Page 3 of 27 [ 419 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 27  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2011, 12:29 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
There have been 700+ arrests (protesters getting violent and/or breaking laws) due to Occupy Wallstreet movements while there were 0 arrests associated with the tea party, enough said.


I think you will find yourself on the wrong side of history with that analysis. (Your "unofficial minor," notwithstanding.)

How many were arrested as a result of the salt satyagraha? How many arrests were made of civil rights protesters in the 1960s? There comes a point when the imposition of law and order becomes the repression of the legitimate expression of civil grievances. It is well established in United States constitutional law that the right to petition through public demonstration cannot be unreasonably constrained.

Now it may well be that these 700+ people were acting beyond the limits of the exercise of their First Amendment rights--but history suggests that governments will exercise force against movements with which it disagrees.


Speaking their mind is fine. Hippies blocking a critical bridge, keeping people who actually have jobs to get to from getting there, and people who have responsibilities from taking care of them is not cool. It must be nice having enough money to take a trip to NYC without needing a job to pay for it, and being able to spend a a couple weeks camped out in the street since they have no responsibilities to take care of. I sure couldn't do that!

Image
Image


A great number of those protestors are native New Yorkers, and many are unemployed due to the rats their protesting against. Most in fact wouldn't fit anyone's definition of a hippie, as many have families and vary in age and social class. And while there are those who have set up camp, others doubtlessly show up when they can in order to protest, then go back home to their families.
As for the charge of people not being able to make a living due to the protestors; aside from a little congestion early on, nobody was kept from work.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sarcasm: Oh so that explains the drugs...


I won't deny that there are some present who are getting stoned, but that hardly describes most of the attendants. Fox News is taking a few incidents, and are blowing them out of proportion in order to paint the whole crowd as hippie stoners. Ed Schultz and Rev. Al Sharpton have been there interviewing protestors, and in fact, most are law abiding citizens, very often with families. They just happen to be concerned and angry about the direction the country has been taking in the last few decades, in which the top 1% of the country are getting richer, while the rest of us slip into poverty.
At least no one showed up with loaded guns - - like at Tea Party rallies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 12:33 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
There have been 700+ arrests (protesters getting violent and/or breaking laws) due to Occupy Wallstreet movements while there were 0 arrests associated with the tea party, enough said.


I think you will find yourself on the wrong side of history with that analysis. (Your "unofficial minor," notwithstanding.)

How many were arrested as a result of the salt satyagraha? How many arrests were made of civil rights protesters in the 1960s? There comes a point when the imposition of law and order becomes the repression of the legitimate expression of civil grievances. It is well established in United States constitutional law that the right to petition through public demonstration cannot be unreasonably constrained.

Now it may well be that these 700+ people were acting beyond the limits of the exercise of their First Amendment rights--but history suggests that governments will exercise force against movements with which it disagrees.


Speaking their mind is fine. Hippies blocking a critical bridge, keeping people who actually have jobs to get to from getting there, and people who have responsibilities from taking care of them is not cool. It must be nice having enough money to take a trip to NYC without needing a job to pay for it, and being able to spend a a couple weeks camped out in the street since they have no responsibilities to take care of. I sure couldn't do that!

Image
Image


A great number of those protestors are native New Yorkers, and many are unemployed due to the rats their protesting against. Most in fact wouldn't fit anyone's definition of a hippie, as many have families and vary in age and social class. And while there are those who have set up camp, others doubtlessly show up when they can in order to protest, then go back home to their families.
As for the charge of people not being able to make a living due to the protestors; aside from a little congestion early on, nobody was kept from work.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sarcasm: Oh so that explains the drugs...


I won't deny that there are some present who are getting stoned, but that hardly describes most of the attendants. Fox News is taking a few incidents, and are blowing them out of proportion in order to paint the whole crowd as hippie stoners. Ed Schultz and Rev. Al Sharpton have been there interviewing protestors, and in fact, most are law abiding citizens, very often with families. They just happen to be concerned and angry about the direction the country has been taking in the last few decades, in which the top 1% of the country are getting richer, while the rest of us slip into poverty.
At least no one showed up with loaded guns - - like at Tea Party rallies.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


:roll:

Didn't you deny being an MSNBC fan....

