To be honest I hope he does (with regards to mortgages). Because the last thing the economy needs is more debt.lowing wrote:
nope, why would I? As soon as the people find out that Obama is not going to pay their bills or pay off their mortgage, his celebrity will die downMint Sauce wrote:
lowing have you hung yourself yet?
No legislation forced banks to give subprime loans. No legislation forced or restricted banks from hiding debt in complex financial instruments. Six years of right wing Republican house, senate, presidency did not introduce the necessary oversight of lending practices. Now people who weren't even subprime are being swallowed up into the economic whirlpool. Just like Communism, the politics of unashamed gluttony and greed ultimately crashed and burns - when one segment of society holds absolute sway over the other - whether it be practiced by individuals, investment bankers or politicians. You pin the blame in a rather (and typically) over-simplistic manner. Maybe one day you will engage brain cell number two. As for the outcome - this could be tto violent a shift to the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Republicans wallowed in their own crepulence for so long that it has become absolutist to the other extreme. I only hope, for your sake, that the Democrats exercise some modicum of responsibility.lowing wrote:
I an not naive, I knew Obama was going to get elected, and I know why.
I am wondering who exactly "got fucked" , It was the democrats that insisted on programs that offered high risk people home loans. The loans were granted and the consumer failed to pay thier bills, now you are telling me the people who failed their obligation got fucked? I don't think so Cam, the rest of us holding the bag got fucked.
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the listCameronPoe wrote:
No legislation forced banks to give subprime loans. No legislation forced or restricted banks from hiding debt in complex financial instruments. Six years of right wing Republican house, senate, presidency did not introduce the necessary oversight of lending practices. Now people who weren't even subprime are being swallowed up into the economic whirlpool. Just like Communism, the politics of unashamed gluttony and greed ultimately crashed and burns - when one segment of society holds absolute sway over the other - whether it be practiced by individuals, investment bankers or politicians. You pin the blame in a rather (and typically) over-simplistic manner. Maybe one day you will engage brain cell number two. As for the outcome - this could be tto violent a shift to the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Republicans wallowed in their own crepulence for so long that it has become absolutist to the other extreme. I only hope, for your sake, that the Democrats exercise some modicum of responsibility.lowing wrote:
I an not naive, I knew Obama was going to get elected, and I know why.
I am wondering who exactly "got fucked" , It was the democrats that insisted on programs that offered high risk people home loans. The loans were granted and the consumer failed to pay thier bills, now you are telling me the people who failed their obligation got fucked? I don't think so Cam, the rest of us holding the bag got fucked.
If it's the same crowd you blame for Oprah telling them how to vote i guess they are stupid enough to be "forced" to make that loan ... you discredit your own people in one thread lowing and hands out mensa memberships in another ... make up your mind ...lowing wrote:
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the listCameronPoe wrote:
No legislation forced banks to give subprime loans. No legislation forced or restricted banks from hiding debt in complex financial instruments. Six years of right wing Republican house, senate, presidency did not introduce the necessary oversight of lending practices. Now people who weren't even subprime are being swallowed up into the economic whirlpool. Just like Communism, the politics of unashamed gluttony and greed ultimately crashed and burns - when one segment of society holds absolute sway over the other - whether it be practiced by individuals, investment bankers or politicians. You pin the blame in a rather (and typically) over-simplistic manner. Maybe one day you will engage brain cell number two. As for the outcome - this could be tto violent a shift to the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Republicans wallowed in their own crepulence for so long that it has become absolutist to the other extreme. I only hope, for your sake, that the Democrats exercise some modicum of responsibility.lowing wrote:
I an not naive, I knew Obama was going to get elected, and I know why.
I am wondering who exactly "got fucked" , It was the democrats that insisted on programs that offered high risk people home loans. The loans were granted and the consumer failed to pay thier bills, now you are telling me the people who failed their obligation got fucked? I don't think so Cam, the rest of us holding the bag got fucked.
