BoA emails leak...

[TeyshaBlue]

We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

btw...I'm waaaay over generalizing here.

[Cry Havoc]

I agree with alot of this, however, it wasn't just the banks doing this. In my case, the builder was the huckster. But in the end, I knew I could afford the mortgage at present income/debt levels, but I also know that weird /set backs happen and I wouldn't have the reserve to handle it if I tied myself to that mortgage. It's common sense coupled with a concentrated effort to deny the impulse of instant gratification. We, as Americans, don't do this very well. The banks, of course, know this and make a killing off of this weakness. In that respect, they are as implicit as our lack of control. But, they do not own the entire fiasco. We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

All I need to do is point you to wall street, where even while the economy was going into the gutter, it took a Presidential order to prevent them from handing out hundreds of billions of dollars of bonuses per year.

Where do you think that money was coming from? Do you think it was made honestly? Should the American public just assume every company is out to fleece and rape them like the banks did? If we took that approach, the stock market would collapse in months because people would be yanking money out to bury it in their yards, and would have justifiable reason for doing so.

[coyotes_geek]

I agree with alot of this, however, it wasn't just the banks doing this. In my case, the builder was the huckster. But in the end, I knew I could afford the mortgage at present income/debt levels, but I also know that weird /set backs happen and I wouldn't have the reserve to handle it if I tied myself to that mortgage. It's common sense coupled with a concentrated effort to deny the impulse of instant gratification. We, as Americans, don't do this very well. The banks, of course, know this and make a killing off of this weakness. In that respect, they are as implicit as our lack of control. But, they do not own the entire fiasco. We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

Bingo. There's enough blame to go around. The banks deserve some. The American public deserves a portion of it as well.

[Cry Havoc]

The banks, of course, know this and make a killing off of this weakness. In that respect, they are as implicit as our lack of control. But, they do not own the entire fiasco. We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

It didn't matter. It was a shark before we fed it. It had already decided that it was going to eat us. Americans had been in debt for decades before this without the economy collapsing. It only did because there was so much money being redistributed to the top of the ladder that the bottom couldn't support it any longer.

[TeyshaBlue]

All I need to do is point you to wall street, where even while the economy was going into the gutter, it took a Presidential order to prevent them from handing out hundreds of billions of dollars of bonuses per year.

Where do you think that money was coming from? Do you think it was made honestly? Should the American public just assume every company is out to fleece and rape them like the banks did? If we took that approach, the stock market would collapse in months because people would be yanking money out to bury it in their yards, and would have justifiable reason for doing so.

I know about 25billion of it was coming from ing overdraft fees.

[TeyshaBlue]

It didn't matter. It was a shark before we fed it. It had already decided that it was going to eat us. Americans had been in debt for decades before this without the economy collapsing. It only did because there was so much money being redistributed to the top of the ladder that the bottom couldn't support it any longer.

True. However, I decided it wouldn't eat me. It hasn't.....yet.

[Cry Havoc]

Bingo. There's enough blame to go around. The banks deserve some. The American public deserves a portion of it as well.

Yeah. Something along the lines of 98% to 2%. You have banks that are basically no better or different than the mob was in the early 1900s. What the do you think the end result of that was going to be? Do you think the public could have stopped it? Do you think if only people wouldn't have invested in houses they couldn't afford, that it would have averted crisis, when the banks can so openly and easily flout the law in any way they desired to make money? The housing crisis was simply the easiest, fastest way for them to do it. If that didn't pan out, they would have found something else.

[Cry Havoc]

I know about 25billion of it was coming from ing overdraft fees.

Which banks can invent and use at their will.

"Oh sorry, we temporarily removed all the money in your account yesterday with the intent to put it back an hour later, and just forgot. So because you bought groceries, you now owe us $35 for the overdraft, $20 for the auto-transfer, and $9 a month for the early warning surcharge. Oh, and by the way, your credit rating is now , so we can charge you more interest on your credit card. We would also like to inform you that because your account dipped below $50, we are adding a $10 upkeep charge at the end of the month. Have a nice day!"

[TeyshaBlue]

Which banks can invent and use at their will.