Well now that that's out of the bag.


As Newt Gingrich pointed out there are two groups, the legit protestors and the leftwing agitators.

The Leftwing agitators will show up regardless of what is being protested and trash the place. However, the Legit Protestors have the wrong target and are protesting at the wrong street address.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2011, 12:40 am

For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 1:04 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is you that is spreading false information, and the difference here is I can actually prove it.

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajWesaxE

Thing this article left out was that Bush realized he made a mistake and tried to roll stuff back, however the origins go back to some changes made by the Clinton Administration.

I've posted this same article at least a dozen times now, and it isn't that hard to read a 4 page article.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2011, 1:17 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is you that is spreading false information, and the difference here is I can actually prove it.

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajWesaxE

Thing this article left out was that Bush realized he made a mistake and tried to roll stuff back, however the origins go back to some changes made by the Clinton Administration.

I've posted this same article at least a dozen times now, and it isn't that hard to read a 4 page article.


That's hardly the only Wall Street abuse that's being protested. And regardless, no one had held a gun to the banks' heads and made them screw over people - they tore down ordinary American's lives with relish when they saw the opportunity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 1:22 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is you that is spreading false information, and the difference here is I can actually prove it.

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajWesaxE

Thing this article left out was that Bush realized he made a mistake and tried to roll stuff back, however the origins go back to some changes made by the Clinton Administration.

I've posted this same article at least a dozen times now, and it isn't that hard to read a 4 page article.


That's hardly the only Wall Street abuse that's being protested. And regardless, no one had held a gun to the banks' heads and made them screw over people - they tore down ordinary American's lives with relish when they saw the opportunity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Did you even read the part I quoted, or did you just not care?

Cause the part I posted debunks what you said.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2011, 1:29 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is you that is spreading false information, and the difference here is I can actually prove it.

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajWesaxE

Thing this article left out was that Bush realized he made a mistake and tried to roll stuff back, however the origins go back to some changes made by the Clinton Administration.

I've posted this same article at least a dozen times now, and it isn't that hard to read a 4 page article.


That's hardly the only Wall Street abuse that's being protested. And regardless, no one had held a gun to the banks' heads and made them screw over people - they tore down ordinary American's lives with relish when they saw the opportunity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Did you even read the part I quoted, or did you just not care?

Cause the part I posted debunks what you said.


How reliable is your source?
And I should add, at the moment I'm battling a nasty respiratory and and sinus infection, so I'm not exactly lucid enough to read or comprehend much of anything too deep, I'm afraid.
One ear is so plugged up, I often can barely understand what anyone is even telling me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 1:33 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is you that is spreading false information, and the difference here is I can actually prove it.

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajWesaxE

Thing this article left out was that Bush realized he made a mistake and tried to roll stuff back, however the origins go back to some changes made by the Clinton Administration.

I've posted this same article at least a dozen times now, and it isn't that hard to read a 4 page article.


That's hardly the only Wall Street abuse that's being protested. And regardless, no one had held a gun to the banks' heads and made them screw over people - they tore down ordinary American's lives with relish when they saw the opportunity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Did you even read the part I quoted, or did you just not care?

Cause the part I posted debunks what you said.


How reliable is your source?
And I should add, at the moment I'm battling a nasty respiratory and and sinus infection, so I'm not exactly lucid enough to read or comprehend much of anything too deep, I'm afraid.
One ear is so plugged up, I often can barely understand what anyone is even telling me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Basically the Fed took punitive action towards anyone that tried to have better standards than the idiotic ones they put in place.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2011, 1:44 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is you that is spreading false information, and the difference here is I can actually prove it.

