The Political hate for Wall Street makes no sense

[PredFan]

The point is they didnt create it. Our government did. They just participated.

Bovine feces. The government did not take good loans and mash them up with bad loans. The government didn't BET on the bad loans.

They may have let it happen, but they didn't DO IT, the banks did. And when it was done, the government BAILED them out.

Why? Because our politicians are BOUGHT and PAID for by Wall Street lobbyists.

Oh look...we are back to getting the fucking money out of politics again. Whodathunk?

Bundling bad loans with good loans then selling them off was a government plan to use as an incentive to get lenders to make bad loans. Carrot and stick. The stick was that unless banks made their quota of bad loans they wouldn't be able to open new branches, they couldn't merge, or acquire assets. Banks that refused to make bad loans were automatically engaging in discriminatory practices.

There were banks, small ones, that refused to make bad loans and didn't need bail out money. They were healthy banks. Last year when the government was seizing hundreds of banks a week, these healthy banks were taken over by govenment regulators for engaging in discriminatory practices and making a profit due to those discriminatory policies.

Good luck getting the lefties to understand this let alone accept it.

 

[Contumacious]

Bovine feces. The government did not take good loans and mash them up with bad loans. The government didn't BET on the bad loans.

They may have let it happen, but they didn't DO IT, the banks did. And when it was done, the government BAILED them out.

Why? Because our politicians are BOUGHT and PAID for by Wall Street lobbyists.

Oh look...we are back to getting the fucking money out of politics again. Whodathunk?

Bundling bad loans with good loans then selling them off was a government plan to use as an incentive to get lenders to make bad loans. Carrot and stick. The stick was that unless banks made their quota of bad loans they wouldn't be able to open new branches, they couldn't merge, or acquire assets. Banks that refused to make bad loans were automatically engaging in discriminatory practices.

There were banks, small ones, that refused to make bad loans and didn't need bail out money. They were healthy banks. Last year when the government was seizing hundreds of banks a week, these healthy banks were taken over by govenment regulators for engaging in discriminatory practices and making a profit due to those discriminatory policies.

That's absolutely untrue. Once Freddie and Fannie were taking out of the equation so was due diligence. Predatory lending outfits like Quick Loan Funding were swarming around getting people to sign things they didn't understand without doing any actuarial work on the loans. Heck, they even lied to them about what they were signing and lied on the paperwork about actual incomes. And it was encouraged by financial institutions like Goldman Sachs because they were looking for volume. Heck..it was even John Thane that was one of the first to come up with the idea.

Let me ask you:

Do you believe that folks understand the ramifications of voting democrat?

Do folks understand the ramifications of adopting fascism/socialism as the US socioeconomic system?

.

 

[Sallow]

Bovine feces. The government did not take good loans and mash them up with bad loans. The government didn't BET on the bad loans.

They may have let it happen, but they didn't DO IT, the banks did. And when it was done, the government BAILED them out.

Why? Because our politicians are BOUGHT and PAID for by Wall Street lobbyists.

Oh look...we are back to getting the fucking money out of politics again. Whodathunk?

Bundling bad loans with good loans then selling them off was a government plan to use as an incentive to get lenders to make bad loans. Carrot and stick. The stick was that unless banks made their quota of bad loans they wouldn't be able to open new branches, they couldn't merge, or acquire assets. Banks that refused to make bad loans were automatically engaging in discriminatory practices.

There were banks, small ones, that refused to make bad loans and didn't need bail out money. They were healthy banks. Last year when the government was seizing hundreds of banks a week, these healthy banks were taken over by govenment regulators for engaging in discriminatory practices and making a profit due to those discriminatory policies.

Good luck getting the lefties to understand this let alone accept it.

Accept what? It wasn't the government plan.

 

[Si modo]

I read just fine thanks. Basically you are saying that we shouldn't be blaming Wall Street for the financial mess THEY created because they are the ones with all the money.

