You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[jc456]

JC, your response is a classic case of avoiding the real issue by focusing on minutiae. The fact that you’re dismissing the analogy and the broader context I provided shows that you’re either unwilling or unable to engage with the actual arguments. The financial crisis wasn’t just about individual regulations or specific bad loans it was about a systemic failure that was deliberately engineered by those in power to maximize their profits, even if it meant risking the entire economy. This isn’t "nonsense"; it’s the core of why the 2008 collapse happened and why it will happen again under the same conditions.

You keep demanding answers to narrow questions, but those questions are designed to distract from the bigger picture. The financial industry lobbied for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and other protective regulations because they knew it would allow them to engage in riskier behavior with greater potential rewards, all while passing the risk onto the public. When that gamble failed, it wasn’t capitalism that saved the day it was a government bailout, essentially a socialist intervention, that prevented a complete collapse. So, if you want to talk about who’s really deflecting, take a look in the mirror. The truth is, a more socialist system would have prevented the crisis in the first place by keeping the financial industry accountable to the public, not to profit margins.

actually, I look for interaction when I debate, and you haven't shown the ability to do that. You keep ignoring facts or answering direct questions. Makes you worthless to a discussion thread. And, stop telling me what I'm avoiding. Answer my post directly rather than in blah blah blah land. Just answer or counterpoint with facts. FAIL!!!!

 

[jc456]

It confirms the OP.

how so? Explain how it does? post the data from my link.

 

[jc456]

JC and Todd, the fact that the financial industry lobbied so hard to repeal Glass-Steagall shows how much they cared about those regulations. If these regulations were irrelevant or unnecessary, why would the industry invest so much effort and money to get rid of them? The truth is, the banks knew exactly what they stood to gain from the repeal: the ability to engage in much riskier, profit-driven behavior without the constraints that Glass-Steagall imposed.

Glass-Steagall kept a clear line between commercial banking and investment banking, preventing banks from using depositor funds to engage in speculative activities. By lobbying for its repeal, the financial industry was essentially asking for a green light to use those funds for high-stakes gambling in the securities market, knowing full well that if their bets failed, the public would bear the brunt of the losses. This wasn’t about creating opportunities for borrowers or expanding credit—it was about maximizing profits for the banks while offloading risk onto the broader economy.

The 2008 crisis happened because, without the safeguards that Glass-Steagall provided, banks were able to bundle risky loans into toxic financial products, sell them off as safe investments, and make a killing in the short term. When the house of cards inevitably collapsed, it wasn’t the banks that suffered the most—it was the ordinary people who lost their homes, their jobs, and their savings. So, when you argue that Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have made a difference, you’re ignoring the fact that its repeal directly enabled the kind of reckless behavior that led to the crisis. The banks cared deeply about getting rid of these regulations because they knew it would open the door to massive profits, all while leaving the public to pick up the pieces when things went wrong.

blah, blah, blah, wash rinse repeat, need something of substance please.

 

[Faun]

how so? Explain how it does? post the data from my link.

Your links are 2 years old and have nothing to do with what I posted. Try your diversions elsewhere.

 

[jc456]

Your links are 2 years old and have nothing to do with what I posted. Try your diversions elsewhere.

they are what I found as the top article. Tell them to update their records.

 

[Faun]

they are what I found as the top article. Tell them to update their records.

You are responsible for what you post here. I need not tell your sources anything. And it doesn't matter since your diversion has nothing to do with this thread anyway. Your post just proves you're trolling.

 

[TruthNotBS]

blah, blah, blah, wash rinse repeat, need something of substance please.

I'm not responding to your disingenuous claptrap posts to convince you of anything anyway. I wrote for others, not you.

 

[TruthNotBS]

actually, I look for interaction when I debate, and you haven't shown the ability to do that. You keep ignoring facts or answering direct questions. Makes you worthless to a discussion thread. And, stop telling me what I'm avoiding. Answer my post directly rather than in blah blah blah land. Just answer or counterpoint with facts. FAIL!!!!

Your points aren't facts, you just don't like the answers.

 

[TruthNotBS]

blah, blah, blah, wash rinse repeat, need something of substance please.

If the repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn’t important to the financial industry, and they weren’t planning to exploit subprime mortgages, then why did they lobby Congress so hard to get it repealed? If these regulations didn’t matter, why would they invest so much in getting rid of them? The fact that they pushed so aggressively for its repeal suggests they knew exactly what they stood to gain from it, and that was the ability to engage in the kind of risky, profit-driven behavior that ultimately led to the 2008 crisis. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[jc456]

If the repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn’t important to the financial industry, and they weren’t planning to exploit subprime mortgages, then why did they lobby Congress so hard to get it repealed? If these regulations didn’t matter, why would they invest so much in getting rid of them? The fact that they pushed so aggressively for its repeal suggests they knew exactly what they stood to gain from it, and that was the ability to engage in the kind of risky, profit-driven behavior that ultimately led to the 2008 crisis. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Todd asked you to explain how it impacted the industry and you just keep posting this. Answer the question.