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajWesaxE

Thing this article left out was that Bush realized he made a mistake and tried to roll stuff back, however the origins go back to some changes made by the Clinton Administration.

I've posted this same article at least a dozen times now, and it isn't that hard to read a 4 page article.


That's hardly the only Wall Street abuse that's being protested. And regardless, no one had held a gun to the banks' heads and made them screw over people - they tore down ordinary American's lives with relish when they saw the opportunity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Did you even read the part I quoted, or did you just not care?

Cause the part I posted debunks what you said.


How reliable is your source?
And I should add, at the moment I'm battling a nasty respiratory and and sinus infection, so I'm not exactly lucid enough to read or comprehend much of anything too deep, I'm afraid.
One ear is so plugged up, I often can barely understand what anyone is even telling me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Basically the Fed took punitive action towards anyone that tried to have better standards than the idiotic ones they put in place.


OKAY, but that still doesn't excuse Wall Street. They've been getting themselves and their friends rich for at least three decades now, at the expense of ordinary Americans. Then when we bailed their collective ass out of fire - after they almost destroying the economy - they kept kicking us in the teeth, as with major banks demanding that customers pay five dollars a month for using a debit card. I have a cousin who lives near Seattle, who had seen her investments (what kind, I'm afraid I don't recall) for her retirement wiped out a few years ago - and she's at retirement age. To say that she's embittered and has lost trust in the system would be an understatement. People being worked over by Wall Street predates the housing bubble; it's the whole shebang that the Wall Street protestors are angry about.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 1:52 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is you that is spreading false information, and the difference here is I can actually prove it.

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajWesaxE

Thing this article left out was that Bush realized he made a mistake and tried to roll stuff back, however the origins go back to some changes made by the Clinton Administration.

I've posted this same article at least a dozen times now, and it isn't that hard to read a 4 page article.


That's hardly the only Wall Street abuse that's being protested. And regardless, no one had held a gun to the banks' heads and made them screw over people - they tore down ordinary American's lives with relish when they saw the opportunity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Did you even read the part I quoted, or did you just not care?

Cause the part I posted debunks what you said.


How reliable is your source?
And I should add, at the moment I'm battling a nasty respiratory and and sinus infection, so I'm not exactly lucid enough to read or comprehend much of anything too deep, I'm afraid.
One ear is so plugged up, I often can barely understand what anyone is even telling me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Basically the Fed took punitive action towards anyone that tried to have better standards than the idiotic ones they put in place.


OKAY, but that still doesn't excuse Wall Street. They've been getting themselves and their friends rich for at least three decades now, at the expense of ordinary Americans. Then when we bailed their collective ass out of fire - after they almost destroying the economy. I have a cousin who lives near Seattle, who had seen her investments (what kind, I'm afraid I don't recall) for her retirement wiped out a few years ago - and she's at retirement age. To say that she's embittered and has lost trust in the system would be an understatement. People being worked over by Wall Street predates the housing bubble; it's the whole shebang that the Wall Street protestors are angry about.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually the fault goes back to government still. The fact Freddie Mac for instance was guarenteeing this loans gave investors a false sense of security and so they bought these loans thinking they were safe. Freddie Mac is government controlled, so people thought this was safe and guarenteed because it was backed by the government.

I highly doubt these Wall Street guys and/or other Investors would have touched these things with a pole that was the length of a football field, let alone buy these bad loans. Nor would they have gone along with this.

Are there a few people in Wall Street that should be investigated, yes, but the bulk of people in Wall Street actually got hurt by this too and aren't to blame for this.

In all reality I think the first two people that should be investigated are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Oct 2011, 2:09 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Basically the Fed took punitive action towards anyone that tried to have better standards than the idiotic ones they put in place.


Yeah.... you need to go back and read your article because that's not what it says. :roll:

Quote:
So how and why did the CRA lax lending spread to the rest of the mortgage market?