"Oh sorry, we temporarily removed all the money in your account yesterday with the intent to put it back an hour later, and just forgot. So because you bought groceries, you now owe us $35 for the overdraft, $20 for the auto-transfer, and $9 a month for the early warning surcharge. Oh, and by the way, your credit rating is now , so we can charge you more interest on your credit card. We would also like to inform you that because your account dipped below $50, we are adding a $10 upkeep charge at the end of the month. Have a nice day!"

*sigh* Would a straight, up and up bank, not make money in today's economy?

I think it would. Wonder why that's such an unpopular business model?

[coyotes_geek]

Yeah. Something along the lines of 98% to 2%. You have banks that are basically no better or different than the mob was in the early 1900s. What the do you think the end result of that was going to be? Do you think the public could have stopped it? Do you think if only people wouldn't have invested in houses they couldn't afford, that it would have averted crisis, when the banks can so openly and easily flout the law in any way they desired to make money? The housing crisis was simply the easiest, fastest way for them to do it. If that didn't pan out, they would have found something else.

Try 50%-50%. If the public weren't in such a rush to keep up with the Joneses by buying more house than they could afford the crisis certainly wouldn't have been nearly the size that it was.

I'm no fan of the banks. I've said on multiple occasions in this forum that I think the TBTF banks should be broken up. But let's not pretend like banks were just grabbing people off the streets and forcing them to borrow money against their will. Every single loan was an agreement between two equally willing parties.

[Cry Havoc]

*sigh* Would a straight, up and up bank, not make money in today's economy?

I think it would. Wonder why that's such an unpopular business model?

Simple. Would you rather have 10 million dollars next year or 20 billion dollars in 6 months?

[Cry Havoc]

Try 50%-50%. If the public weren't in such a rush to keep up with the Joneses by buying more house than they could afford the crisis certainly wouldn't have been nearly the size that it was.

I'm no fan of the banks. I've said on multiple occasions in this forum that I think the TBTF banks should be broken up. But let's not pretend like banks were just grabbing people off the streets and forcing them to borrow money against their will. Every single loan was an agreement between two equally willing parties.

Sigh. Some of you really need to take social economics. There's obviously no convincing you. It's just sad when the truth is laid out a clean and clear as possible and you still cling to the victim-blame approach, thinking that people could have averted disaster if they "would just be upstanding rational citizens who knew when to say 'No!'". This has been discussed ad nauseam countless times. I really wonder how people still think that banks (6 of them cons ute 60% of the GNP, by the way) who participate collectively in massively illicit activities with no oversight or regulation still aren't the culprits here. 50/50 doesn't begin to state the expanse or severity of the problem, the lack of control associated with wall street, and is incredibly, wholly idealistic in origin. It's also dangerously naive to just how severe the real problem was in the entire situation.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't think anyone is "clinging to a victim-blame approach". Stating that there is shared responsibility is a far cry from blaming the victim for the entire fiasco. It just isn't as black and white as your textbook approach would like it to be. But thanks for recommending a future course selection for me.

[TeyshaBlue]

You'd get along well with my daughter. She's firmly convinced I have no idea what I'm talking about as well.

[Cry Havoc]

I don't think anyone is "clinging to a victim-blame approach". Stating that there is shared responsibility is a far cry from blaming the victim for the entire fiasco. It just isn't as black and white as your textbook approach would like it to be. But thanks for recommending a future course selection for me.

Actually, it is you who's giving the token, textbook response. It's the one the banks and wall street want you to give, as well.

"If people had only been more responsible!" Is such a naive stance to take, given the capital the banks already had amassed before housing prices went through the roof. You're blaming someone for letting a werewolf in the front door when he could have just as easily ripped it off it's hinges at any point. This is not debatable. This is pretty common sense economics. 6 banks worth around $8,000,000,000,000 given free reign to do (almost) anything they want, legal or not. Do you not see how that is a no-win situation, regardless of how "reasonable" the American public is?

[boutons_deux]

"Stating that there is shared responsibility"

false sharing of the blame, yet another false equivalence.

Repugs and conservatives blame govt and citizens in order to cover up the the primary responsibility of the financial sector.

The debtors wouldn't be in over their heads if lenders weren't lending to unqualified lenders and/or letting lenders run up large debts.

Overall, lenders love to lend, that's why they mail Bs of unsolicited cc offers, because that's fundamental to their profits, esp with usurious 20%+ cc interest rates, and payday lender rates of 400%. Big banks are heavily behind payday lenders.