 

[jc456]

Your points aren't facts, you just don't like the answers.

I gave you a link to a company that looked into it. Backed everything Todd and I said about subprime mortgages and their weight that started the crisis. I haven't seen you post a counter link

 

[TruthNotBS]

Todd asked you to explain how it impacted the industry and you just keep posting this. Answer the question.

I already did, but you ignored my answer, pretending I never answered your question:

" Glass-Steagall kept a clear line between commercial banking and investment banking, preventing banks from using depositor funds to engage in speculative activities. By lobbying for its repeal, the financial industry was essentially asking for a green light to use those funds for high-stakes gambling in the securities market, knowing full well that if their bets failed, the public would bear the brunt of the losses. This wasn’t about creating opportunities for borrowers or expanding credit—it was about maximizing profits for the banks while offloading risk onto the broader economy.

The 2008 crisis happened because, without the safeguards that Glass-Steagall provided, banks were able to bundle risky loans into toxic financial products, sell them off as safe investments, and make a killing in the short term. When the house of cards inevitably collapsed, it wasn’t the banks that suffered the most—it was the ordinary people who lost their homes, their jobs, and their savings. So, when you argue that Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have made a difference, you’re ignoring the fact that its repeal directly enabled the kind of reckless behavior that led to the crisis. The banks cared deeply about getting rid of these regulations because they knew it would open the door to massive profits, all while leaving the public to pick up the pieces when things went wrong."

Again, I ask you, why would the financial industry spend so much money and effort lobbying Congress to repeal Glass -Steagall, if its repeal wasn't important to them? You ignoring that simple question, shows how vacuous and illogical your position is. Supposedly the repeal of Glass Steagall meant nothing to the financial industry. Really? You couldn't be more confused and wrong.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I gave you a link to a company that looked into it. Backed everything Todd and I said about subprime mortgages and their weight that started the crisis. I haven't seen you post a counter link

This isn't a link war. You're saying I don't know how to interact or debate on an online forum, but you're apparently the one unable to properly debate.

Articles and videos only serve to supplement one's written arguments. ​

They merely support the talking points, the propositions, that you present in writing, You'll never see me post a link or a video, without me first writing an argument, with talking points that you can rebut and maybe even debunk. You don't need to visit the links or watch the videos that I embed in my posts, in order to refute me.

Present me with the link again, and I will do you the favor of extracting the talking points from the article and then I will critique it, point by point. I don't have to do that, but I'm doing it to help you out.

 

[Rambunctious]

Retired men and women are back in the job hunt so they can survive...
That is how bad the economy is today...

 

[TruthNotBS]

Retired men and women are back in the job hunt so they can survive...
That is how bad the economy is today...

Do you actually think that's going to change with Trump? The cost of living has been skyrocketing and wages have been stagnant, for most working-class Americans, for decades.

 

[jc456]

This isn't a link war. You're saying I don't know how to interact or debate on an online forum, but you're apparently the one unable to properly debate.

Articles and videos only serve to supplement one's written arguments. ​

They merely support the talking points, the propositions, that you present in writing, You'll never see me post a link or a video, without me first writing an argument, with talking points that you can rebut and maybe even debunk. You don't need to visit the links or watch the videos that I embed in my posts, in order to refute me.

Present me with the link again, and I will do you the favor of extracting the talking points from the article and then I will critique it, point by point. I don't have to do that, but I'm doing it to help you out.

well it is a debate and in a debate there is a point and a counter point. Each is expected to be followed up with evidence. I still haven't seen yours. You haven't shown how anything you say is pertinent to the subject bad loans. I did!!! Oh, and sure, here's the link again, all you had to do was a search in the thread. I supposed you can't do that either. Post 1150 was the post I first posted it. BTW, you responded with nonsense after that link was provided. Now twice.

Subprime Meltdown: What Was It, What Happened, Consequences

The subprime meltdown was an event that followed a sharp increase in high-risk mortgages defaulting resulting from the housing boom and bust of 2007–2009.

www.investopedia.com

 

[Rambunctious]

Do you actually think that's going to change with Trump? The cost of living has been skyrocketing and wages have been stagnant, for most working-class Americans, for decades.