The structure of the CRA regulations encouraged the spread. Banks that were the best at making CRA loans were allowed to grow by making acquisitions and opening new branches. This created a kind of political-financial Darwinism that reward the biggest enthusiasts for lax CRA lending standards. Of course, the most successful people under this regime were not the types who needed their arms twisted to make loose loans. They were who were predisposed to engage in loosey-goosey finance, who discovered that the CRA had made the world their oyster.

As for the “why” part of your question, the answer is a bit ironic. Banks making CRA loans initially expected that defaults would be higher due to lax lending standards. When they discovered the low-income borrowers had an unexpected propensity to pay their mortgages. After years of data poured in showing that borrowers were paying mortgages despite high LTVs, low down payments and unconventional income measures, bankers began to believe that many of the traditional measure of credit worthiness were overly conservative. Recall what I said earlier about how mortgage service providers started pursuing low-income borrowers in part because of the CRA.

What they didn’t take into account was that different types of borrowers may behave differently, and that much of the data on those lax lending mortgages was warped by increasing home prices. Wealthier, more sophisticated borrowers ruthlessly default when their mortgage goes underwater, for example. What’s more, the reversal of housing prices meant that defaults across all borrower classes increased.

Making matters worse, President Bush pushed hard for lax lending standards. He wanted to expand minority and low income home ownership far beyond what the CRA required. So he pushed even harder for the broadening of these lending standards.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajm5Jd3D

In sum: Greedy, scumbag, republican bankers got burned by greedy, scumbag, republican borrowers... :lol:


PS

Thanks for the link! :P


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2011, 2:10 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
For one thing, I have never denied being an MSNBC fan. Far from it, I've always advocated them as a legitimate news source.
As for Newt Gingrich - he's completely full of it. The protestors are at the proper address. They damn well know that it's Wall Street that's been grinding them under foot, while making the financial elite richer. Gingrich is the one who's spreading misinformation, and in fact, waging class warfare against the middle class and poor.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually it is you that is spreading false information, and the difference here is I can actually prove it.

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajWesaxE

Thing this article left out was that Bush realized he made a mistake and tried to roll stuff back, however the origins go back to some changes made by the Clinton Administration.

I've posted this same article at least a dozen times now, and it isn't that hard to read a 4 page article.


That's hardly the only Wall Street abuse that's being protested. And regardless, no one had held a gun to the banks' heads and made them screw over people - they tore down ordinary American's lives with relish when they saw the opportunity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Did you even read the part I quoted, or did you just not care?

Cause the part I posted debunks what you said.


How reliable is your source?
And I should add, at the moment I'm battling a nasty respiratory and and sinus infection, so I'm not exactly lucid enough to read or comprehend much of anything too deep, I'm afraid.
One ear is so plugged up, I often can barely understand what anyone is even telling me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Basically the Fed took punitive action towards anyone that tried to have better standards than the idiotic ones they put in place.


OKAY, but that still doesn't excuse Wall Street. They've been getting themselves and their friends rich for at least three decades now, at the expense of ordinary Americans. Then when we bailed their collective ass out of fire - after they almost destroying the economy. I have a cousin who lives near Seattle, who had seen her investments (what kind, I'm afraid I don't recall) for her retirement wiped out a few years ago - and she's at retirement age. To say that she's embittered and has lost trust in the system would be an understatement. People being worked over by Wall Street predates the housing bubble; it's the whole shebang that the Wall Street protestors are angry about.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Actually the fault goes back to government still. The fact Freddie Mac for instance was guarenteeing this loans gave investors a false sense of security and so they bought these loans thinking they were safe. Freddie Mac is government controlled, so people thought this was safe and guarenteed because it was backed by the government.

I highly doubt these Wall Street guys and/or other Investors would have touched these things with a pole that was the length of a football field, let alone buy these bad loans. Nor would they have gone along with this.

Are there a few people in Wall Street that should be investigated, yes, but the bulk of people in Wall Street actually got hurt by this too and aren't to blame for this.

In all reality I think the first two people that should be investigated are Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.


