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.
thats why you need smart regulation, not just more regulation. why was bank B willing to hold onto these bad loans? i dont necessarily think they should have to hold onto it if there is a willing buyer, but if its a risky investment it should be treated as such.
this is a good point. which is why proper regulation over performing due diligence should be in place. much of which is in place, but many banks ignored. i got a mortgage in 2010, and the quantity of documentation I had to provide was insane. but for nearly a decade, they handed out mortgages with barely any follow up on what "applicants" claimed. applicants can be mortgage brokers, or the lendee. claims could be purposefully misrepresented, or accidentally (some of what the banks ask for requires looking into various places if you want to be 100% accurate).
i don't think that a bank shouldn't be able to sell an asset to another bank. but if it's found that bank A didn't properly evaluate those assets, then there should be repurcussions.
how has there been basically no real fallout on the obvious lack of due diligence in the years leading up to the mortgage crisis?
they gave loans and assumed they would be protected by the government. they grew too large because of reduced regulation. the government sissied out, and did what the businesses took a risk assuming that the government would bail them out. with the massive contributions they make to elected officials, it was all but assured to happen. that's exactly what's wrong with the entire process.
there was no stated guarantee though. the banks made a calculated risk and won, even when they had appeared to have lost.
sounds like whoever chose to bet on government bailout if things went south should get a very big bonus!
sounds like whoever chose to bet on government bailout if things went south should get a very big bonus!
i'm sure they did.
and too bad for all of us...we paid it. but then again, how hard is it to bet on what politicians might do, when you have all of the politicians in your pocket? it's like Vito Corleone at work.
and I do not want a requirement for realtors to be licensed. Thoughts on that one?
Technically, a Realtor is someone who is a member of the National Association of Realtors... not every licensed sales associate and/or broker is a Realtor.
That said, Sales Associates and Brokers should absolutely be licensed.
1. We have fiduciary responsibility to either the buyer or seller (or disclosed dual agency).
2. We handle deposits and escrow money
3. We are helping people buy or sell what is probably their most expensive asset. The process is complicated, and it is important that we know what we are doing.
4. We have to be up to date on disclosures, environmental issues, and sales data that effect price and potentially the safety of the public.
Do you want someone to do all this who is not licensed?
a majority of subprime loans linked to the 2008 financial crisis were originated by lenders which are not regulated by the CRA, so no, that's not how it happened. Banks were forced to not discriminate in lending, and give fair terms. as another example, in 2009 55% of commercial loans were underwater, and these loans have no association to CRA at all. virtually all legal and financial experts have spoken, and have indicated that the CRA loans tend to be safe and profitable, while the non-CRA loans are often of the subprime stature. but keep buying into that garbage. i have a bridge to sell you, give me a call.
and the unemployment rate? come on. if you think that Obama taking office caused the bleeding of enough jobs within 2 months to increase it to 7%, without having been effected in any way by the prior 8 years of policy decision, 6 of which was a republican controlled congress, then you're either ignorant or biased.
mass. healthcare costs have risen 1%, and virtually everyone in the state is covered. i'd say that's pretty damn good.
what's happening in Greece and very few parts of Europe is happening to economies that do not have diverse industries and do not have reliable exports. If you want to compare the U.S. economy to a Eurozone, compare it to Germany, which is doing well even while they are shouldering the burden of some of the poorly managed Eurzone countries.
greece's retirement age is almost a decade sooner than ours. their pension benefits from the government are exponentially larger than our social security program and medicaid program. and they have huge issues with collecting tax revenues.
no it doesn't sound familiar, because we still have money to fund social security, and fixing the future issues of the program are relatively minor financial moves or tax moves. our property taxes are high because NJ has gone down a road of very high level of service, in both public schooling, county services, and state services. we haven't funded pension payments in over a decade, so don't kid yourself into thinking that's part of our high property taxes.
i personally don't know anyone who believes they are owed a job or owed a college education. but feel free to introduce me to one. i live in west orange, and would be happy to travel to meet your real life examples.
i think you'll be shocked i guess, as you watch this movement spreading to other cities, big and small, across the country. people are fed up. middle class people are tired of being told that we need to be at historically low tax rates, and go even lower, or otherwise, the great "job creators" won't do anything for us. well, that class of people is going to start losing power. and they'll cling to anything from calling people communists to criticizing people that can afford an ipod (less than $100) and dismissing them as hypocrites.
