dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed

bakorican

join:2004-02-28
germany
reply to jester121

Re: Some investors are not very smart.

said by jester121:

If the people in Congress has a basic understanding of Econ 101, we'd have have been in this mess. They have the "demand" side of the equation down, but to them the "supply" side is a printing press.
Part of this is correct, but you left out the past 8 years of the Bush administration, where the supply side meant not to restock the accounts, by cutting taxes on everybody with a pulse and a 6 digit bank account.

charterbites

join:2005-11-19
Covington, LA
said by bakorican:

said by jester121:

If the people in Congress has a basic understanding of Econ 101, we'd have have been in this mess. They have the "demand" side of the equation down, but to them the "supply" side is a printing press.
Part of this is correct, but you left out the past 8 years of the Bush administration, where the supply side meant not to restock the accounts, by cutting taxes on everybody with a pulse and a 6 digit bank account.
No...No ...NO.
It was Barney and Dodo Dodd that with the Community Reinvestment Act started by the Clinton(s)that caused the problems.
Do some DD before you speak of what you DON'T know.


Ryokucha

join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL

2 edits
Well we can take it one step further then, it started back in the 70's with the original CRA. Reaganomics lead to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, which lead to (FIRREA) Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 signed by President George H. W. Bush. In 1999 Clinton did give more power to the banks, but in 2005 and 2007 changes to the CRA under the Bush Administration basically removed all regulation, gave almost unlimited power to banks in who they could lend to and how they could. Which gave to rise to the predatory lending that took place well into the Bush Presidency.

So if you want to Blame Barney or Dodd, you have to ask the question what was Bush doing for those Eight years after the 1999 CRA change? Why was he making it even easier for banks to lend to people who they know could not pay back the loans. Why were the 2005 and 2007 regulatory changes to the CRA which caused the current mess signed into law by Bush?

The original CRA was made to help low income families have the ability to get loans at all. But with lots of conditions and regulations to make sure they still could not get a loan they could never pay back. Yet the 2005 regulation change makes it so the bank no longer has to make sure the loan can be paid back, in fact that is exactly what the banks were looking for, they wanted people to default on their mortgage so they could foreclose and then turn around and sell the house at a profit, while pocketing whatever interest and down payment they did make.

Predatory lending should have never been allowed to go on at all, and it happened under Bush, so yes his administration is to blame, they did nothing but make it easier and easier for the banks to take advantage. And when the plan failed, they were there to bail out the same banks that took advantage of predatory lending.


jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
"under the Bush Administration" is a convenient blanket that today's Democrats use for cover when they want to hide the fact that they took over Congress in 2006, and they were the ones in charge of legislation ("I'm just a bill", anyone?)


Ryokucha

join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
Yes, under the Bush Administration, because in the end he has veto power. The 2005 Regulatory change that opened the door wide open to predatory lending is directly linked to his administration.

To what 2006 Congress has anything to do with 2005 I have no idea, but it seems you are grasping at straws here to make it look like it is all the Democrats fault. No matter what facts are out there it sure seems like you don't want to blame Bush, I really don't know why.

I guess you missed this part of the "I'm just a bill" :

I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

Boy: You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no?

Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old...

Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?

Bill: No!

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to jester121
No... it goes WAY back.. WAAAAAY farther back to when the Dems had control of the house, senate, etc.. the ground was laid long ago for the mis-handling of the economic system today. Neither the Dems or Pubs are innocent of this.. and further more, neither are other countries...

If people would learn to pay their own way, EVERYONE, and not always look for a reason to have a hand out, we'd be a much better place.. there is a need for SOME socialism in society to help the weak and incapable.. however, those boundaries, thanks to the dems, have been GREATLY expanded to include anyone with a pulse and a sob story.

I go to HCMC, a country run hospital in the Twin Cities, for a study program I volunteered for in cancer research. I will tell you that some of the program nurses and doctors will admit that the "system" encourages people to become able to receive benefits and services.. constantly telling people things such as "if you can just look ill, you can go on assistance, receive free money, all care paid for and you won't have to work".. that's plain flat BS..

Oh, and by the way.. The Dems took over Congress in 2006, but you are aware that within 100 days, the republicans were already blaming the dems for all the mess, right? Not that it's not partially true that the dems had a hand in the mess, but the damage the dems did was FAR back in the 80's and 90's.. not 2006 as the pubs like to think. ANYONE with an ounce of brain knows that we can not turn this country on a dime into such ruin.. it takes a long chain of events to bring something this large to it's knees. This is the same I can say to Obama about how he believes that he's making an impact on the economy so soon.. his 'spend into the ground' mentality isn't doing anything to help us.. its NOT the reason we're seeing ANY change. There are other factors already in play that have loosened up the reigns a little.. VERY little.

For the record, too, Obama and his crew like to say that the Republicans started the free fall in the stock market.. I seem to recall differently.. while it may have taken a dump under Bush's run, it looked more like it started to fall when we found out who was likely to be the next president .. If there is one thing I like, no matter how bad it can affect us, it's that the stock market does show the government that WE THE PEOPLE do control government, not the other way around. They may be able to make laws and attempt to grab power, but in the end, the people still control them..

So, the argument that the pubs say the dems were to blame since they took over in 2006, and the dems saying "under the Bush Administration".. both are crap arguments.. they ALL got greedy and power hungry and played a role in messing this country up.

I'd have high hopes for Libertarians, to which I am.. however, the conservative republicans are trying to flee their own burning ship, and take cover under the Libertarian flagship to try to reform..

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to Ryokucha
We just traded one rubber stamp government for another.. Sad is what it is.

charterbites

join:2005-11-19
Covington, LA
reply to Ryokucha
"Yet the 2005 regulation change makes it so the bank no longer has to make sure the loan can be paid back, in fact that is exactly what the banks were looking for, they wanted people to default on their mortgage so they could foreclose and then turn around and sell the house at a profit, while pocketing whatever interest and down payment they did make."

I was in banking for a number of years before I grew-up and I can tell you the LAST thing a bank wants is to sell property. It sounds nice but it's not true.
Do you really think that a bank would knowingly loan money to someone who they thought could not/never pay it back?
They were forced to loan money to certain groups under penalty of huge fines or the ability to merge with other banks.
Good history but not what really was going on.
Thanks


jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

1 recommendation

reply to fiberguy
The Libertarian party would be fine if they'd stop hitching their wagons to such nut jobs. The reality is they gotta get elected to have any effect, and the masses won't vote for weirdos.


UncleFudge

@Princeton.EDU
reply to Ryokucha
Um, and WHO repealed the Glass-Stegal Act that allowed this mess we are in? (Hint: soiled blue dress)