What Caused the Financial Meltdown?

[tieguy]

.

JMO.

BTW Annon, I got no problem with you being here. IMO, we are all annon ourselves as wkmac ain't the name on my birth certificate as I'm sure the other "regisitered" alias' we see here aren't either. We all hide behind self created fictions. The email address we have to use for registration? Mine's a yahoo account so how absolute is that in pointing out who I am? It's the IP that pinpoints you anyway so unless your out with a laptop at a local wi/fi hotspot or hijacking your neighbor's or other unsuspecting wireless signal, you really aren't completely annon IMO. If Cheryl's cool with you being here then welcome to the fray!

I'm surprised someone as astute as yourself has completely missed the point. Of course Cheryl is cool with it. She is a sweetheart.

The point I'm making here is that she puts a lot of her time and effort providing us with this website. The least we can do is join the site to show support for her hard work.

You do believe in supporting her hard work, don't you?

 

[tieguy]

Gimme-a-break....Don't mind Tieguy and Lifer , they just a little moody when it comes to Anon's. Especially if it's someone who doesn't support their views. But if someone has something legitimate to contribute by all means feel free to deliver your message. Of course expect personal attacks when the opposition doesn't really have a rebuttle to match your retoric response.

Anyhow here's a simple short video explanation of "What caused the Financial Meltdown".....enjoy
msnbc.com Video Player

that didn't really tell us anything and pretty much missed the who.

 

[tieguy]

Gimme-a-break....Don't mind Tieguy and Lifer , they just a little moody when it comes to Anon's. Especially if it's someone who doesn't support their views. But if someone has something legitimate to contribute by all means feel free to deliver your message. Of course expect personal attacks when the opposition doesn't really have a rebuttle to match your retoric response.

before you impune someones integrity you should research your facts. I've been pretty consistent on supporting this site.

You do believe in supporting this site by encouraging people to join don't you?

 

[av8torntn]

msnbc.com Video Player

Does anyone else have a problem with this? The problem is the banks loaned to much money so the federal government had to step in so the banks could continue to loan money. This is insanity.

 

[1989]

When I bought my first house in 1992 I had to pay the typical down payment and closing costs but had to prove where the money came from. I wasn't able to borrow the money, not even from family members.

When I bought my second house in 1999 I could finance the closing costs and could put down much less money. They also had 125% refinance loans.

 

[diesel96]

I've been pretty consistent on supporting this site.

You do believe in supporting this site by encouraging people to join don't you?

Agreed......but we can tell the difference between an anon's troll and a anon's contributor. Some may be reserved and feel we must have thick skin to point and counter-point each other on this site, and sometimes it get heated and awkward, but in the end thats whats great about BC as we somehow try to sway each other with our keystrokes. Not only is this a good tool for learning purposes and keeping abreast of current issue's , but over time we learn about each other like a family of sibling rivalrys.

 

[Catatonic]

This needs to be prefaced - This financial crisis hits both sides of the isle The Democrats and Republicans are responsible, BUT it did start with the Clinton Administration back in the '90s.

Congress went along with this and supported the Clinton administration and the regulations that were put in place.

It was Clinton that signed the legislation that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which was passed by the Republican Congress in 1999. This was after $300,000,000 of lobbying by the banking industry. The legislation overturned the Glass-Steagall Act put into effect in 1933 after the 1929 Wall St. collapse. Paul Volcker warned that overturning Glass-Stegall would lead to a collapse similar to 1929. Very prophetic!

Paul Volcker's vision and actions under Carter and Reagan continue to be viewed, in hindsight, as very prudent and I think history will have a decreased respect for Alan Greenspan as he continually argued the Glass-Steagall was too restrictive and eventually his arguments lead to the overturning of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Greenspan is a major-league bullter and it will be interesting to see how he spins this to create the illusion that he did not support the 1999 repeal.

Decent history at a high level of the Glass-Stegall Act and it's demise and final repeal.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

 

[tieguy]

Agreed......but we can tell the difference between an anon's troll and a anon's contributor. Some may be reserved and feel we must have thick skin to point and counter-point each other on this site, and sometimes it get heated and awkward, but in the end thats whats great about BC as we somehow try to sway each other with our keystrokes. Not only is this a good tool for learning purposes and keeping abreast of current issue's , but over time we learn about each other like a family of sibling rivalrys.

Diesel I think you're working harder to support someones right to post anonymously then you are to support Cheryls hard work. The least we can all do is join and encourage others to do the same.

 

[diesel96]

Diesel I think you're working harder to support someones right to post anonymously then you are to support Cheryls hard work. The least we can all do is join and encourage others to do the same.

