banks - housing bubble

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by moreluck, Aug 3, 2011.

  1. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    B of A is talking to State and Federal about forgiving some folk's mortgage principal in turn for no law suits being filed against B of A.

    If you are one who pays your mortgage payment on time and you pay it every'll not get a thing!!

    But, if you ignore your house payment or pay it late all the time, you're the slouch who will probably get a lot of your principle forgiven by the bank.

    Yeah, that's fairness !!! NOT!!!
  2. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Wednesday, November 2, 2011 @ 5:03 pm | [h=2]NYT’s Krugman Accuses Bloomberg of “Swallowing Right-Wing Propaganda Whole” After He Blames Congress For Mortgage Crisis…[/h][​IMG]
    He’s a testy little troll.
    (Krugman’s NY Times blog) — Via David Dayen, the favored candidate of those who believe we need a smart centrist to solve our nation’s problems reveals himself to be completely ignorant about the causes of our economic crisis, someone who just swallows right-wing propaganda whole:
    “I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I’m not saying I’m sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn’t have gotten them without that.
    “But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.
    You can read lots about how wrong this is; Mike Konczal has done it at great length, for example here. The fact is that for any public figure to go with the Congress-did-it argument at this stage is for him to reveal both that he is grossly ignorant about the central policy issue of the day and that he gets his “analysis” from right-wing flacks.
  3. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  4. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    I don't remember Clinton saying this but I do remember Bush Jr saying something like this.
    I blame Bush as much as I do Barney Frank or Chris Dodd for the housing bubble but then there is plenty of blame to go around on this one.

    The image of Bush standing up in front of the cameras saying the American dream was home ownership (something like that) sticks in my mind only behind the "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier.
  5. brown bomber

    brown bomber brown bomber

    let's see, I busted my put 25% down on my home..........busted my ass to pay off my mortgage early.....put my kids through private schools, while still supporting public schools....and I'm supposed to pay for the failures of our GOV'T (thank you Frank and Dodd) and banks ..........I've done everything correctly.......and now I have to deal w/ these 99% slackers, who wouldn't work even if it paid more than government and public I've said inthe past, we used to be the land of opportunities.....but, apparently now we are the land of guarantees
  6. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member

    I do not usually disagree with your posts but I would like to shed a little light on this subject. Your statement is correct that Bush openly bragged about the high number of minorities that owned homes during his Presidency. At the time of that speech this was just another politician taking credit for what happened before them.
    The cartoon is alluding to the fact that it was Bill Clinton who strongly pushed banks to make risky loans while Glass/Steigel was a major regulation on banks that diappeared under the Clinton Presidency. With that being said the start of the "bubble" actually goes back over 60 years. Check out FDR and Fannie.
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Bankers, Not the Free Market, Bear Blame
  8. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member

    :wink2:This is a happening now example of Government interference in housing and social engineering.

    Ron Simms a politician out of the State of Washington has been appointed to HUD.
    In a suburb of New York Westchester county where Bill Clinton resides the homes are very expensive and the neighborhoods are mainly composed of White people.
    Ron Simms feels that discrimination is involved. He wants Banks, real estate brokers etc investigated. He wants homes made available to minorities.
    What will happen ? Who knows. I cannot buy a home in Chappaqua next to Clinton but I do not feel discriminated against--I just cannot afford it.
  9. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    IMO, to check for discrimination in this would be to simply check the average income/wealth of the people living there. If anyone of a minority group has been refused a loan and are on equal level of income/wealth then there may be a case for discrimination. If Ron Simms wants the banks etc. investigated he's free to do it. No reason, without a little more evidence, for the government to get involved. BTW, I have no idea who Ron Simms is and don't really care.

    oops, went back and re-read your post, I now know who Ron Simms is and I still don't care.
  10. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member

    If it ended right there you are correct. How would you feel if the Westchester Banks are forced to make government backed risky loans to people who do not have the income to pay them. Just pass it on to the taxpayer ?
  11. klein

    klein Für Meno :)

    Island, I have never heard about Banks being forced to do anything !
    They did it for profit, they themselves came up with these so called derivites (or whatever they are called).
    Meaning a lot of banks didn't personally hold the bad mortgage, but a piece of paper (like a stock or bond), that became junkbonds !

    American Banks are mostly deregulated, they can do and gamble as they please. Up to 80% of YOUR money, I believe.
    Canadian Banks on the other hand can only "gamble" with 15 or 20% (not quite sure), but very little. The rest is 100% secured.

    That's why our Banks didn't fail, and others have, including those in the US.
  12. The Other Side

    The Other Side Well-Known Troll Troll

    Why was my post taken off?
  13. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Then we would be right back where we were and still are, with lots of foreclosures and the banks screaming for another bail out.
  14. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Re-post and see what happens...maybe a glitch...or a conspiracy against you???

    Oh and when you get a chance, can you let everyone know what my other screen name is or will you still run and hide? Did you get that Laura Bush info yet?
  15. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member


    June 6th ,1994 Chicago ACORN/Obama law firm sued Citybank for "redlining" or refusing to give loans to minorities because of finanacial standards. Result ---settlement --Citybank made risky loans.
    As much as people want to you cannot ignore or re-write history.
  16. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    When I was in real estate, loan applications did not come with pictures of the applicants. Loans should be given based on the financials of the people applying.................ONLY!!

    I don't care what color they are, if they don't financially qualify, they don't get the loan. No exceptions, period!!
  17. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member


    Simple yet eloquent how you stated what would have been the entire preventor of what took place. People getting loans they could never afford that began with political pressure "red lining" See Janet Reno under Clinton Administration. If financial basics were followed --no bubble -no harm.
  18. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member


    When banks were "holding the bag" and had to make sure people were able to pay them back--things were fine.

    When the Government "backed " the loans or "took the bag" Banks gave loans to everyone and anyone. Enter fannie and freddie !! Seems pretty simple.

    If I was going to give you a loan --I would make sure your income through your hot dog stand could enable you to pay me back.
    If the government said Loan Klien money-do not check his financials --the loans will be backed by fannie and freddie.

    No risk for me --of course I give out loans like candy --why not ?

    If the Canadian Government sponsered sub prime loans backed by the government {the taxpayers} and Royal Bank issues millions of bad loans --Who is guilty ? The bank or the Dopey politicians ?

    This is not rocket science.

    On top of that --the Banks were also told that if they did not have enough "minorty" loans they would be subject to legal action. See Janet Reno under Clinton --" red lining" Where Banks drew a red line on people that could not afford loans.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2011
  19. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Dark Prince of Double Standards Staff Member

    I checked TOS ... did not see a deleted post.
  20. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    - Gene Lyons