The point is they didnt create it. Our government did. They just participated.

Bovine feces. The government did not take good loans and mash them up with bad loans. The government didn't BET on the bad loans.

They may have let it happen, but they didn't DO IT, the banks did. And when it was done, the government BAILED them out.

Why? Because our politicians are BOUGHT and PAID for by Wall Street lobbyists.

Oh look...we are back to getting the fucking money out of politics again. Whodathunk?

It was the fucking government's IDEA to bundle the two!!!!!!

Good grief!

 

[Full-Auto]

Bundling bad loans with good loans then selling them off was a government plan to use as an incentive to get lenders to make bad loans. Carrot and stick. The stick was that unless banks made their quota of bad loans they wouldn't be able to open new branches, they couldn't merge, or acquire assets. Banks that refused to make bad loans were automatically engaging in discriminatory practices.

There were banks, small ones, that refused to make bad loans and didn't need bail out money. They were healthy banks. Last year when the government was seizing hundreds of banks a week, these healthy banks were taken over by govenment regulators for engaging in discriminatory practices and making a profit due to those discriminatory policies.

Good luck getting the lefties to understand this let alone accept it.

Accept what? It wasn't the government plan.

Once Freddie and Fannie were taking out of the equation so was due diligence. Predatory lending outfits like Quick Loan Funding were swarming around getting people to sign things they didn't understand without doing any actuarial work on the loans. Heck, they even lied to them about what they were signing and lied on the paperwork about actual incomes. And it was encouraged by financial institutions like Goldman Sachs because they were looking for volume. Heck..it was even John Thane that was one of the first to come up with the idea.

I dont think anyone disputes that once the door was opened the sharks flooded the waters.

The point is the government, mainly democrats opened that gate. Once open some repubs jumped on board, to pander for the same votes.

 

[Sallow]

Bundling bad loans with good loans then selling them off was a government plan to use as an incentive to get lenders to make bad loans. Carrot and stick. The stick was that unless banks made their quota of bad loans they wouldn't be able to open new branches, they couldn't merge, or acquire assets. Banks that refused to make bad loans were automatically engaging in discriminatory practices.

There were banks, small ones, that refused to make bad loans and didn't need bail out money. They were healthy banks. Last year when the government was seizing hundreds of banks a week, these healthy banks were taken over by govenment regulators for engaging in discriminatory practices and making a profit due to those discriminatory policies.

That's absolutely untrue. Once Freddie and Fannie were taking out of the equation so was due diligence. Predatory lending outfits like Quick Loan Funding were swarming around getting people to sign things they didn't understand without doing any actuarial work on the loans. Heck, they even lied to them about what they were signing and lied on the paperwork about actual incomes. And it was encouraged by financial institutions like Goldman Sachs because they were looking for volume. Heck..it was even John Thane that was one of the first to come up with the idea.

Let me ask you:

Do you believe that folks understand the ramifications of voting democrat?

Do folks understand the ramifications of adopting fascism/socialism as the US socioeconomic system?

.

If you want to get hyperbolic about this, fine. But I will add that Fascism is socialism for the rich..and socialism is basically for everyone else.

Conservatives seem to favor fascism. Fascism combines the corporate, religious and military into one neat little package.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fannie is a 5,000 person bankrupt government organization that buy mortgages and resells them.

Freddie is a 5,000 person bankrupt government organization that buy mortgages and resells them.

Why do we need 2 5,000 person bankrupt government organizations doing the exact same thing?

 

[Si modo]

That's absolutely untrue. Once Freddie and Fannie were taking out of the equation so was due diligence. Predatory lending outfits like Quick Loan Funding were swarming around getting people to sign things they didn't understand without doing any actuarial work on the loans. Heck, they even lied to them about what they were signing and lied on the paperwork about actual incomes. And it was encouraged by financial institutions like Goldman Sachs because they were looking for volume. Heck..it was even John Thane that was one of the first to come up with the idea.