Frank and Dodd had pulled a bone headed stunt - but they're hearts were in the right place. The big banks on Wall Street have always been of a predatory nature, and knew full well that they could foreclose on a property, then resell it, making all the more money. They have been guilty of blanket foreclosures, in which many people who were not even behind in their payments had found their homes endangered. The banks are even suing people who they had foreclosed on, now. In a couple cases, Bank of America foreclosed on a man and a married couple who hadn't even taken out a loan - YES! NO s**t! When these customers had taken Bank Of America to court, and won, the bank refused to honor the decisions made by the courts in paying monetary sums to these customers. So, in both cases, with country sheriffs and moving men in tow, the banks were repossessed :lol: ! That is, anything that could be hauled away was, with the bank presidents looking on haplessly. The good guys sometimes win.
Sure, I agree, not everyone on Wall Street were involved in such debacles, and were in fact hurt - many of them are actually taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protests these days.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 2:19 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Basically the Fed took punitive action towards anyone that tried to have better standards than the idiotic ones they put in place.


Yeah.... you need to go back and read your article because that's not what it says. :roll:

Quote:
So how and why did the CRA lax lending spread to the rest of the mortgage market?

The structure of the CRA regulations encouraged the spread. Banks that were the best at making CRA loans were allowed to grow by making acquisitions and opening new branches. This created a kind of political-financial Darwinism that reward the biggest enthusiasts for lax CRA lending standards. Of course, the most successful people under this regime were not the types who needed their arms twisted to make loose loans. They were who were predisposed to engage in loosey-goosey finance, who discovered that the CRA had made the world their oyster.

As for the “why” part of your question, the answer is a bit ironic. Banks making CRA loans initially expected that defaults would be higher due to lax lending standards. When they discovered the low-income borrowers had an unexpected propensity to pay their mortgages. After years of data poured in showing that borrowers were paying mortgages despite high LTVs, low down payments and unconventional income measures, bankers began to believe that many of the traditional measure of credit worthiness were overly conservative. Recall what I said earlier about how mortgage service providers started pursuing low-income borrowers in part because of the CRA.

What they didn’t take into account was that different types of borrowers may behave differently, and that much of the data on those lax lending mortgages was warped by increasing home prices. Wealthier, more sophisticated borrowers ruthlessly default when their mortgage goes underwater, for example. What’s more, the reversal of housing prices meant that defaults across all borrower classes increased.

Making matters worse, President Bush pushed hard for lax lending standards. He wanted to expand minority and low income home ownership far beyond what the CRA required. So he pushed even harder for the broadening of these lending standards.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/200 ... z1ajm5Jd3D

In sum: Greedy, scumbag, republican bankers got burned by greedy, scumbag, republican borrowers... :lol:


PS

Thanks for the link! :P


Cute, except I have already pointed out (though to be fair maybe in a different thread), that Bush tried to reverse course because he realized he screwed up, furthermore so did the Republicans in the House and Senate in 2005, 2006, AND 2007.

So, by the end of the 20th century most of the ingredients that would combine to cause today’s subprime crisis were already in place. Nevertheless, the 1990s can seem a long time ago, and to grasp the connection between the situation then and what is happening now, it’s important to realise that only a small proportion of the subprime loans made since George W. Bush became President have gone to new, first-time buyers. A huge number of them have been refinancing loans, replacing mortgages originally taken out perhaps eight, ten or 12 years ago.

Imagine yourself in the place of one of those low-income householders who acquired a property in the late 1990s as a result of the Clinton home-ownership drive. What happened next? Chances are you managed OK for a while, but after a few years found that like most poor Americans, your income wasn’t going up, it was declining. Around 2003, with your credit cards maxed out, you desperately needed to release some equity from your home. Luckily there was equity there to release, so you refinanced for the first time and enjoyed having some real money for a change. A couple of years later a pushy mortgage broker called to suggest you do it all again, squeezing out the last drops of equity and opting for a low-start mortgage. So you did — and that was fine while it lasted, but the interest rate just sky-rocketed. You will never pay off that loan, it is pure poison to you, just like it’s pure poison to the investment bank that ended up with it on its books. You will just walk away. It’s not your fault. It’s not the bank’s fault. And it certainly isn’t George W. Bush’s fault — every attempt he has made to reform the mortgage market has been blocked by Congressional Democrats.

