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.
Apparently you haven't even bothered to read the Republican dissent at the end of the FCIC report? (Only 9 or so pages at the end.) You know, the narrative that absolves the banks of any wrongdoing? & doesn't contain (may the Gods forbid! ) the mere mention of the words 'deregulation', 'shadow banking', 'interconnection' or 'Wall Street'?
Better to blame the poor folks in America for a global financial imbroglio. After all, they have legions of lawyers, legislators, libertarian lapdogs, & lobbyists to defend.
Apparently you haven't even taken the time to read the Republican dissent at the end of the FCIC report? (Only 9 or so pages at the end.) You know, the narrative that absolves the banks of any wrongdoing?
That's because the banks didn't, though they were hurt by being sold toxic Fannie and Freddie MBS. Follow the money... Who needed the $2 Trillion bailout? Banks? No. Fannie and Freddie.
That's because the banks didn't, though they were hurt by being sold toxic Fannie and Freddie MBS. Follow the money... Who needed the $2 Trillion bailout? Banks? No. Fannie and Freddie.
Spencer Bachus? Is that you? Here on city-data forums? For real?
"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”
I'm not against it because I believe in a certain level of redistribution. Not totally communistic, but enough to at least get people educated and get them healthcare, which helps society as a whole.
Why bother getting an education when the government will take what you need from another American and give it to you?
As described in Robert G. Kaiser's book Act of Congress:
"Spencer Bachus...had another idea. Instead of the complicated plan for auctioning off toxic assets, why not just inject capital directly into the troubled banks by buying their shares? This had been done successfully in similar situations, in Sweden, for example, in a banking crisis there in 1992...Bachus and [Senior Aide Larry] Lavender had beed discussing the possibility for months as they watched the American crisis unfold, and Bachus asked about it now.
Paulson shot it down....
(Months later) Paulson asked his staff to figure out how to do what Spencer Bachus had suggested on September 18 – use government money to invest directly in troubled banks."
And just to whet your appetite, it includes info on tens of thousands of Americans who will get their homes for free because they can't pay their mortgages. Taxpayers are footing the bill for that. And everyone's paying an inflation tax for that.
And just to whet your appetite, it includes info on tens of thousands of Americans who will get their homes for free because they can't pay their mortgages. Taxpayers are footing the bill for that. And everyone's paying an inflation tax for that.
& all with no mention of the words 'deregulation', 'shadow banking', 'interconnection' or 'Wall Street'.
Starting to believe you just might really be Senator Bacchus?
"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”
& all with no mention of the words 'deregulation', 'shadow banking', 'interconnection' or 'Wall Street'.
Why should there be? It's plain as day that Fannie and Freddie issued trillions of dollars worth of toxic MBS. No one's fault but HUD via its Affordable Lending regulation mandates.
Follow the money... Who had to have a $2 Trillion bailout, most of which will never be paid back? Fannie and Freddie.
Why should there be? It's plain as day that Fannie and Freddie issued trillions of dollars worth of toxic MBS. No one's fault but HUD via its Affordable Lending regulation mandates.
Follow the money... Who had to have a $2 Trillion bailout, most of which will never be paid back? Fannie and Freddie.
Where did the idea of using government money to invest directly in troubled banks originate? Back to 1980s era & its obsessive fixation on deregulation. Back to the same o lame o ideology of failed 'trickle down - voodoo - free market fundamentalist - Reaganomics - libertarian supply side' & repeat failed strategies.
& this time with 'get out of jail cards' issued (with blessings of above failed strategies) by apparently absolving of any wrong doing.
Underlying it all, what is the role of banking systems? Do banks exist to serve the financial needs of the American people?
Or is it the other way around?
Do the American people exist solely to serve the financial needs of the banking systems in their quest for increased profits?
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.
) the mere mention of the words 'deregulation', 'shadow banking', 'interconnection' or 'Wall Street'?