Let me ask you:

Do you believe that folks understand the ramifications of voting democrat?

Do folks understand the ramifications of adopting fascism/socialism as the US socioeconomic system?

.

If you want to get hyperbolic about this, fine. But I will add that Fascism is socialism for the rich..and socialism is basically for everyone else.

Conservatives seem to favor fascism. Fascism combines the corporate, religious and military into one neat little package.

Are you a socialist?

 

[Sallow]

Good luck getting the lefties to understand this let alone accept it.

Accept what? It wasn't the government plan.

Once Freddie and Fannie were taking out of the equation so was due diligence. Predatory lending outfits like Quick Loan Funding were swarming around getting people to sign things they didn't understand without doing any actuarial work on the loans. Heck, they even lied to them about what they were signing and lied on the paperwork about actual incomes. And it was encouraged by financial institutions like Goldman Sachs because they were looking for volume. Heck..it was even John Thane that was one of the first to come up with the idea.

I dont think anyone disputes that once the door was opened the sharks flooded the waters.

The point is the government, mainly democrats opened that gate. Once open some repubs jumped on board, to pander for the same votes.

And we are back to square one.

Opened the gate, how exactly? Clinton signing on to a republican backed bill that repealed Glass-Steagall? I mean, that is the meme. But it really didn't go into effect until Bush was elected. And there were plenty of indications that was a terrible idea. The whole Enron/Arthur Anderson debacle should have prompted Bush to restore that legislation, it didn't. In fact, quite the opposite occurred.

This is the conservative paradigm. Low taxes and soft regulations. How's it working?

 

[Sallow]

Let me ask you:

Do you believe that folks understand the ramifications of voting democrat?

Do folks understand the ramifications of adopting fascism/socialism as the US socioeconomic system?

.

If you want to get hyperbolic about this, fine. But I will add that Fascism is socialism for the rich..and socialism is basically for everyone else.

Conservatives seem to favor fascism. Fascism combines the corporate, religious and military into one neat little package.

Are you a socialist?

I've posted this often. A well regulated capitalistic economy is the best thing with socialistic programs picking up the loose ends.

 

[Chris]

The Federal Reserve is loaning banks money at almost 0% interest.

The banks are earning money loaning that money back to the government in the form of Treasuries at 1% interest.

So they don't have to loan money to businesses to make money.

This has to change.

 

[Si modo]

If you want to get hyperbolic about this, fine. But I will add that Fascism is socialism for the rich..and socialism is basically for everyone else.

Conservatives seem to favor fascism. Fascism combines the corporate, religious and military into one neat little package.

Are you a socialist?

I've posted this often. A well regulated capitalistic economy is the best thing with socialistic programs picking up the loose ends.

But, that didn't answer my question.

I agree on some regulations. I also agree on smart regulations. I don't agree on regulations to regulate the fuck ups the prior regulations encouraged.

 

[Contumacious]

That's absolutely untrue. Once Freddie and Fannie were taking out of the equation so was due diligence. Predatory lending outfits like Quick Loan Funding were swarming around getting people to sign things they didn't understand without doing any actuarial work on the loans. Heck, they even lied to them about what they were signing and lied on the paperwork about actual incomes. And it was encouraged by financial institutions like Goldman Sachs because they were looking for volume. Heck..it was even John Thane that was one of the first to come up with the idea.

Let me ask you:

Do you believe that folks understand the ramifications of voting democrat?

Do folks understand the ramifications of adopting fascism/socialism as the US socioeconomic system?

.

If you want to get hyperbolic about this, fine. But I will add that Fascism is socialism for the rich..and socialism is basically for everyone else.

Conservatives seem to favor fascism. Fascism combines the corporate, religious and military into one neat little package.

The questions before you were simple:


(a)Do you believe that folks understand the ramifications of voting democrat?

(b)Do folks understand the ramifications of adopting fascism/socialism as the US socioeconomic system?