So that’s how we get from there to here, from crude attempts at social engineering during the early, heady days of the first Clinton administration to the turmoil on Wall Street today. There may be many technical lessons to be learned about selling and buying mortgages, about the best ways to price and manage risk, and about the regulation of financial markets, but I believe the most important lesson of all is an ethical one: it’s about not behaving ruthlessly when trying to change the world for the better.

Bill Clinton’s team, like so many progressives here in Britain, were not content to wait and see what fruits equal opportunities might bring. They felt compelled to secure their equal outcomes by any means necessary, even if that meant debauching institutions, corrupting professions and trying to skew the operation of markets. That only ever leads to chaos.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/2 ... unch.thtml

I appreciate you reading it though, but I've pointed out already that this article puts too much emphasis on blaming Bush when the groundwork was done before Bush was President and he actually tried to fix things.

@ Kraichgauer

Chris Dodd getting sweatheart deals from Countrywide is your idea of his heart being in the right place?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Oct 2011, 2:30 am

Dodd wanted to help people, even if he was getting incentive from Countrywide.
I suspect the Democrats who blocked the "reform" measures were afraid it was a Republican plan to disenfranchise poor people.
And I did notice in your source that lenders in fact had pressured people to take out more mortgages with predatory intent. That alone proves that Wall Street bankers were hardly innocent.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Oct 2011, 2:36 am

Inuyasha wrote:

I appreciate you reading it though, but I've pointed out already that this article puts too much emphasis on blaming Bush when the groundwork was done before Bush was President and he actually tried to fix things.


Okay, wait a minute...

You said regulators forced bankers to make these loans. That simply isn't true on the whole and your source confirms that.

Greed, stupidity and lack of responsible government regulation caused the crisis--NOT GOVERNMENT meddling...

to quote your source again:

Quote:
Of course, the most successful people under this regime were not the types who needed their arms twisted to make loose loans. They were who were predisposed to engage in loosey-goosey finance, who discovered that the CRA had made the world their oyster.

...

Banks making CRA loans initially expected that defaults would be higher due to lax lending standards. When they discovered the low-income borrowers had an unexpected propensity to pay their mortgages.

...

Wealthier, more sophisticated borrowers ruthlessly default when their mortgage goes underwater, for example.


This was a perfect storm of greed and stupidity...

The democrats got to try some social engineering, the republicans got some deregulation (lax lending rules), and sleazy banksters got to line their pockets.

Bottom line is the government did not force the banks to make bad loans, but they did let them.

This is a clear case for more government oversight, not less.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

14 Oct 2011, 5:07 am

Inuyasha wrote:

:roll:

Didn't you deny being an MSNBC fan....

Well now that that's out of the bag.


Your pitiless insinuations against other people are nothing less than bullying.


Inuyasha wrote:
As Newt Gingrich pointed out there are two groups, the legit protestors and the leftwing agitators.

What? Because he says so? Of course we just have an opinion here. He can't actually give true proof that these people are illegal, he just tries to sell it with an argument from authority.

Inuyasha wrote:
The Leftwing agitators will show up regardless of what is being protested and trash the place. However, the Legit Protestors have the wrong target and are protesting at the wrong street address.

The wrong what? The wrong what? This doesn't make any sense. It's just empty rhetoric. The wrong street address? What is this? The land of useless metaphors? All you're trying to do is say what they are doing whilst taking sources and blowing them out of proportion. People occupy a bridge. You say it was violent. Turns out that for the most part it wasn't. You change your tack and try to say it was part of a major trunk line in to the city. That doesn't make the protest wrong, fool.