Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The lending banks (Fanny and Freddy, Goldman), guided by Congress, offered home-loans to minorities and other folks who could not afford these homes.
What does that claim have to do with the securitization of not only home mortgages, but other instruments and commodities, or the irresponsible amounts of leverage used to make bets on them, or the "over-the-counter" market in derivatives and exotic credit products, and so on?
An investment bank like Goldman Sachs didn't even offer home mortgages. Nor did Lehman. These were not "retail" banks.
Calling something reform, doesn't make it reform. I have lived 56 years on this planet and have come to distrust liberals completely. When they say something is "reform" you can bet your bottom Pound Sterling that it is anything BUT reform.
They will play their sanctimonious, holier-than-thou act, but under it all, it is all about more power for them, and less freedom for we the people.
Well, I guess you oppose tightening regulations on banks so they don't destroy our economy again. Strange you'd call that "less freedom" for the people when in fact it keeps those people from losing their freedoms, but whatever you've gotta believe to know in your heart that your side is right and the "other" side is wrong.
Because they really really believe that they'll lose an advantage if they let go and extract their hand from the monkey trap. Would they wake up, they'd realize that it's the very thing undermining the conservative agenda. The liberals didn't do this to you, YOU did it to you.
Dem and Rep are two samurai in the rain standing there forever accomplishing little to nothing because neither want to lose their advantage and they're both beholden to special interests as the expense of the country. Doesn't matter who wrote the rules of this game, it needs to be reset and a clear mandate of zero bribery, no fine print exception in legalese.
Dem constituents demand reform, so should republican constituents, and all other 3rd party constituents. Enough is enough. We should be writing it ourselves stated in terms as clear as old testament- Thou shalt not accept any cent from anyone. General funds sponsoring campaign debates only.
What does that claim have to do with the securitization of not only home mortgages, but other instruments and commodities, or the irresponsible amounts of leverage used to make bets on them, or the "over-the-counter" market in derivatives and exotic credit products, and so on?
An investment bank like Goldman Sachs didn't even offer home mortgages. Nor did Lehman. These were not "retail" banks.
You're just looking to blame one political party for all this mess. Believe it or not, the banks did a whole lot without any government interference. The bits and pieces that Frank and others did have just been blown up for political fodder.
No, I am not. I mentioned Barney Frank because he has been involved with Congressional mandates relating to the lending industry though several administrations.
No, I am not. I mentioned Barney Frank because he has been involved with Congressional mandates relating to the lending industry though several administrations.
If people want to say Barney Frank was wrong, or that he had a hand in creating or not preventing the housing bubble, I'd have no problem with that. But to blame Frank and only Frank is a ridiculous notion.
What does that claim have to do with the securitization of not only home mortgages, but other instruments and commodities, or the irresponsible amounts of leverage used to make bets on them, or the "over-the-counter" market in derivatives and exotic credit products, and so on?
An investment bank like Goldman Sachs didn't even offer home mortgages. Nor did Lehman. These were not "retail" banks.
I don't know who securitized the bad loans; whether Goldman was just acting as the salesman, but if you owned those mortgages, you would want to get rid of them too - you would want to do that in a way by spreading the risk around. I mean it was pretty obvious towards the end that alot of the loans were never going to be paid back - some people couldn't even afford the first payment. But the banks took out default insurance. Was that wrong? I don't know. I guess they did it so that they could sell the securities as safe investments, which makes sense - if the securities are fully insured, then what can happen? Who loses? No one expected the collapse of the housing market or that AIG would run out of money - no one except the hedge funds who bought the default products betting the mortgages would go into default.
I don't see how anyone is to blame really. We might blame the financial crisis on greed. People got greedy; everyone from the speculators to the people who applied for a mortgage when they didn't even have a dollar in the bank. Now everyone is acting stupid, like 'I didn't know I was supposed to pay them back', and the government is saying it was the bank's fault, and we, (the tax payer), should subsidize the poor stupids so they don't lose their homes. Their homes? Where does the government get off saying the stupids deserve a home out of this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