Guess what? We can buy products and still believe that the country is not headed in the right direction when large corporations and wealthy individuals control virtually all of the politicians. that includes powerful lobbyist groups such as the UAW and Teamsters.
a majority of americans don't believe that you're using the term class warfare appropriately. asking people to roll back to the tax rates that existed during the prosperous 90s is not class warfare. but asking people to give up many of the services that have helped build our country into one of the greatest in the world is.
again - amazing that you guys don't realize, just because some of us are of good means doesn't mean we've tossed our morals out the window.
I'll post this again so you can see what caused the housing collapse:
Medicaid has almost doubled in Massachusetts, you think that can go on much longer? what good does it do that people are covered by it when increasingly it's becoming harder to fund it?
You don't see a correlation at all between what's happening in Greece, moving into Europe and Union pensions here? People who can't even afford to find their own retirements forced to pay for the nice cushy retirements for others? you don't see that at all, do you?
Do you really think I'm shocked by a bunch of people who are either dependent on others to survive, or a bunch of spoiled kids who have no idea what they're doing because they haven't been on their own yet, you think that type of protest shocks me? Today they're saying 2,000 are going to rally in NY, the population of the Tri-State area is over 18 million, so I'm supposed to be impressed that about 1/100th of 1% of the population is out there protesting? You also somehow seem to be confusing the middle class with union workers, it's the middle class who are the entrepreneur's in most cases, they're the ones who've been hurt by politically correct regulations being shoved down their throats by the Democrats. The protesters spewing Socialist talking points are so naive, there isn't a middle class is Socialist utopia's, there's only the small percentage of haves and the overwhelming majority are the have-nots. And yes, those protesters are hypocrites, they're protesting against a system that has schooled them, that has allowed them to buy things like IPOD's, Laptops and fancy Cellphones, if you're truly against Capitalism you'd be against using such things. And here's more hypocrisy for you, the dilemma of the day for the protest is this, cold weather is moving in, the Organizers are trying to figure out what to do, should they engage in Capitalism by buying sleeping bags? or should they figure out a way to make their own? now that's amusing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
I do not want these services. I want lower taxes. I want less or no regulation in most areas of life. I do not want any form of government health care. I do not want social security, I'll take care of it myself. I do not want redistribution of wealth in any way, shape, or form. It is not a crime to be competent. And it should not be penalized.
There are no classes. Only individuals. And the individuals "protesting" on Wall St are simply misguided and looking for answers in the wrong place. The correct place? Look inward and figure out how to solve your individual problem. Do not go to Wall St demanding new forms of statism and new forms of collectivism. Collectivist tyranny got us into this mess in the first place. The only way out is removal of government from all the roles it has no business fulfilling, and a return to emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of the individual.
Lower taxes. Less regulation. Individuals thinking for themselves and solving their own problems.
You want to protest? Protest your own incompetence. And do something to change it that does not involve sacrificing your fellow man.
That post is frame-worthy IMO, kudos to you for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan
I don't even know where to begin. It is not always as simple as "get a job". I had a job working in a warehouse that barely made ends meet. Went to state college, and I took out government backed student loans to do so. My earnings increased $15,000 a year right off the bat after graduating. Total cost of the loans to me is $23,000.
Government is going to be making money off the loans they gave me (6.8% interest rate), and beyond that, I am gonna be paying more taxes every year due to my higher earning capacity. I am happy to pay because i successfully improved my situation and in the long run, it is not much. Win win situation.
The resources need to be out there for people to improve themselves. not saying it is perfect, and a lot of it is a waste of money, but a lot of it is very good, useful stuff at the same time.
I know it's probably a really old fashioned thing to do, my Parents had no money to send me to College, so what did I do? I didn't take out a Student Loan, I actually worked 2 jobs and went to school, what a novel idea.
