Marxism's March

[Humble2drive]

Occupy the Board Room

The website states:
"Today, you, the 99%, can make your voice heard directly to the Wall street elites who wrecked our economy And made the rest of us pay . . .

Looks like an entertaining site where people can vent But . . .
Like OWS isn't this a bit misdirected?

Riddle me this:
If you are in a restaurant and parents let their kids run wild and reek havoc,
Who do you get made at? The kids or the parents?

The execs are the kids who ran wild because they were allowed to by their parents ( the Gov't and the fed). They weren't parented correctly and one of their parents admitted it:

"A long-time cheerleader for deregulation, Greenspan admitted to a congressional committee yesterday that he had been "partially wrong" in his hands-off approach towards the banking industry and that the credit crunch had left him in a state of shocked disbelief. "I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."

Well, that guy is gone now and he forgot to tell his replacement so as I see it we should really be writing letters and trying to make the parents change.
Yellin at the kids will get us nowhere.

 

[bobwg]

this is for the 99 that want bigger govt

 

[cheri1122]

"The execs ran wild because the government didn't stop them"?
We are talking about adults here, correct? EDUCATED [well and expensively, no less!] adults, who know the difference between right and wrong, but you would excuse their behavior because the government didn't force them to behave?
We really are a sick society, when people buy into that.

 

[layoutshooter]

They did not do ANYTHING that our government has not been doing for the last 80 years or so. YET, everyone seems to think that a totally corrupt government can control corrupt businesses. Lest we forget, Freddy and Fannie are government. THEY REQUIRED the banks to make 'bad loans' so "underserved (unable to pay) people could buy houses they could not afford.

 

[davekc]

"The execs ran wild because the government didn't stop them"?
We are talking about adults here, correct? EDUCATED [well and expensively, no less!] adults, who know the difference between right and wrong, but you would excuse their behavior because the government didn't force them to behave?
We really are a sick society, when people buy into that

So are you saying you are a member of the Tea Party?

 

[cheri1122]

They did not do ANYTHING that our government has not been doing for the last 80 years or so. YET, everyone seems to think that a totally corrupt government can control corrupt businesses. Lest we forget, Freddy and Fannie are government. THEY REQUIRED the banks to make 'bad loans' so "underserved (unable to pay) people could buy houses they could not afford.

Snipped from Wiki - it's long and complicated, but it explains how once again, the guilty have bought and paid for the smokescreen that the easily persuaded bought wholesale, and repeat as if it's certified fact.
Do you really believe any banker would agree to government 'orders' [or even pressure] to violate his fiduciary responsibility? They'd scream louder and longer than a 13 yr old girl watching a horror film!
Dangle the potential for more profit, though, [esp if it's been slipping after a lovely rise] and they will find a way, and they did just that.

The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance[SUP][33][/SUP] that led, in 2006, to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit, who were unable to pay their mortgages - particularly with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.
On Oct 21, 2010 FHFA estimates revealed that the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will likely cost taxpayers $224–360 billion in total, with over $150 billion already provided.[SUP][36][/SUP]
[h=3]I know it's a lot simpler to accept and repeat what 'everybody knows' than to look further, esp when it's as excruciatingly DULL as this, but the fact is: what you repeat is what the banks want you to 'know', but it's not what actually happened.[/h]

 

[layoutshooter]

What ever you want to believe. I go by what my bankers tell me. I TRUST them, not Wiki. They did NOT buy into what happened. THEY still have the "pressure" letters from the government.

 

[cheri1122]

So are you saying you are a member of the Tea Party?

I'm with Mark Twain: I wouldn't want to join any group that would want me as a member.
Doesn't the Tea Party advocate less regulation? Because my attitude is that it's sadly necessary to regulate business, and the banks keep proving it.

 

[layoutshooter]

I'm with Mark Twain: I wouldn't want to join any group that would want me as a member.
Doesn't the Tea Party advocate less regulation? Because my attitude is that it's sadly necessary to regulate business, and the banks keep proving it.

Don't complain about the regs on trucking then. Same bunch. Same bunch in health care. THE U.S. government. NOW THAT is a GREAT bunch to be regulating anything! How CORRUPT can you get?

 

[bobwg]

Snipped from Wiki - it's long and complicated, but it explains how once again, the guilty have bought and paid for the smokescreen that the easily persuaded bought wholesale, and repeat as if it's certified fact.
Do you really believe any banker would agree to government 'orders' [or even pressure] to violate his fiduciary responsibility? They'd scream louder and longer than a 13 yr old girl watching a horror film!
Dangle the potential for more profit, though, [esp if it's been slipping after a lovely rise] and they will find a way, and they did just that.

The growth of private-label securitization and lack of regulation in this part of the market resulted in the oversupply of underpriced housing finance[SUP][33][/SUP] that led, in 2006, to an increasing number of borrowers, often with poor credit, who were unable to pay their mortgages - particularly with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), caused a precipitous increase in home foreclosures. As a result, home prices declined as increasing foreclosures added to the already large inventory of homes and stricter lending standards made it more and more difficult for borrowers to get mortgages. This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages. In July 2008, the government attempted to ease market fears by reiterating their view that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in the US housing finance system". The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve took steps to bolster confidence in the corporations, including granting both corporations access to Federal Reserve low-interest loans (at similar rates as commercial banks) and removing the prohibition on the Treasury Department to purchase the GSEs' stock. Despite these efforts, by August 2008, shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had tumbled more than 90% from their one-year prior levels.
On Oct 21, 2010 FHFA estimates revealed that the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will likely cost taxpayers $224–360 billion in total, with over $150 billion already provided.[SUP][36][/SUP]
I know it's a lot simpler to accept and repeat what 'everybody knows' than to look further, esp when it's as excruciatingly DULL as this, but the fact is: what you repeat is what the banks want you to 'know', but it's not what actually happened.

