not allowed to do this, effectively removing all barriers to sub prime lending going bonkers.The result? From 2004-2006 sub-prime lending exploded from 9% of mortgage lending to 21%.
This was a Bush administration action, not congressional.
I eagerly await the information on what bills the democratic congresses wrote that led to this debacle.
As I've said before, everyone is to blame. Your choice to blame democrats is not based on fact but on partisan assumptions. All we will do is recreate the problems of the past when partisan idealogies control the logic portion of our brains.
Click to expand...
 
RoSquirts said:
Near the end of the Clinton administration, Congress(republican controlled incidentally) put pressure on the banks to increase mortgages to lower incomes.
Click to expand...


That is a quote from your own post Ro and I agree with it. And that was the beginning. It snowballed from there.
 
SaltandPepper98 said:
That is a quote from your own post Ro and I agree with it. And that was the beginning. It snowballed from there.
Click to expand...


Only problem is that subprime loans remained at 9% of total loans from 1996 to 2004 and THEN balloned to 21% after the OCC negated all the state laws in 2004.
 
SaltandPepper98 said:
This is interesting Ro, it includes a few you-tube vids and the 129 comments after the article are interesting.

UPDATED: Obama Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans | Media Circus
Click to expand...

This doesn't negate the facts. And the fact is that the suit was about people being denied loans for race when their financial background were similar to white whose loans were accepted. Nor the fact that citibank settled by agreeing to be race neutral in processing applications.

No amount of rhetoric will change that nor will it change the fact that Republicans and Democrats all agreed that sub prime loans were a good idea. And they were a good idea. But like everything else in life, there has to be balance and that balance was lost when banks, insurance and investment companies were effectively deregulated in 1999(by both parties) and when the OCC negated state regs of mortgages in 2004 to facilitate the housing boom and prop up a false economy.

Sorry my opinions don't fit into a black and white world of 'it's the dems or it's the republican's fault'. Everyone voted for the politicians that business owned of both parties, everyone wanted money for nothing - bankers, borrowers, both parties,investors, etc. If we want to cast blame, we should just go point in our mirrors and stop hunting for villians.
 
RIGHT ON RO!! But, unfortunately the truth isn't going to help the Rep "ra ra ra, go team" mentality into regaining congress in the next few years. They need a villain and that villain must be the democratic party. Problem is Bush/Cheney did such a horrific job during their tenure and McCain made so many blunders during his campaign, and guys like RUSH & O'Reilly can't keep their mouths clammed, that we're now at a time where it's sort of popular to bash republicans. Now I'm just stating what I see out there... not bashing. How else can Obama have the balls to throw a $3.6TRILLION budget and not incite riots?? Do you think he'll pull this off 2 years from now when the anti-rep sentiment might have dissipated?
Now, I am NOT a fan of Bill Clinton>> Hell I vote dem only because they're the lesser of two evils according to my own opinions. I'll GLADLY point out that the dems are hypocrites and I'd gladly impeach every one of them if I thought a good, forceful replacement was there... but alas that's politics. I'm willing to admit that about "my party". Wish the other side would too so we can actually move forward.

RoSquirts said:
This doesn't negate the facts. And the fact is that the suit was about people being denied loans for race when their financial background were similar to white whose loans were accepted. Nor the fact that citibank settled by agreeing to be race neutral in processing applications.

No amount of rhetoric will change that nor will it change the fact that Republicans and Democrats all agreed that sub prime loans were a good idea. And they were a good idea. But like everything else in life, there has to be balance and that balance was lost when banks, insurance and investment companies were effectively deregulated in 1999(by both parties) and when the OCC negated state regs of mortgages in 2004 to facilitate the housing boom and prop up a false economy.

Sorry my opinions don't fit into a black and white world of 'it's the dems or it's the republican's fault'. Everyone voted for the politicians that business owned of both parties, everyone wanted money for nothing - bankers, borrowers, both parties,investors, etc. If we want to cast blame, we should just go point in our mirrors and stop hunting for villians.
Click to expand...
 
1999 prediction of current economic meltdown....

YouTube - Byron Dorgan?s Crystal Ball

This is a speech democratic senator Byron Dorgan gave in November 1999.

"On September 26th 2008, against a backdrop of growing economic turmoil caused by the Credit Crunch, an article written by David Leonhardt of The New York Times singled out a quotation made by Dorgan in 1999[5] during the US Senate's repealment of the Glass-Steagall act. 'I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010.'"
-Wikipedia: Byron Dorgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NY Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/magazine/28wwln-reconsider.html?_r=1

Anyways, clinton and the rep congress had their heads up their asses... one guy gave a shit about his country and stood his ground!
 
i seem to be jumping in awfully late--let me start by saying that i am a life long dem and liberal--and after reading these type of discussions on this board and many others i',ve come to realize that no mater what we on the left do it will always be attacked by those on the right--conversely i understand that whatever constructive things done by the right will be attacked by those on the left--and for me what's most interesting is that both sides can provide vids and documents to support their cases--it's absolutely insane--as far as the housing crisis is concerned it appears that it all began right after the decline of the dot com industry--greenspan ,who served under presidents on the left and right came up with a plan to continue a cash flow in our economy having lost . com--housing was the perfect solution--now, it's true that clinton was instrumental in pushing for houses for all--it's also true that bush appeared on national tv and bragged about the fact that more people owned houses than ever before in the history of our country--now as far as obama is concerned--ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES--and he's our pres--perhaps the classiest person on the subjecpt was rice when ,on jay leno, she said that the rebubs ran the country for 8yrs--did some good things and made some mistakes--and now that obama is pres he deserves the respect to try to do his best
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back