Chavez and the democrats want to nationalize the banks

[ihopehefails]

Another simularity between Obama and Chavez (communist).

Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelan banks - Yahoo! News

 

[GHook93]

Another simularity between Obama and Chavez (communist).

Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelan banks - Yahoo! News

Let's just stick to discussing Venezuela. How many industries is that for Hugo Fatass:
(1) Oil, (2) Utilities, (3) Food/Farms, (4) Large Textile companies, (5) healthcare industry (done before him), (6) Media, (7) Large formerly private employers and now the banks!

What is his reason for doing this (besides the obvious, which is for a communist/socialist takeover)?

adding he had "no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor."

Doesn't Fat Ass realize that this is what got America into the mess. Government hacks saying the banks have to lend to the poor, so they had to toss risk matrix out and do the subprime, 100% down and stated loans.

Hugo Fat Ass is retarded!

 

[SFC Ollie]

And they laughed when I said that Chavez was Obama's hero........

 

[Polk]

adding he had "no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor."

Doesn't Fat Ass realize that this is what got America into the mess. Government hacks saying the banks have to lend to the poor, so they had to toss risk matrix out and do the subprime, 100% down and stated loans.

Except that's not what happened. Banks threw out the risk matrix and started selling subprime because it was highly profitable to do so when you didn't have to take an risk, since you could repackage the mortgages as securities. It wasn't the effect of government policy, it was good old-fashioned avarice.

 

[GHook93]

adding he had "no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor."

Doesn't Fat Ass realize that this is what got America into the mess. Government hacks saying the banks have to lend to the poor, so they had to toss risk matrix out and do the subprime, 100% down and stated loans.

Except that's not what happened. Banks threw out the risk matrix and started selling subprime because it was highly profitable to do so when you didn't have to take an risk, since you could repackage the mortgages as securities. It wasn't the effect of government policy, it was good old-fashioned avarice.

Very true the banks got greedy! The lenders have a ton of the blame on the situation. Many of the big banks saw Ameriquest running wild with the subprime and jumped on board. But the theories and matrix tossing happened because of the Congress's forcing it upon the banks. Could they have done this lending better, of course. I said for a long time the problem with subprime wasn't so much the higher rate. Rather it was the fact that the vast majority of the loans were stated (probably 95%). That is the problem with many of the conventional loans done during this time. The problem lies with the stating of income.

 

[rightwinger]

Is Chavez nationalizing failing banks?

The Government shoring up failed banks and demanding a level of control for using our money is not nationalization.

Guess what ? TARP worked...it stoped an economic collapse.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Is Chavez nationalizing failing banks?

The Government shoring up failed banks and demanding a level of control for using our money is not nationalization.

Guess what ? TARP worked...it stoped an economic collapse.

So you are telling us that Bush stopped the economic collapse and that Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars for no reason. Thank you for getting that straight for us.

 

[Dr Grump]

[


So you are telling us that Bush stopped the economic collapse and that Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars for no reason. Thank you for getting that straight for us.

No, he wasn't saying that......

 

[GHook93]

Is Chavez nationalizing failing banks?

The Government shoring up failed banks and demanding a level of control for using our money is not nationalization.

Guess what ? TARP worked...it stoped an economic collapse.

Very the OP made an incorrect comparison. What Hugo is doing is trying once against to appeal to the ignorant poor voters of Venezuela in order to push his communist take-over. He says look poor peasants I am taking over the banks because they won't lend to you and lose money. The man just doesn't get it. His communist push is sinking Venezuela. The man doesn't realize that Venezuela will make Haiti look rich when the world slowly but surely moves away from oil. I would hate to be Venezuelan over the next decade when that happens.

 

[SFC Ollie]

[


So you are telling us that Bush stopped the economic collapse and that Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars for no reason. Thank you for getting that straight for us.

No, he wasn't saying that......

Was not TARP under Bush? Yes, shake your head up and down....that's it.....

 

[Dr Grump]

[


So you are telling us that Bush stopped the economic collapse and that Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars for no reason. Thank you for getting that straight for us.

No, he wasn't saying that......

Was not TARP under Bush? Yes, shake your head up and down....that's it.....

TARP was under Bush, but Obama certainly did not spend a trillion dollars for no reason.


...and the way TARP was handled by Paulson was a disgrace...

 

[rightwinger]

Is Chavez nationalizing failing banks?