As for the resources needing to be out there for people to improve themselves? that's not the Government's responsibility, it's the individual's responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
this is a good point. which is why proper regulation over performing due diligence should be in place. much of which is in place, but many banks ignored. i got a mortgage in 2010, and the quantity of documentation I had to provide was insane. but for nearly a decade, they handed out mortgages with barely any follow up on what "applicants" claimed. applicants can be mortgage brokers, or the lendee. claims could be purposefully misrepresented, or accidentally (some of what the banks ask for requires looking into various places if you want to be 100% accurate).
i don't think that a bank shouldn't be able to sell an asset to another bank. but if it's found that bank A didn't properly evaluate those assets, then there should be repurcussions.
how has there been basically no real fallout on the obvious lack of due diligence in the years leading up to the mortgage crisis?
In the quest to be politically correct, banks were forced to give loans to people who didn't have good credit, people who bought over their heads, and because there were so many of these loans that unqualified people weren't able to pay housing prices came down for the people who were doing and are doing the right thing. People bought over their heads in a high market, then the market crashes and they found they owed more than the home was worth, who's fault was that? and these people just walked away leaving the rest of us to clean up their mess.
and too bad for all of us...we paid it. but then again, how hard is it to bet on what politicians might do, when you have all of the politicians in your pocket? it's like Vito Corleone at work.
thats true. part of the problem is that we expect the corrupt politicians to be the ones to fix the system that they designed to serve themselves. you need a real a-hole attorney general type person to investigate all politicians, their contributions and how it may have impacted their decisions.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 10-05-2011 at 12:29 PM..
the greatest generation saddled us with a bunch of unpaid for entitlement spending that they've reaped the benefits from their entire lives. the constitution gave us the right to protest, not WWII. they helped defend that right. thanks for the non-history lesson though.
Sorry, but the baby boomers are the onesthat saddled us with a bunch of unpaid for entitlement spending.
The greatest generation didn't spend if they didn't have the money.
With all due respect, anyone who begins his or her post with the absurd statement that the EPA wages "war" on any facet of American industry is not a serious, or sane, student of political, economic, and social life in the United States.
Likewise, spouting the hoary and not so thinly veiled racism of the tediously false talking points of the Right-wing echo propaganda machine amounts to low-grade attemps at "stab-in-the-back" mythology redolent of that other right-wing movement that took hold during an economic crises, you know where and you know when.
Here are the facts:
Myth A: "De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis."
FACT: Conservative de-regulation left Wall Street with no oversight. Bush’s conservative appointees rolled back decades-old, proven regulation and oversight of banks, insurers, lenders, and credit raters. With the explosion in subprime loans after 2000, undertaken by unregulated mortgage companies, drew upon a majority of higher income borrowers, not low- to moderate-income borrowers. - The [Phil] Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA) dismantled Depression-era law (which centrist President Bill Clinton accepted to molify the Right) had previously forbade bank holding companies from owning other financial companies such as investment, commercial banking, and insurance companies. GLBA unleashed a wave of self-serving mergers, circumscribing government regulators charged with preventing conflicts of interest and risky financial behavior.
Myth B :Liberals "forced" Private Lenders into giving out risky loans
FACT: PRIVATE LENDERS—and not the government-backed Fannie and Freddie (A sheepish and stunned Alan Greenspan himself testified to this fact after the meltdown)—issued the overwhelming majority of subprime loans, most often to low- and moderate-income borrowers. Fannie and Freddie never guaranteed and securitize large quantities of subprime loans. - In fact, Fannie Mae actually gave up market share as it chose not to “participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005” given that it “determined that the pricing offered for these mortgages often was insufficient compensation for the additional credit risk associated with these mortgages.” Putting fact over fiction, Economist Dean Baker stated, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector… the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face—kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.” - In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld that Fannie and Freddie’s role in Lehman’s demise was “de minimis,” i.e., insignificant enough as not to matter.