Geez...I thought my post was more like an endorsement for BC. And stop giving me the Cheryl guilt trip.........lol
Joining BC can be like buying a new car, you like to look at it inside and out, then give it a test drive before you sign your avatar on the dotted line.

 

[UPS Lifer]

Agreed......but we can tell the difference between an anon's troll and a anon's contributor. Some may be reserved and feel we must have thick skin to point and counter-point each other on this site, and sometimes it get heated and awkward, but in the end thats whats great about BC as we somehow try to sway each other with our keystrokes. Not only is this a good tool for learning purposes and keeping abreast of current issue's , but over time we learn about each other like a family of sibling rivalrys.

Let's put this into terms that may be more easily understood. Each of us (BC member) has a screen personality. We may not know each other personally. An anon is someone who comes into our clubhouse in a big brown potato sack. The person may be very intelligent but all you see is a big brown potato sack.

Another example: All the members of the BC are at a costume party and we are all chatting with each other. Even with the mask and costume we get to see a certain personality. People interact with you based on all aspects of your being. An anon is a person who is standing just outside the door trying to have a conversation through that door. Are you more apt to talk to the costumed person in the room with you who you can see and size up or are you really going to stand next to the door and talk with the person on the other side who is afraid to come in?

Wouldn't you look silly talking with the door all night long?

 

[UPS Lifer]

It was Clinton that signed the legislation that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which was passed by the Republican Congress in 1999. This was after $300,000,000 of lobbying by the banking industry. The legislation overturned the Glass-Steagall Act put into effect in 1933 after the 1929 Wall St. collapse. Paul Volcker warned that overturning Glass-Stegall would lead to a collapse similar to 1929. Very prophetic!

Paul Volcker's vision and actions under Carter and Reagan continue to be viewed, in hindsight, as very prudent and I think history will have a decreased respect for Alan Greenspan as he continually argued the Glass-Steagall was too restrictive and eventually his arguments lead to the overturning of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Greenspan is a major-league bullter and it will be interesting to see how he spins this to create the illusion that he did not support the 1999 repeal.

Decent history at a high level of the Glass-Stegall Act and it's demise and final repeal.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

I think the whole point to this is that politicians know (all sides) that home ownership is a major goal of the American people. It is the American Dream to own your own home. So - if you support that dream you are likely to get votes!

The main problem was that banks loosened the money up to include those who really were not able to grab that American Dream just yet. This created an artificial bubble in the housing market starting at the bottom and moving upward.

Too many builders do not want to make affordable housing! There is no money in it. What the low income folks need are homes they can AFFORD to buy.

These homes may only be manufactured modules that go up fast and are cheap enough for another segment of our population to afford. I am talking about homes that are well under $100K close to a $50K limit or less!!!! These would be true starter homes. It would give people an incentive to move to the next level.

Our government can be involved by maintaining or overseeing the infrastructure of these new neighborhoods to be a safe and healthy environment for the folks who own them. The government can assist in helping monitor the folks who are purchasing these affordable housing units. Provide cheap transportation to the arteries of where the majority of the community works. Provide away for each community to self sustain through small business opportunities right in the community. Offer incentives to large business to build factories in these communities as well.

 

[wkmac]

I'm surprised someone as astute as yourself has completely missed the point. Of course Cheryl is cool with it. She is a sweetheart.

The point I'm making here is that she puts a lot of her time and effort providing us with this website. The least we can do is join the site to show support for her hard work.

You do believe in supporting her hard work, don't you?

Tie,
I think what D said was dead on. Had annon. posted something in complete agreement with you at all times, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Nuff Said!

 

[Bad Gas!]

Greenspan has been giving bad advice since 1990.....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32b85c72-859b-11dd-a1ac-0000779fd18c.html

 

[tieguy]

Tie,
I think what D said was dead on. Had annon. posted something in complete agreement with you at all times, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Nuff Said!

I'm sorry Wkmac I hope you don't mind if I decide it is not enough said? I think I have been pretty consistent on this subject. When I see someone post multiple times under the same anon ID I encourage them to join.

Your search for a conspiracy in how I make that argument is typical.

Wkmac do you support Cheryls hard work? Or are you off chasing some counter culture theory to support again?

I always find it amusing to see you libertarians support the anon's right to post but yet you somehow object when I challenge the cowards to join this site.

 

[mountaingoat]

...The main problem was that banks loosened the money up to include those who really were not able to grab that American Dream just yet. This created an artificial bubble in the housing market starting at the bottom and moving upward.
...

Another cause is people's general human nature to spend beyond their means. What happened within the past 6-7 years is that because of the loosening of lending strings, the market had artificial demand. More people could now "afford" to buy the same amount of houses. Demand went up, supply stayed the same, and that drove house prices up.