The Government shoring up failed banks and demanding a level of control for using our money is not nationalization.

Guess what ? TARP worked...it stoped an economic collapse.

So you are telling us that Bush stopped the economic collapse and that Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars for no reason. Thank you for getting that straight for us.

I have never had any problem in recognizing Bush's role in TARP. Both Paulson and Geitner, supposedly at opposite ends of the economic and political spectrum looked at the impending economic collapse and came to the same conclusion.....The banks must not be allowed to collapse.

Notice all the wingnut tards calling this Nationalization

 

[Polk]

adding he had "no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor."

Doesn't Fat Ass realize that this is what got America into the mess. Government hacks saying the banks have to lend to the poor, so they had to toss risk matrix out and do the subprime, 100% down and stated loans.

Except that's not what happened. Banks threw out the risk matrix and started selling subprime because it was highly profitable to do so when you didn't have to take an risk, since you could repackage the mortgages as securities. It wasn't the effect of government policy, it was good old-fashioned avarice.

Very true the banks got greedy! The lenders have a ton of the blame on the situation. Many of the big banks saw Ameriquest running wild with the subprime and jumped on board. But the theories and matrix tossing happened because of the Congress's forcing it upon the banks. Could they have done this lending better, of course. I said for a long time the problem with subprime wasn't so much the higher rate. Rather it was the fact that the vast majority of the loans were stated (probably 95%). That is the problem with many of the conventional loans done during this time. The problem lies with the stating of income.

What did Congress do to force it upon the banks?

 

[ihopehefails]

adding he had "no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor."

Doesn't Fat Ass realize that this is what got America into the mess. Government hacks saying the banks have to lend to the poor, so they had to toss risk matrix out and do the subprime, 100% down and stated loans.

Except that's not what happened. Banks threw out the risk matrix and started selling subprime because it was highly profitable to do so when you didn't have to take an risk, since you could repackage the mortgages as securities. It wasn't the effect of government policy, it was good old-fashioned avarice.

Thats because the government was their to eat up the risk so they were not losing anything. This made banks laon to anyone who could pay the first payment because they knew if it went bad they could pass it to the government and that is what happened. If it was their own money then they would not have made those loans which is why a private or heavily deregulated banking "system" wouldn't have these problems.

 

[editec]

Is Chavez nationalizing failing banks?

The Government shoring up failed banks and demanding a level of control for using our money is not nationalization.

Guess what ? TARP worked...it stoped an economic collapse.

So you are telling us that Bush stopped the economic collapse and that Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars for no reason. Thank you for getting that straight for us.

I have never had any problem in recognizing Bush's role in TARP. Both Paulson and Geitner, supposedly at opposite ends of the economic and political spectrum looked at the impending economic collapse and came to the same conclusion.....The banks must not be allowed to collapse.

Notice all the wingnut tards calling this Nationalization

I cocur that sans the TARP the world's economic system would have collapsed.

But the government (under Bush II, then Obama) did natioaize something, ddidn't it?

They nationalized the debts of the banks/

Per usual, we have socialism for the uber-wealthy and cutthroat capitalism for the rest of us.

 

[GHook93]

Is Chavez nationalizing failing banks?

Rather he is nationalizing profitable banks for not failing by taking unwise risks.

 

[Polk]

adding he had "no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor."

Doesn't Fat Ass realize that this is what got America into the mess. Government hacks saying the banks have to lend to the poor, so they had to toss risk matrix out and do the subprime, 100% down and stated loans.

Except that's not what happened. Banks threw out the risk matrix and started selling subprime because it was highly profitable to do so when you didn't have to take an risk, since you could repackage the mortgages as securities. It wasn't the effect of government policy, it was good old-fashioned avarice.

Thats because the government was their to eat up the risk so they were not losing anything. This made banks laon to anyone who could pay the first payment because they knew if it went bad they could pass it to the government and that is what happened. If it was their own money then they would not have made those loans which is why a private or heavily deregulated banking "system" wouldn't have these problems.

They would surely making these sorts of loans with their own money if they could then sell it back off.

 

[uscitizen]

Another simularity between Obama and Chavez (communist).

Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelan banks - Yahoo! News

I just want the banks regulated in a manner similar to how they were before they were deregulated to keep this from happening again or the republicans having to bail them out again on borrowed money.