It changed after Trump left and Biden took over... changed for the worse.. Inflation went nuts up to as high as 9% after Biden closed off drilling rights...
Don't you people pay attention?... is it all you do is listen to leftwing media?.... you sound like a CNN parrot....

 

[jc456]

Do you actually think that's going to change with Trump? The cost of living has been skyrocketing and wages have been stagnant, for most working-class Americans, for decades.

Not sure what you're implying. Trump isn't in the white house now, this is scamala's economy. Trump was sailing along until demofks brought in wuhan.

 

[TruthNotBS]

well it is a debate and in a debate there is a point and a counter point. Each is expected to be followed up with evidence. I still haven't seen yours. You haven't shown how anything you say is pertinent to the subject bad loans. I did!!! Oh, and sure, here's the link again, all you had to do was a search in the thread. I supposed you can't do that either. Post 1150 was the post I first posted it. BTW, you responded with nonsense after that link was provided. Now twice.

Subprime Meltdown: What Was It, What Happened, Consequences

The subprime meltdown was an event that followed a sharp increase in high-risk mortgages defaulting resulting from the housing boom and bust of 2007–2009.

www.investopedia.com

well, it is a debate and in a debate there is a point and a counter point. Each is expected to be followed up with evidence. I still haven't seen yours.

You have to write your arguments, not fire links and videos at your opponents. Everything that I've written to Todd and you is backed by the facts, and simple logic. Like now I'm asking you why would the financial industry spend so much money and effort lobbying politicians in Washington to repeal the Glass Steagal Act if it's completely inconsequential to their business operations. Do you have an answer? No, you just evade the question.

You haven't shown how anything you say is pertinent to the subject bad loans. I did!!!

It's not my fault that you can't comprehend what you read. You've only shown your ignorance and inability to think rationally, by continuing to argue that bad loans were the culprit for the 2008 economic disaster while ignoring the cause and context of those bad loans. I continually elaborate upon the cause and context of those bad loans and you ignore everything I say.

Oh, and sure, here's the link again, all you had to do was a search in the thread. I supposed you can't do that either.

I'm not chasing your links. You should never just post a link, to advance an argument on an online debate forum. That's not how online debate message-boards work. Firing links and videos at people doesn't make, much less win an argument.

Post 1150 was the post I first posted it. BTW, you responded with nonsense after that link was provided. Now twice.

Your flippant dismissals of the points I made in those responses are the actual nonsense.

==================================================================

So now I'm visiting your link:

Subprime Meltdown: What Was It, What Happened, Consequences

The subprime meltdown was an event that followed a sharp increase in high-risk mortgages defaulting resulting from the housing boom and bust of 2007–2009.

www.investopedia.com

Here are the talking points of the article, concerning the 2008 economic crisis:
​

1. Low-Interest Rates and Housing Boom: The article attributes the rise in subprime mortgages to the low-interest rates following the tech bubble and 9/11, which led to a housing boom.
2. Relaxed Lending Standards: It highlights how lenders extended mortgages to those with poor credit due to the housing demand, leading to risky subprime loans.
3. Adjustable-Rate Mortgages (ARMs): Many subprime loans were ARMs with low initial rates that later spiked, trapping borrowers in unmanageable debt.
4. Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS): The article discusses how subprime loans were bundled into MBS and sold as investments, spreading risk across the financial system.
5. Wall Street Meltdown: The spread of these risky MBS led to massive losses for banks, triggering the financial crisis.
6. Government Bailouts: The government had to bail out several financial institutions through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to stabilize the economy.
7. Blame on Mortgage Giants: The article also points to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for encouraging loose lending standards by buying risky loans.

I addressed the above by explaining the role of deregulation, particularly the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and how the financial industry’s reckless behavior and lobbying efforts contributed significantly to the crisis. The context around the bad loans that you're pretending financial institutions were forced to offer the market by the government. A completely ridiculous and disingenuous, if not evasive excuse for what actually happened. I've already elaborated as to why that's the case and you medaciously, without any evidence, claim it's not.

​

 

[TruthNotBS]

Not sure what you're implying. Trump isn't in the white house now, this is scamala's economy. Trump was sailing along until demofks brought in wuhan.

Again, since you're unable to comprehend what you read. The cost of living has been rising for decades and wages have been stagnant for most working-class Americans since at least the 1980s, so how does Trump being president, change that? He didn't do anything to change it when he was president last time. The cost of living was still going up when he was president and wages for most Americans weren't any better. How does Trump being president now change anything? Trump's half-ass, meager, "bandaid" solutions are going to significantly improve the situations for most working-class Americans? Really? You're clueless.