But, you decided to go on an irrelevant tangent instead.

The answer to both questions is NO.

The narcotized allows government to interfere in the economy then when the government fucks up, the economy slows down and there are no jobs they. Subsequently , ding dongs like OWS appear and without any research blame the wrong entity .

.

 

[Contumacious]

If you want to get hyperbolic about this, fine. But I will add that Fascism is socialism for the rich..and socialism is basically for everyone else.

Conservatives seem to favor fascism. Fascism combines the corporate, religious and military into one neat little package.

Are you a socialist?

I've posted this often. A well regulated capitalistic economy is the best thing with socialistic programs picking up the loose ends.

True.

So long as the FREE MARKET is what is doing the regulation.

Not some low life miserable demagogue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[JRK]

The Federal Reserve is loaning banks money at almost 0% interest.

The banks are earning money loaning that money back to the government in the form of Treasuries at 1% interest.

So they don't have to loan money to businesses to make money.

This has to change.

So your claim is the banks are in the business to make less than 1% profit?
The reason the banks are not loaning money is people have no assets. There equity went out the window when people stopped paying on there mortgages and the real estate bust occurred. I am not defending the banks. I have some serious issues with there in-ability to loan people with marginal credit the monies needed to go into business and there same with interest rates
This did not just start. I had a tumor removed and 6 weeks of radiation. I had(have) issues with some of the bills, it hurt my credit rating
People who pay 500,000 in bills and have issues with 5,000 and have what is called bad credit has went on along time before the housing bust

 

[JRK]

the issue is not about people not paying for the loans the got, the issue is why BHO is not standing up for what is right.
Goldman Sachs did no make those bad loans. They are the business to make money for other people including retirement plans as well as 401ks
trillions in wealth is at risk and it makes no sense why BHO will not put a stop to this crap

 

[Ravi]

It makes perfect sense. Wall Street gambled with the mortgage market and lost big. Not only did they lose profit, but they also brought down the world economy.

Wall street did not cause that, people not paying there mortgages caused that. I also have to give credit to those who gave those mortgages to people who later could not pay them. Wall street got caught the same all of us id, the got a bailout which save trillions in 401Ks

My bad, I didn't realize you were stupid.

Vote for Herman Cain, he will solve all your problems.

 

[Si modo]

It makes perfect sense. Wall Street gambled with the mortgage market and lost big. Not only did they lose profit, but they also brought down the world economy.

Wall street did not cause that, people not paying there mortgages caused that. I also have to give credit to those who gave those mortgages to people who later could not pay them. Wall street got caught the same all of us id, the got a bailout which save trillions in 401Ks

My bad, I didn't realize you were stupid.

Vote for Herman Cain, he will solve all your problems.

Being right doesn't make him stupid.

 

[Seawytch]

The working man isn't losing it all because of big business but because of the democrat government policies. It's not a mystery that this started happening when obama was elected. There is a cause and effect.

Really? Which policy? What policy has caused the income inequality in this country?

The one where Obama signed an executive order that gave government employees a 6% raise while the rest of us took a major hit on our incomes.

Got a link, 'cause this is all I could find:

Obama Orders Pay Freeze

Obama also signed EO-13496 that forces Government Employees onto Unions to increase Government pay to extort more money from US citizens.

No it doesn't FORCE people into unions. Executive Order 13496 of January 30, 2009

 

[JRK]

It makes perfect sense. Wall Street gambled with the mortgage market and lost big. Not only did they lose profit, but they also brought down the world economy.

Wall street did not cause that, people not paying there mortgages caused that. I also have to give credit to those who gave those mortgages to people who later could not pay them. Wall street got caught the same all of us id, the got a bailout which save trillions in 401Ks

My bad, I didn't realize you were stupid.

Vote for Herman Cain, he will solve all your problems.

Well to start with calling a grown man stupid is one thing, but to call him stupid and then tell him Herman Cain is going to do a worse job than Obama has really sheds light on your character