[TeyshaBlue]

@ Havoc. There are multiple problems/issues at play here. I don't disagree with your take on about 90% of them. However, conflation of them is easy and almost impossible to avoid. How is it that I and others were able to easily deny entry to the werewolf. (What is it with these animal methaphors anyway? Maybe add Javelinas...they are waaaay scarier than werewolves.)
If this was inevitable I should have suc bed. I did not. Therefore, your premise is indeed debatable regardless of how badly you wish it weren't.

And boutons, the grownups are talking now. Sit down and pay with your repug and Palin dolls and color in your VWRC coloring book.

[coyotes_geek]

Sigh. Some of you really need to take social economics. There's obviously no convincing you. It's just sad when the truth is laid out a clean and clear as possible and you still cling to the victim-blame approach, thinking that people could have averted disaster if they "would just be upstanding rational citizens who knew when to say 'No!'". This has been discussed ad nauseam countless times. I really wonder how people still think that banks (6 of them cons ute 60% of the GNP, by the way) who participate collectively in massively illicit activities with no oversight or regulation still aren't the culprits here. 50/50 doesn't begin to state the expanse or severity of the problem, the lack of control associated with wall street, and is incredibly, wholly idealistic in origin. It's also dangerously naive to just how severe the real problem was in the entire situation.

No one is saying that the banks don't suck. Again, I'm 100% in favor of breaking them up. But when you're talking about an agreement that two parties willingly entered into, the victim card only goes so far.

[Cry Havoc]

@ Havoc. There are multiple problems/issues at play here. I don't disagree with your take on about 90% of them. However, conflation of them is easy and almost impossible to avoid. How is it that I and others were able to easily deny entry to the werewolf. (What is it with these animal methaphors anyway? Maybe add Javelinas...they are waaaay scarier than werewolves.)
If this was inevitable I should have suc bed. I did not. Therefore, your premise is indeed debatable regardless of how badly you wish it weren't.

And boutons, the grownups are talking now. Sit down and pay with your repug and Palin dolls and color in your VWRC coloring book.

No one is saying that the banks don't suck. Again, I'm 100% in favor of breaking them up. But when you're talking about an agreement that two parties willingly entered into, the victim card only goes so far.

That's my point exactly. The door is not an analogy to financing a home. It's the fact that the banks had $8 trillion in net worth between them, and if you didn't let them in with a home loan, they would have forced their way in with something else. They don't even need you to cheat the system. They could have cut the public completely out of the situation and illegally made money another way. Why didn't they? Because this way, people still blame other people for what happened, rather than ascribing the near 100% of the blame to the banks that deserve it. Point being: People still use banks because they managed to shirk the responsibility for the financial crisis.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's my point exactly. The door is not an analogy to financing a home. It's the fact that the banks had $8 trillion in net worth between them, and if you didn't let them in with a home loan, they would have forced their way in with something else. They don't even need you to cheat the system. They could have cut the public completely out of the situation and illegally made money another way. Why didn't they? Because this way, people still blame other people for what happened, rather than ascribing the near 100% of the blame to the banks that deserve it. Point being: People still use banks because they managed to shirk the responsibility for the financial crisis.

I understand your point now. I can't disagree with it.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm regurgitating what you've said in the past about ultra-rich individuals and how they made their money.

You guys are getting ridiculous. I specify I don't like how they do certain things, and you assume I still support it in the name of capitalism? There are aspects of any system that can and are abused. Your attempt to do what ever you are doing is either ignorant, or pathetic. Maybe both.

[Cry Havoc]

You guys are getting ridiculous. I specify I don't like how they do certain things, and you assume I still support it in the name of capitalism? There are aspects of any system that can and are abused. Your attempt to do what ever you are doing is either ignorant, or pathetic. Maybe both.

What percentage of the ultra-rich do you think got there through wholly legitimate means?

[TeyshaBlue]

You guys are getting ridiculous. I specify I don't like how they do certain things, and you assume I still support it in the name of capitalism? There are aspects of any system that can and are abused. Your attempt to do what ever you are doing is either ignorant, or pathetic. Maybe both.

lol @ what ever you are doing.

You know, if you don't know what he's talking about, you could always just pass.

[Wild Cobra]

What percentage of the ultra-rich do you think got there through wholly legitimate means?

I don't know, but that's not reason to punish all of them.

[Cry Havoc]

I understand your point now. I can't disagree with it.