The populace can often be shortsighted and stupid - hence the need for government intervention in the medium/longer term interest. A higher federal interest rate might have deterred the cheap money epidemeic that spurred this crisis but no, Greenspan would have none of it...lowing wrote:
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the list
It does beg the question: Why hasn't there been an en-mass sacking of highly paid economists and experts who failed to see the largest housing bubble in history?CameronPoe wrote:
The populace can often be shortsighted and stupid - hence the need for government intervention in the medium/longer term interest. A higher federal interest rate might have deterred the cheap money epidemeic that spurred this crisis but no, Greenspan would have none of it...lowing wrote:
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the list
I do? I think people are sheep bending to the will of people like Oprah, I also think people are irresponsible, they want others to take the blame and the consequences for their own stupidity. Not sure how I am being inconsistent.Varegg wrote:
If it's the same crowd you blame for Oprah telling them how to vote i guess they are stupid enough to be "forced" to make that loan ... you discredit your own people in one thread lowing and hands out mensa memberships in another ... make up your mind ...lowing wrote:
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the listCameronPoe wrote:
No legislation forced banks to give subprime loans. No legislation forced or restricted banks from hiding debt in complex financial instruments. Six years of right wing Republican house, senate, presidency did not introduce the necessary oversight of lending practices. Now people who weren't even subprime are being swallowed up into the economic whirlpool. Just like Communism, the politics of unashamed gluttony and greed ultimately crashed and burns - when one segment of society holds absolute sway over the other - whether it be practiced by individuals, investment bankers or politicians. You pin the blame in a rather (and typically) over-simplistic manner. Maybe one day you will engage brain cell number two. As for the outcome - this could be tto violent a shift to the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Republicans wallowed in their own crepulence for so long that it has become absolutist to the other extreme. I only hope, for your sake, that the Democrats exercise some modicum of responsibility.
They are prolly all masonsPureFodder wrote:
It does beg the question: Why hasn't there been an en-mass sacking of highly paid economists and experts who failed to see the largest housing bubble in history?CameronPoe wrote:
The populace can often be shortsighted and stupid - hence the need for government intervention in the medium/longer term interest. A higher federal interest rate might have deterred the cheap money epidemeic that spurred this crisis but no, Greenspan would have none of it...lowing wrote:
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the list
They failed at their jobs in the most spectacular way possible and you still see them on the news offering their 'expert' advice.
Uhhh clearly it was nothing more than media induced panic. What I want is that 800 billion bucks back. So much for the callapse of the free market and capitalismCameronPoe wrote:
The populace can often be shortsighted and stupid - hence the need for government intervention in the medium/longer term interest. A higher federal interest rate might have deterred the cheap money epidemeic that spurred this crisis but no, Greenspan would have none of it...lowing wrote:
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the list
It's all about trust lowing ... have you not seeked advice when making a purchase ?lowing wrote:
I do? I think people are sheep bending to the will of people like Oprah, I also think people are irresponsible, they want others to take the blame and the consequences for their own stupidity. Not sure how I am being inconsistent.Varegg wrote:
If it's the same crowd you blame for Oprah telling them how to vote i guess they are stupid enough to be "forced" to make that loan ... you discredit your own people in one thread lowing and hands out mensa memberships in another ... make up your mind ...lowing wrote:
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the list
Actually, that's not true...not entirely. The CRA emphasis by Congress drove lenders to make those mortgages. Why? Because they were scored against the CRA standard in their lending practices. If they scored low, Fannie and Freddie were less likely to back their mortgages. So, while it was a number of factors, not exclusively any one, the legislation was as much of a proximate cause of the mortgage meltdown as anything else.CameronPoe wrote:
No legislation forced banks to give subprime loans. No legislation forced or restricted banks from hiding debt in complex financial instruments. Six years of right wing Republican house, senate, presidency did not introduce the necessary oversight of lending practices. Now people who weren't even subprime are being swallowed up into the economic whirlpool. Just like Communism, the politics of unashamed gluttony and greed ultimately crashed and burns - when one segment of society holds absolute sway over the other - whether it be practiced by individuals, investment bankers or politicians. You pin the blame in a rather (and typically) over-simplistic manner. Maybe one day you will engage brain cell number two. As for the outcome - this could be tto violent a shift to the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Republicans wallowed in their own crepulence for so long that it has become absolutist to the other extreme. I only hope, for your sake, that the Democrats exercise some modicum of responsibility.lowing wrote:
I an not naive, I knew Obama was going to get elected, and I know why.
