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.
If you honestly desire to understand where I'm coming from, I'll try to explain. If you don't? Well, that's fine too - it's an opportunity for me to attempt to explain my perspective a bit more fully.
I think most folks make decisions based on the information available/present day circumstances & consider the most plausible options if the objective is to solve or resolve problems.
The most recent financial crisis was similar in many ways to two earlier crises: the Great Depression of the 30s, Savings & Loan Scandals of the 80s.
This article compares S&L to the more recent (& global) financial imbroglio:
& this one details why there were so few criminal prosecutions as compared to the earlier S&L. It also discusses the Pecora Hearings which shed much needed light on the events leading up to the Great Depression:
& finally, (because I'm realizing this is way off topic here) this one sketches out the timeline of the creation/implementation of the Glass-Steagall Act (necessitated by GD) up to its eventual demise in 1999 when Congress passed the Financial Services Modernization Act:
Consider whether it's more fruitful to apportion blame? Or, to make the necessary corrections or reforms to remedy the problems?
The market in financial products known as derivatives is STILL non-regulated. They're not un-regulated, they weren't de-regulated, they've never BEEN regulated. That was part of the Financial Services Modernization Act.
Too Big to Fail still exists. Elizabeth Warren is floating a bill for a more modern version of Glass-Stegall, details here:
& personally, I still think it makes more sense to focus on corrections or reforms to remedy.
Warren can put forth whatever she wants, if Fannie and Freddie are going to buy up the loan so it includes zero risk to the bank is it the banks fault to capitalize on the stupidity of Washington?
Maybe we can give another "grace" to those people who overbought, I do so love hearing how friends of mine who bought a house at the peak of the market over their budget got free money off their principle and an almost-free refinance to a rate half of what I am receiving. Yep! Makes me wonder why I even bother being financially responsible.
I do notice how a lot of the blame never mentions Andrew Cuomo as head of the HUD suing banks multiple times to get them to give these horrible loans with the government promising to buy to the mortgages and back them with F&F. It's not like Andy admitted to this is 1998 when he said their would be higher risk by opening mortgages and a higher default rate... OHH WAIT! HE DID!
Warren can put forth whatever she wants, if Fannie and Freddie are going to buy up the loan so it includes zero risk to the bank is it the banks fault to capitalize on the stupidity of Washington?
Maybe we can give another "grace" to those people who overbought, I do so love hearing how friends of mine who bought a house at the peak of the market over their budget got free money off their principle and an almost-free refinance to a rate half of what I am receiving. Yep! Makes me wonder why I even bother being financially responsible.
I do notice how a lot of the blame never mentions Andrew Cuomo as head of the HUD suing banks multiple times to get them to give these horrible loans with the government promising to buy to the mortgages and back them with F&F. It's not like Andy admitted to this is 1998 when he said their would be higher risk by opening mortgages and a higher default rate... OHH WAIT! HE DID!
It appears you would agree with some or all of the conclusions reached by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?
Quote:
The Commission reached nine main conclusions (directly quoted):[11]
... We conclude collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization pipeline lit and spread the flame of contagion and crisis.
"Many mortgage lenders set the bar so low that lenders simply took eager borrowers' qualifications on faith, often with a willful disregard for a borrower's ability to pay. ... While many of these mortgages were kept on banks' books, the bigger money came from global investors who clamored to put their cash into newly created mortgage-related securities. It appeared to financial institutions, investors, and regulators alike that risk had been conquered. ... But each step in the mortgage securitization pipeline depended on the next step to keep demand going. From the speculators who flipped houses to the mortgage brokers who scouted the loans, to the lenders who issued the mortgages, to the financial firms that created the mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), CDOs squared, and synthetic CDOs: no one in this pipeline of toxic mortgages had enough skin in the game. When borrowers stopped making mortgage payments, the losses—amplified by derivatives—rushed through the pipeline. As it turned out, these losses were concentrated in a set of systemically important financial institutions."
The main reason why I continue to think it makes more sense to focus on corrections or reforms to remedy is demonstrated here:
Quote:
The Commission's final report was initially due to Congress on December 15, 2010, but was not released until January 27, 2011.[10] In voting on the adoption of the final report the Commission was split evenly along partisan lines, with Angelides, Born, Georgiou, Graham, Murren, and Thompson (appointed by Democrats Pelosi and Reid) all voting in favor and Thomas, Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Wallison (appointed by Republicans Boehner and McConnell) all dissenting. Among those dissenting Thomas, Hennessey, and Holtz-Eakin collaborated on a single report while Wallison, from the American Enterprise Institute drafted his alone and proposed that the crisis was caused by government affordable housing policies rather than market forces.[11] However, this view has not been supported by subsequent detailed analyses of mortgage market data.[12]
This has resulted in dead lock, inertia & nearly guarantees there will be another crisis in the future, not if - when. As JPMorgan Chase & Company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer James Dimon quipped:
Quote:
But in a complete 180-degree turn from the seemingly wide-eyed responses he gave during the morning, Dimon later told the panel that the downturn shouldn't be much of a surprise because he expects them to happen on a regular basis.
"Not to be funny about it, but my daughter asked me when she came home from school 'what's the financial crisis,' and I said, 'Well it's something that happens every five to seven years,''' Dimon said. "We shouldn't be surprised, but we need to do a better job." Bank Execs Offer Head-Scratching Answers - CBS News
That is actually an extremely interesting quote from the Commission. What they NEGLECTED to say is that it is Fannie and Freddie who set the mortgage-lending standards (conforming loan size, minimum down payment, minimum FICO score, etc.).
Quote:
Very amusing Mr. Dimon, very bloody hysterical.
That may be sarcasm, but Mr. Dimon is absolutely correct. HUD sets Fannie's and Freddie's affordable lending goals via mandates. When HUD goes overboard and makes unrealistic demands (as they did during the Clinton era), Fannie and Freddie have no choice but to ever-lower lending standards, and we'll have a repeat of the same crisis.
I got the math from the source that claims to know. I didn't calculate jack!
Nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American.
Participants[edit]
A summary statistical report indicated that an average of 47.6 million people used the program in FY 2013.[24] Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; more than one-quarter of participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities.[25]
As of 2013, more than 15% of the U.S. population receive food assistance, and more than 20% in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oregon and Tennessee. Washington D.C. was the highest share of the population to receive food assistance at over 23%.[26]
Average number of persons participating in the SNAP, 2005–2012. The number of participants has increased 12% annually since 2007.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (based on a study of data gathered in Fiscal Year 2010), statistics for the food stamp program are as follows:[27]
49% of all participant households have children (17 or younger), and 55% of those are single-parent households.
15% of all participant households have elderly (age 60 or over) members.
20% of all participant households have non-elderly disabled members.
The average gross monthly income per food stamp household is $731;
The average net income is $336.
37% of participants are White,
22% are African-American,
10% are Hispanic,
2% are Asian,
4% are Native American, and
19% are of unknown race or ethnicity. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GTFOH, I don't know math. You can't make up YOUR OWN FRIGGIN REALITY!
I got the math from the source that claims to know. I didn't calculate jack!
There's your mistake. You forgot to compare the SNAP recipient percentages to each race's percentage of the overall population. Do you understand your mistake? Or am I talking over your head?
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.
What they NEGLECTED to say is that it is Fannie and Freddie who set the mortgage-lending standards (conforming loan size, minimum down payment, minimum FICO score, etc.). 
Whites, then and Whites now get more aid.
