S&L Crisis: 896 Convictions - Great Recession: 1 Conviction?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Summary according to Ed:

1) S&L's were poorly deregulated.

if you disagree please say why or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to defend what you say.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2) Nobody who bought a home in the 2000's made a house payment.

WOW!

If I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or admit to being a typical liberal liar.

 

[georgephillip]

Lunch money.

Other people's lunch money, at that.
Neil Bush became director of Silverado Savings and Loan when he was 30 years old, and three years later the institution went belly up at a cost of $1.6 billion to taxpayers. Maybe we were lucky Dubya moved into the White House instead of Neil?
The Bush family and the S L Savings and Loan Scandal

 

[OnePercenter]

if you disagree please say why or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to defend what you say.

Wouldn't it actually be, poorly regulated?

 

[OnePercenter]

If I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or admit to being a typical liberal liar.

Get out your checkbook.

You stated;

'2) Great Recession happened because there were 132 programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford'

If someone can't afford something, how can they make a payment toward what they can't afford?

You can donate the ten grand to the Make A Wish Foundation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if you disagree please say why or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to defend what you say.

Wouldn't it actually be, poorly regulated?

no, S&L's got in trouble only when they were deregulated.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If someone can't afford something, how can they make a payment toward what they can't afford?

dear, someone can afford to make payments for 20 years and then not be able to make 12 payments a year in the 21st years and at that point not be able to afford their home

Do you understand now?

 

[OnePercenter]

no, S&L's got in trouble only when they were deregulated.

So deregulation is BAD. Thank You!

 

[OnePercenter]

dear, someone can afford to make payments for 20 years and then not be able to make 12 payments a year in the 21st years and at that point not be able to afford their home

Do you understand now?

Why would that be?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why would that be?

that???? dear you clean forgot to say what "that" is

 

[OnePercenter]

Why would that be?

that???? dear you clean forgot to say what "that" is

I forgot you have a total lack of concentration and comprehension.

You stated: dear, someone can afford to make payments for 20 years and then not be able to make 12 payments a year in the 21st years and at that point not be able to afford their home

Do you understand now?

I asked: Why would that be?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why would that be?

that???? dear you clean forgot to say what "that" is

I forgot you have a total lack of concentration and comprehension.

You stated: dear, someone can afford to make payments for 20 years and then not be able to make 12 payments a year in the 21st years and at that point not be able to afford their home

Do you understand now?

I asked: Why would that be?

dear, what a stupid question to ask-right? A child would know the answer just not an adult liberal so he has to ask.

 

[georgephillip]

 

[georgephillip]

"But several years after the financial crisis, which was caused in large part by reckless lending and excessive risk taking by major financial institutions, no senior executives have been charged or imprisoned, and a collective government effort has not emerged.

"This stands in stark contrast to the failure of many savings and loan institutions in the late 1980s.

"In the wake of that debacle, special government task forces referred 1,100 cases to prosecutors, resulting in more than 800 bank officials going to jail. Among the best-known: Charles H. Keating Jr., of Lincoln Savings and Loan in Arizona, and David Paul, of Centrust Bank in Florida.

"Former prosecutors, lawyers, bankers and mortgage employees say that investigators and regulators ignored past lessons about how to crack financial fraud."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"But several years after the financial crisis, which was caused in large part by reckless lending and excessive risk taking by major financial institutions, no senior executives have been charged or imprisoned, and a collective government effort has not emerged.

"This stands in stark contrast to the failure of many savings and loan institutions in the late 1980s.

"In the wake of that debacle, special government task forces referred 1,100 cases to prosecutors, resulting in more than 800 bank officials going to jail. Among the best-known: Charles H. Keating Jr., of Lincoln Savings and Loan in Arizona, and David Paul, of Centrust Bank in Florida.

"Former prosecutors, lawyers, bankers and mortgage employees say that investigators and regulators ignored past lessons about how to crack financial fraud."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

dear, we have capitalism to take care of businesses that are reckless. And lets not forget that the banks behaved badly only because liberal govt had always made housing prices go up.

Do you understand?

 

[georgephillip]

dear, we have capitalism to take care of businesses that are reckless. And lets not forget that the banks behaved badly only because liberal govt had always made housing prices go up.

Please explain why capitalism has rewarded Goldman Sachs's and Citi's reckless behavior?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, we have capitalism to take care of businesses that are reckless. And lets not forget that the banks behaved badly only because liberal govt had always made housing prices go up.

Please explain why capitalism has rewarded Goldman Sachs's and Citi's reckless behavior?

because they have millions and millions of customers who elect to do business with them over anyone else.

Do you understand this simple reasoning?

 

[gipper]

The Federal government forced banks to issue more and more sub-prime loans. Then the Feds said we want even more...so they used Fannie and Freddie to back those sub-prime loans, which allowed the banks a freer hand without consequences. F&F eventually had portfolios that consisted of 70% sub-prime.

I am all for prosecution of banksters, but we need to recognize that the real culprit are the assholes in DC.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Federal government forced banks to issue more and more sub-prime loans. Then the Feds said we want even more...so they used Fannie and Freddie to back those sub-prime loans, which allowed the banks a freer hand without consequences. F&F eventually had portfolios that consisted of 70% sub-prime.

I am all for prosecution of banksters, but we need to recognize that the real culprit are the assholes in DC.

yes, imagine, Fanny was not enough, so they created Freddie to compete just to make sure that absolutely anyone who wanted a mortgage got one.

 

[georgephillip]

because they have millions and millions of customers who elect to do business with them over anyone else.

Because they are doing "God's work," right?

"Why are banks giving out bonuses to execs who leave to work for the government? Shareholders at several banks will vote on proposals that would allow them to determine the details behind the bonus plans.

"Would you prefer bankers to be doing 'God’s work,'—how Lloyd Blankfein described the role of banks in 2009—or the government’s? And if a banker does government work, is he also, somehow, doing God’s work, and therefore deserves celestial pay?"

Don't you see how private bankers are the devils in the details?

Goldman Sachs and the mystery of revolving door bonuses - Fortune