I am wondering who exactly "got fucked" , It was the democrats that insisted on programs that offered high risk people home loans. The loans were granted and the consumer failed to pay thier bills, now you are telling me the people who failed their obligation got fucked? I don't think so Cam, the rest of us holding the bag got fucked.
They didn't have to lend. They could have done what Spanish bank Santander did and remained conservative and prudent - and then reaped the rewards (which Santander is now doing). It is what makes financial sense that should have driven all of their decisions. The legislation certainly did add significant fuel to the fire however.FEOS wrote:
Actually, that's not true...not entirely. The CRA emphasis by Congress drove lenders to make those mortgages. Why? Because they were scored against the CRA standard in their lending practices. If they scored low, Fannie and Freddie were less likely to back their mortgages. So, while it was a number of factors, not exclusively any one, the legislation was as much of a proximate cause of the mortgage meltdown as anything else.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-05 04:01:12)
...but aren't you completely overlooking the efforts of 'community action groups' working directly against the banks, and not just through Congress? Not to mention working at the local level when it comes time to build new branches of banks in communities. Groups pressuring banks directly to give or promise low-income, high risk loans in return for being able to expand into certain areas of the city, or extorting them directly thorugh public protests tying up their bank lobbies preventing any real commerce from taking place.CameronPoe wrote:
They didn't have to lend. They could have done what Spanish bank Santander did and remained conservative and prudent - and then reaped the rewards (which Santander is now doing). It is what makes financial sense that should have driven all of their decisions. The legislation certainly did add significant fuel to the fire however.FEOS wrote:
Actually, that's not true...not entirely. The CRA emphasis by Congress drove lenders to make those mortgages. Why? Because they were scored against the CRA standard in their lending practices. If they scored low, Fannie and Freddie were less likely to back their mortgages. So, while it was a number of factors, not exclusively any one, the legislation was as much of a proximate cause of the mortgage meltdown as anything else.
A responsible bank should never pander to such nonsense. All it should ever be concerned about is conservatively balancing risk and return. Giving in to community activism should be reason enough to shut their asses down.imortal wrote:
...but aren't you completely overlooking the efforts of 'community action groups' working directly against the banks, and not just through Congress? Not to mention working at the local level when it comes time to build new branches of banks in communities. Groups pressuring banks directly to give or promise low-income, high risk loans in return for being able to expand into certain areas of the city, or extorting them directly thorugh public protests tying up their bank lobbies preventing any real commerce from taking place.
The majority of the sub-prime loans were by lenders that weren't covered by the CRA at all. In fact the lenders that were covered by the CRA survived better than those were not covered by it indicating that those covered by the CRA actually tended to make more sensible loans.FEOS wrote:
Actually, that's not true...not entirely. The CRA emphasis by Congress drove lenders to make those mortgages. Why? Because they were scored against the CRA standard in their lending practices. If they scored low, Fannie and Freddie were less likely to back their mortgages. So, while it was a number of factors, not exclusively any one, the legislation was as much of a proximate cause of the mortgage meltdown as anything else.CameronPoe wrote:
No legislation forced banks to give subprime loans. No legislation forced or restricted banks from hiding debt in complex financial instruments. Six years of right wing Republican house, senate, presidency did not introduce the necessary oversight of lending practices. Now people who weren't even subprime are being swallowed up into the economic whirlpool. Just like Communism, the politics of unashamed gluttony and greed ultimately crashed and burns - when one segment of society holds absolute sway over the other - whether it be practiced by individuals, investment bankers or politicians. You pin the blame in a rather (and typically) over-simplistic manner. Maybe one day you will engage brain cell number two. As for the outcome - this could be tto violent a shift to the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Republicans wallowed in their own crepulence for so long that it has become absolutist to the other extreme. I only hope, for your sake, that the Democrats exercise some modicum of responsibility.lowing wrote:
I an not naive, I knew Obama was going to get elected, and I know why.
I am wondering who exactly "got fucked" , It was the democrats that insisted on programs that offered high risk people home loans. The loans were granted and the consumer failed to pay thier bills, now you are telling me the people who failed their obligation got fucked? I don't think so Cam, the rest of us holding the bag got fucked.