Myth C: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Caused the Crisis"
Facts: The Right-wing, in trying to exculpate their voodoo economics and miscreant figures from suffering the deserved consequences of their folly, have attempted to scapegoat Fannie Mae and Mac, and, typically, blame poorer African-Americans and Hispanics for America’s economic woes. What a surprise. Once again, economist Dean Baker, who acknowledging Fannie and Freddie’s following of the, and I quote, “irrational exuberance of the private sector” and actually lost market share to private subprime lenders in the years 2002-2007, during which “the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded.” Pointedly, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 6, 2008, that Fannie and Freddie’s failure played a minimal role in Lehman’s demise.
Myth D: "The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act is to Blame"
FACT: will leave aside how an act legislated forty years ago and under the oversight of largely Democratic houses over much of the same time period did not precipitate any housing price crises or economic meltdown. No, that happened during the Republican’s tenure. It is no coincidence Economists have noted, forcefully, that the CRA did not make the lion’s share of a of subprime loans, as the CRA had a mandate relating only to depository institutions pre 1998. Indeed, financial institutions in the fifteen most populous metropolitan areas made 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 that would become the toxic base of the crises. The CRA neither governed nor had any mandate over any of these private institutions.
Indeed, the canard that the CRA “caused” the current crisis ignores several essential facts:
i) The CRA does not cover independent mortgage companies, which issued the vast majority of the loans underlying the crisis.
ii) University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr and leading expert on finance, testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, stated that in all, CRA-covered institutions issued only twenty percent of the subprime mortgages since the late 1990s.
iii) Passed in 1977, the CRA has partaken in the financial life of the United States some thirty years before the subprime loan bonanza occurred.
iv) The Bush administration's dilution of the CRA occurred during the same period the private institution-led subprime boom.
vi) CRA never compelled banks to become major culprits in the blood bath of reckless subprime lending to meet CRA obligations; they did so per classic Republican/Libertarian/Randian theo-ideology: to make a profit no matter the consequences
Concluding Riposte:
Your claim that “ six months before Bush left office [unemployment] was 5%, after the crash and Bush left office a few months later it was 7%,” is an outright and willful prevarication, a distortion of reality. The economic crises exploded under Bush’s watch in 2008, after months of declining economic indicators. Obama, whatever his failings (namely, his enduring fantasy that racist, ideologically besotted, and undereducated Republicans will "compromise" with anyone but racist,ideologically besotted, and undereducated right-wingers), has had to deal with the fallout of the incompetence, mendacity, and sheer idiocy of Bush and Republican economic policies which exploded in late 2008, a mere two or three months before the election.
All noted economists (and anyone with the education, intelligence, and honesty to review the evidence disinterestedly) will rationally conclude the obvious: ruinous tax giveaways to the top two percent; ruinous deregulation; starting two wars on credit, largely off the books, and incompetently prosecuting them, and the great pharmaceutical giveaway of 2004 has brought the Republic to ruin. These are the policies of George Bush, Jr., the Republican House, and the ideological shock troops of the American right
Your allusion to Greece is likewise dishonest and lacking factual support. Nobel Laureates from Krugman to Steiglitz have pointed out the fallacy of this comparison (Japan in the early 1990s is a much more apt comparison). Indeed, Greece, which has never become one of the major technological-industrial powers of Europe such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, could never support its bizarre patronage net that makes the economic powerhouse and quasi-socialist states of Germany, France, Britain, for instance seem like the centerfolds of that hack Rand’s capitalist pornography by contrast.
[ Yes, I have " looked at the signs, the protestors," and I find their critiques of American capitalism and the malevalent influence of the Right-wing mild, obvious, and a collective baby step to the proverbial lighting of the "Fire Next Time" (trans: long overdue a** whuppin'). In short, the protestors don't go far enough.
I live in Manhattan, and I know well the claims of the right-wing and their Astro-turfed hypocrites of the Tea-Bagged party. If you want to excoriate “ pea-brains,” take a closer look at those who spoon fed you your "position paper.' It is your repetition of the right-wing’s blatant and utterly disingenuous propaganda that gives those of us who actually care to discern what reality is that gives us confirmation that “your post is more” in the striving junior league of wanna-be Goebbels and their BIG LIE “than reality.”
Ever respectfully,
P-Vidal Naquet’s Ami.
Last edited by P-vidal naquet's ami; 10-05-2011 at 01:01 PM..
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.
Countering Right-wing Rubbish