People on the buying side didn't say, "Hey - I can now purchase a home well within my mean and get a 15-year-mortgage" but rather, "Wow, now I can qualify for a larger home with a 40-year-mortgage".

We are a nation that defines ourselves by image. The larger the home, the flashier the car ("You are what you drive"), the more stuff that we have. Twenty years ago, how many self-storage areas did we have in this country? Now we pay monthly fees to store stuff that we don't use. We park our Lexus SUV and BMW in our driveway so that we can store our $10 Wal-Mart bikes in the garage. We live in McMansions with 3000' sqft of living space, and still don't have enough room to store our stuff.

We tend as a nation to buy things that we don't need with money that we don't have to impress people we don't know.

 

[mountaingoat]

...and as a financial counselor, I counseled one fellow who came over with a $2400 mortgage payment per month, and he was bringing home $1400 a month from working at WalMart. I figured that there's no way that a bank would lend money to this fellow seeing this ratio. After some inquiry, I found out that he was originally a teacher earning $40,000/year.

Still. It didn't add up. How could any bank lend someone with a gross income of $40,000 a housing payment of $28,800 per year. That's well over 50% of his gross pay, not to mention his take-home pay. That's predatory lending at it's worst.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

When I was house shopping I was told that a good rule of thumb was to look at homes and to keep your mortgage at twice your annual salary at most. I ended up buying a condo which was roughly equal to my annual salary and have been making improvements to it since I moved in. It more than meets my needs and is a nice place to live. No, it's not a McMansion, but I am comfortable and there is plenty of room for me and for my kids when they come to visit.

Among the beneficial by-products of this restructuring will be the elimination of the "interest only" loans, which are by far the most foolish contract anyone can enter in to, the 125% mortgages, the zero down payment notes or the 40-50 year mortgages.

My loan is a VA loan, which allowed me to roll closing costs in to the mortgage and only required a 3% origination fee, and is backed by the Veterans Administration which I have fixed at 6.125% for 30 yrs. My payments allow me to live comfortably while deferring 25% of my income to my 401k.

 

[JustTired]

I'm sorry Wkmac I hope you don't mind if I decide it is not enough said? I think I have been pretty consistent on this subject. When I see someone post multiple times under the same anon ID I encourage them to join.

Your search for a conspiracy in how I make that argument is typical.

Wkmac do you support Cheryls hard work? Or are you off chasing some counter culture theory to support again?

I always find it amusing to see you libertarians support the anon's right to post but yet you somehow object when I challenge the cowards to join this site.

Man....I thought I walked in on a session of congress.

No offense, but who cares if someone is registered or not? I take their posts for what they are. If they're informative or well thought out, I pay attention. If they're a slam against someone, I ignore it. As far as an anon poster being a snub at Cheryls' hard work.... I guess I don't get it. While I agree that she puts in a lot of hard work, I don't see an Anon poster making the job any harder.

Heck, they even let guests go to Sam's Club and buy a few things. If they see value and a need , they might join and continue the association taking advantage of the perks of membership.

Being a member of this board doesn't make anyones opinion a more valid or credible one. JMHO

 

[wkmac]

Wkmac do you support Cheryls hard work? Or are you off chasing some counter culture theory to support again?

I always find it amusing to see you libertarians support the anon's right to post but yet you somehow object when I challenge the cowards to join this site.

Attention Cheryl,

We need to hook up dear. It seems my defending of your policy is not enough and I'm grossly guilty of "failure to support." That said, I was thinking of what I could do to show my support and I've come up with a solution. Obviuosly lots of bling is called for, a week long adventure to the Spa as well but I was thinking a bit more hedonistic. Flowers but then coupled with males strippers who serve your every need might be perfect surrounded in an Egyptian/Nile motif. I mean, what's more fun than playing Cleopatra and slapping the cute, tight butts of buff men as they serve your every need!

I'll be working on my list this week so if you could drop me a note telling me what else you'd like and where to send it, I hope to make an amends for my failures of not giving you all the support that I should.


Cheryl, you and the moderators do an outstanding job and as I've told you before and you know, I'm a big fan. Thanks lady!

 

[tieguy]

Man....I thought I walked in on a session of congress.

No offense, but who cares if someone is registered or not? I take their posts for what they are. If they're informative or well thought out, I pay attention. If they're a slam against someone, I ignore it. As far as an anon poster being a snub at Cheryls' hard work.... I guess I don't get it. While I agree that she puts in a lot of hard work, I don't see an Anon poster making the job any harder.

Heck, they even let guests go to Sam's Club and buy a few things. If they see value and a need , they might join and continue the association taking advantage of the perks of membership.

Being a member of this board doesn't make anyones opinion a more valid or credible one. JMHO

I think everyone should support Cheryls hard work here by joining the site. Do you?