Sorry varegg, I do not buy a product because my favorite NASCAR driver has it plastered all over his car, I do not buy shoes because Michael Jordan said so, I do not read a book because Oprah said so, and I do not buy a house or a car because someone who benefits from the purchase told me I should.Varegg wrote:
It's all about trust lowing ... have you not seeked advice when making a purchase ?lowing wrote:
I do? I think people are sheep bending to the will of people like Oprah, I also think people are irresponsible, they want others to take the blame and the consequences for their own stupidity. Not sure how I am being inconsistent.Varegg wrote:
If it's the same crowd you blame for Oprah telling them how to vote i guess they are stupid enough to be "forced" to make that loan ... you discredit your own people in one thread lowing and hands out mensa memberships in another ... make up your mind ...
Yes many people can blame their own stupidity when things go wrong but have you no emphasis for those that trusted their economic advisor that told them that they could afford it ? ... greed made them endorse loans that never should have been given, but the realtors sure made a short time profit on those sales ...
... this was all over the news in Norway 1,5 years ago, i even made a thread about it and the whole subprime loan issue was laughed off as a non existent problem back then even thought the warnings seemed pretty clear ...
Most estimates are at least half of the subprime loans were either partially or fully CRA-related. That would mean that there wasn't a majority of either.PureFodder wrote:
The majority of the sub-prime loans were by lenders that weren't covered by the CRA at all. In fact the lenders that were covered by the CRA survived better than those were not covered by it indicating that those covered by the CRA actually tended to make more sensible loans.FEOS wrote:
Actually, that's not true...not entirely. The CRA emphasis by Congress drove lenders to make those mortgages. Why? Because they were scored against the CRA standard in their lending practices. If they scored low, Fannie and Freddie were less likely to back their mortgages. So, while it was a number of factors, not exclusively any one, the legislation was as much of a proximate cause of the mortgage meltdown as anything else.
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/ … 1-7-08.pdf
SourceUnder the CRA guidelines, a bank gets credit originating loans or buying on a whole loan basis, but not holding the loans. So, this gave the banks the incentive to originate loans and securitize them, passing the risk on others. Since the banks no longer carried the loan risk, they had every incentive to lower their underwriting standards to increase loan volume. The mortgage securitization freed up cash for banks and thrifts, this allowed them to make even more loans. In 1997, Bear Sterns bundled the first CRA loans into MBS. [65]
Sure... if you want more crime, we can do that.lowing wrote:
1. There will always be poor people Turquoise, the key is to make sure it isn't YOU. I will make you a deal, I will not take the poor for granted, if the poor does not take me for granted. I am guessing that, that deal will not be acceptable.Turquoise wrote:
...but you do realize that, in order for you to get the goods and services you need, you will always need people willing to fill low-paying jobs.lowing wrote:
Kinda harsh there Turquoise. No I never implied "people you depend on for your goods should live at the poverty line because they aren't educated or didn't have the same privileges you might have had". I do not need to imply anything, I will tell you. What I mean is, if you d onot want to wind up "picking cotton" then make sure you do not. Yup ya might have t owork harder than someone else, tough shit, that is life. If you do not want to be poor than make decisions in your life to guarentee you are not. In our country it is up to you if you succeed or fail.
I see, so are you suggesting that hard work, ambition motivation determination are not the keys to guarneteed success? That merely "luck" is all one needs, and you either have it or you do not? This is funny, I am told I do not live in the real world, yet I am the only one uses real world verbage like ambition, motivatation, determination, and all I here you sall talk about is, "luck", "destiny", and "karma".
I do not disdain the poor Turquoise, I disdain the poor's attitude that I am the reason THEY are poor and I need to give up my earned income to make it right.
Don't look now Turqoise, but there already is aid available to the poor. This howver has nothing t odo with Obama's plan to take my money to merely spread around and not to run govt.
Half of our livelihoods revolve around cheap goods made by cheap labor. Now, obviously, if the labor making these goods is all overseas, we don't have the responsibility to take care of them, but we still have plenty of cheap labor here as well.
