Reply With Quote
The deregulation itself wasn't the problem. It's that the people in charge of watching Wall Street didn't do to keep them in line.
Yeah, cuz Bush can pass and write laws by himself.While Rome burns..
U.S. President George W. Bush (C) speaks at a ceremony in honor
of the 2008 NBA Basketball Champions Boston Celtics in the East Room at the White House in Washington, September 19, 2008.
It's like Katrina all over again, except this time, we all get screwed...
This first and foremost is on Congress. All of them. Anyone trying to pin this on one party is a partisan piece of .
This is on Republicans and Democrats in Congress. They ty thing is they're too ing worried about their own election to do about what's going on in this country.
them all.
The deregulation itself wasn't the problem. It's that the people in charge of watching Wall Street didn't do to keep them in line.
Sorry but the less GOVERNING the government does to me the better. The three things a government should do are:
1) Protect the country's borders
2) Maintain order and safety in the country's interior
3) Keep the country's money stable (Which it failed to do by forcing the banks to loan money to deadbeats who couldn't pay it back. The banking industry had ways to tell who could and couldn't afford to pay back a loan...that was their business and they knew who to give loans to. Groups like ACORN pushed the Government to lean on the banking industry to give out sub-prime loans. These were loans that the banks knew most likely would not be paid.)
Besides...nowhere in the Cons ution does it say that EVERYONE gets a home.
You really believe the banks were giving out risky loans because the govt. was putting pressure on them? That's like an alcoholic claiming he got drunk because bartenders were forcing him to drink.
Banks are in business to make money...always have been and always will be. When the banks decided who to loan money to and who not to loan money to (and what rate to give them) things were perfectly fine.
So I take it you're pro-choice and for the right of gay-marriage?
I truly don't care what other people decide to do with their own lives.
*But I am pro choice.
To put it bluntly...we are screwed. I see the eventual total collapse of the international monetary system and a total collapse of the dollar. Then the only thing that would probably happen is that this would take some time to sort out and there would be a resetting of the entire monetary system of the world back to zero debt. New controls and probably one currency for the entire world and a unified banking system. Scary huh?
Yu Yongding, former advisor to China's central bank, put the matter bluntly:
``If the U.S. government allows Fannie and Freddie to fail and international investors are not compensated adequately, the consequences will be catastrophic,'' Yu said in e-mailed answers to questions yesterday. ``If it is not the end of the world, it is the end of the current international financial system.''
Foreign central banks have been propping up the U.S. economy:
Foreign central banks have financed the United States to keep their export sectors -- heavily dependent on U.S. consumer spending -- humming. But they now must weigh the benefits of providing the United States with such "vendor financing" against the rising costs of keeping the current system going.
Yu Yongding is not making a threat; he is stating a fact.
If foreign central banks stop financing U.S. debt (there are no free rides), then the U.S. is in a world of hurt. As Brad Setser notes:
...in fact, the economic and financial risks that arise from the U.S. current account deficit (and the resulting dependence on foreign financing) have not been exaggerated. If anything, they have received too little attention -- and are set to grow in the coming years.
Well, "the coming years" may be sooner, not later. For the U.S., the consequences may be immediate inflation as Treasury attempts to makes its offerings more palatable. The dollar will plunge. And these are just for starters.
The party is over. Sorry that most of you working stiffs missed it. Oh, by the way, here's the bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-s..._b_124713.html
As Paul Krugman said:
I used to think that the major issues facing the next president would be how to get out of Iraq and what to do about health care. At this point, however, I suspect that the biggest problem for the next administration will be figuring out which parts of the financial system to bail out, how to pay the cleanup bills and how to explain what it's doing to an angry public.
Although the American public is not exactly happy with the economy, it has no idea of the depth of the problems. Most people think the government's check writing ability is infinite.
Well, the government is broke and broken.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-s..._b_124713.html
The only way out of this is for the rich countries...Middle East, Europe and China to bail us out. Those countries have all the World's money now.
Are you ing kidding me? Are you seriously so clueless as to post a vid with Dodd speaking about this dibacle!? Dodd!?
Wow Dan.
He freaking turned the financial crisis into a personal attack on John McCain. What an idiot.
Did you read the article by Neil Bortz? He specifically said the govt leaned on the banks to give these loans or else they wouldn't let the banks grow and expand. In other words, they wouldn't give them authorization to open new branches. So yes, I do believe the banks gave out loans they were pretty sure would never be repaid because the govt, for all intents and purposes, forced them to!
You really believe the banks were giving out risky loans because the govt. was putting pressure on them? That's like an alcoholic claiming he got drunk because bartenders were forcing him to drink.
^^ I worked in the banking industry for 3 yrs and know this to be absolutely true.
For clarification incase anyone is wondering...
I worked as a tax advisor at a savings ins ution in San Antonio located around 1604 and 151. Part of my job was to help negotiate favorable tax incentives (property and sales/use) for our new branch locations. Before initial dealings were done with the locality we had to send off a lot of paperwork...some of this being our percentage of sub-prime loans. I initially thought we would need to have a low % but when I asked the VPs they told me that no, we needed to have a certain % in order to get approval to open the branch. This was back in 2005.
ARMS and other exotic loans are not a new product. They used to be marketed to specific people (i.e. - interest only's would be marketed to people with good credit that had low monthly salaries but would normally get large bonuses throughout the year. This allowed them to buy more house and make low payments every month but make one or two large payments during the year to pay down their equity). This changed when the banks were pushed into giving out loans to risky people because many times the only way they could be approved was to get into an interest only ARM.
at Bill Clinton still being blamed over 7 years after he left.
How long do you think it takes before a house gets foreclosed on??? It's not like you miss one payment and they foreclose the next day.
There is so much damage done by his first two years. Yes. We blame him, just like we blame president Carter for certain things. That's another subject/thread however.
Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act. Signed into law in 1999 by gold ole slick willy.
This did away with the legislation enacted after the great depression to prevent banks from being stupid with your money. And here we are again.
Hey that's a good one. Guess who voted for said Act...I'll give you a hint:
He's currently running for president and his name is not Barak Obama.
You forgot to blame those damn Democrats Gramm, Leach, and Bliley. Hmmm, which campaign has Gramm as a key advisor?
McCain voted for the damn thing!!! I guess he's as much to blame for this crisis as "Slick Willy" right?
Harry Reid on the current Financial Crisis and Senator Graham.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbENEJa1xM
The extremely partisan arguing going on in this thread pretty much sums up the cause of the financial crisis in this country-- too many people ( senators, presidents, internet debaters) are more in love with ideology and party loyalty than they are with problem solving. They treat it like a gang membership, and refuse to admit that anyone from outside of the gang could ever possibly have a good idea. The US congress is really just a much bigger and more bloated version of the Spurstalk political forum. Can you imagine if all of us were marooned on an island, and trying to survive? Instead of building shelters, planting food, and working together, most of our time would be spent breaking up fistfights between boutons, KenMcCoy, Nbadan and Whott on the beach.
I love your argument. If the president is Bush then he's responsible for everything that happens in the world but when Clinton actually signs something into law that helped create this problem then it's the republicans fault not his.
Yep, McCain voted for it as did Biden. JM also tried to reintroduce regulation years ago, as did Bush, but they were blocked by Dems and some Repubs. None of this matters to you though because as long as your unaccomplished messiah wins you think that means you win something. To be honest I'm getting to the point where I kinda hope your messiah wins just to see what happens to the kool aide drinkers when they figure out he can't wave a magic wand and create utopia. I'm fine (check the are you unemployed thread) and will continue to be just fine no matter who wins. What about you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