I guess what I'm getting at is... it's very dangerous to take the poor for granted. Yes, there are social programs out there, but we need to improve them.
You are are correct, we do need to revamp the social programs in America. Kicking every worthless piece of shit to the curb would be a good place to start. Leaving more money for those that truly deserve the help.
may I suggest concentration camps? They're a very efficient means of sequestering the "undesireables" at minimal cost.Turquoise wrote:
Sure... if you want more crime, we can do that.lowing wrote:
You are are correct, we do need to revamp the social programs in America. Kicking every worthless piece of shit to the curb would be a good place to start. Leaving more money for those that truly deserve the help.
It will if you keep somersaulting into the sandpit.lowing wrote:
Uhhh clearly it was nothing more than media induced panic. What I want is that 800 billion bucks back. So much for the callapse of the free market and capitalismCameronPoe wrote:
The populace can often be shortsighted and stupid - hence the need for government intervention in the medium/longer term interest. A higher federal interest rate might have deterred the cheap money epidemeic that spurred this crisis but no, Greenspan would have none of it...lowing wrote:
What legislation FORCED consumers to accept subprime mortages? It is funny how all of sudden markets are rebounding and the economic crisis is not even on the front page after only a few weeks, some great depression we endured. I hope everyones internet and PC upgrades were not affected too much. Maybe Obama will have the rich pay for free wireless internet for all Americans now. Just add it to the list
Probably not more crime, if the US started actually punishing our criminals instead of "rehabilitation" with 3 squares a day, cable, libraries, gyms, internet entertaining frivalous lawsuits, etc....I am gathering that the criminals in prison treat each other worse than the govt. does.Turquoise wrote:
Sure... if you want more crime, we can do that.lowing wrote:
1. There will always be poor people Turquoise, the key is to make sure it isn't YOU. I will make you a deal, I will not take the poor for granted, if the poor does not take me for granted. I am guessing that, that deal will not be acceptable.Turquoise wrote:
...but you do realize that, in order for you to get the goods and services you need, you will always need people willing to fill low-paying jobs.
Half of our livelihoods revolve around cheap goods made by cheap labor. Now, obviously, if the labor making these goods is all overseas, we don't have the responsibility to take care of them, but we still have plenty of cheap labor here as well.
I guess what I'm getting at is... it's very dangerous to take the poor for granted. Yes, there are social programs out there, but we need to improve them.
You are are correct, we do need to revamp the social programs in America. Kicking every worthless piece of shit to the curb would be a good place to start. Leaving more money for those that truly deserve the help.
for criminals? Sure, maybe one might think twice before committing a crime then huh?Reciprocity wrote:
may I suggest concentration camps? They're a very efficient means of sequestering the "undesireables" at minimal cost.Turquoise wrote:
Sure... if you want more crime, we can do that.lowing wrote:
You are are correct, we do need to revamp the social programs in America. Kicking every worthless piece of shit to the curb would be a good place to start. Leaving more money for those that truly deserve the help.
Tell that to the people that keep "somersaulting into the sandpit"Spark wrote:
It will if you keep somersaulting into the sandpit.lowing wrote:
Uhhh clearly it was nothing more than media induced panic. What I want is that 800 billion bucks back. So much for the callapse of the free market and capitalismCameronPoe wrote:
The populace can often be shortsighted and stupid - hence the need for government intervention in the medium/longer term interest. A higher federal interest rate might have deterred the cheap money epidemeic that spurred this crisis but no, Greenspan would have none of it...
I think the whole thing about criminals is that they don't really think at all. Now you want them to think twice?lowing wrote:
for criminals? Sure, maybe one might think twice before committing a crime then huh?Reciprocity wrote:
may I suggest concentration camps? They're a very efficient means of sequestering the "undesireables" at minimal cost.Turquoise wrote:
Sure... if you want more crime, we can do that.
Actually I coundn't care less, what I want is them to suffer for the pain they cause innocent people.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I think the whole thing about criminals is that they don't really think at all. Now you want them to think twice?lowing wrote:
for criminals? Sure, maybe one might think twice before committing a crime then huh?Reciprocity wrote:
may I suggest concentration camps? They're a very efficient means of sequestering the "undesireables" at minimal cost.