The Federal GOvt thru Fannie and Freddie forced banks to make loans to people that could not pay the loans using the law Community Reinvestment Act passed under Carter and pushed heavily under Clinton. People in the Bush Administration were calling for reforms to Housing loans especially to Fannie and Freddie as they were taking on to many loans to back but people like Barney Frank and others were calling them Racists for wanting to enforce more stringent loan requirements you can find the video of the on youtube yes the banks were part of the problem trying to figure out away to make money but the govt forced them to make the stupid loans and the idiots that signed the loans knowing full well they couldnt make the payments

 

[cheri1122]

What ever you want to believe. I go by what my bankers tell me. I TRUST them, not Wiki. They did NOT buy into what happened. THEY still have the "pressure" letters from the government.

Ummmm - first it was 'REQUIRED' [shouted, even], but now it's 'pressure'?
Little bit of a difference, what?
Good for your bank if they resisted - I never said every one was/is guilty, just the "too big to fail" crowd, for the most part.
BTW, have you seen the "pressure letter"?

 

[layoutshooter]

No, I have not seen THEM. I do trust and the the word of the man who told me about them. He is a GOOD friend.

My business banker has also made it QUITE clear that investing in small business right now is VERY shaky and they strongly suggest that that investment be kept at a minimum due to the anti-business climate in the country right now. They believe that small business will be regulated out of business if things continue.

 

[davekc]

The Tea Party and the original OWS were both born out of frustration with the government. The difference is the Tea Party got people in to office through some organization to forward the "less government" policies and OWS resorted to violence, infringing on the rights of others for expanded government in hopes the "rich must pay".
Since that one percent run the country, OWS had little chance of success with many of the goofy demands they were making.
The democrats are even laughing at them at this point. They didn't seem to have a problem holding their convention in the Bank Of America Arena.

With regards to the housing crisis, that problem developed long before 2008. That developed in the Clinton years when banks were being mandated to lower lending standards that the government backed up. Those loans were rolled essentially in to package deals and resold.
That is how you got people making 30k a year living in a 500k house.

 

[cheri1122]

The Federal GOvt thru Fannie and Freddie forced banks to make loans to people that could not pay the loans using the law Community Reinvestment Act passed under Carter and pushed heavily under Clinton. People in the Bush Administration were calling for reforms to Housing loans especially to Fannie and Freddie as they were taking on to many loans to back but people like Barney Frank and others were calling them Racists for wanting to enforce more stringent loan requirements you can find the video of the on youtube yes the banks were part of the problem trying to figure out away to make money but the govt forced them to make the stupid loans and the idiots that signed the loans knowing full well they couldnt make the payments

Key words here: "lack of regulation in the private label securitization [market]". When you understand that, you'll know how it all went south.
Not that Fannie & Freddie were innocent bystanders, but the potential for profit is what caused the bankers to abandon their fiduciary responsibility [and common sense] when granting mortgage loans to people who couldn't repay them and often didn't have a freakin clue what ARM means.
But hey, the banks could just bundle & sell the bad stuff, and be clear when the loan defaulted, right?

 

[cubansammich]

Absolute hogwash - where do you come up with such codswallop?!

Rick Santorum was spreading this same nonsense earlier this year.

 

[Ragman]

Key words here: "lack of regulation in the private label securitization [market]". When you understand that, you'll know how it all went south.
Not that Fannie & Freddie were innocent bystanders, but the potential for profit is what caused the bankers to abandon their fiduciary responsibility [and common sense] when granting mortgage loans to people who couldn't repay them and often didn't have a freakin clue what ARM means.
But hey, the banks could just bundle & sell the bad stuff, and be clear when the loan defaulted, right?

Remember him . . .

 

[bobwg]

Key words here: "lack of regulation in the private label securitization [market]". When you understand that, you'll know how it all went south.
Not that Fannie & Freddie were innocent bystanders, but the potential for profit is what caused the bankers to abandon their fiduciary responsibility [and common sense] when granting mortgage loans to people who couldn't repay them and often didn't have a freakin clue what ARM means.
But hey, the banks could just bundle & sell the bad stuff, and be clear when the loan defaulted, right?

YOu are clearly wrong it was not lack of regulation it was in fact the govt telling the banks what to do wake up smell the coffee I assume your want socialism and will vote for Obama

 

[cubansammich]

What ever you want to believe. I go by what my bankers tell me. I TRUST them, not Wiki. They did NOT buy into what happened. THEY still have the "pressure" letters from the government.

I am curious to know what your definition of a pressure letter is. I am intimately familiar with lending as it pertains to Fannie, Freddie, HUD, and the Secondary Market. Never have I come across a "pressure letter". Please explain.

 

[davekc]

Lest we not forget, Bush made an attempt to reel in the bad loans with regards to Fannie and Freddie and was blocked by the democrats in Congress.

 

[cubansammich]

What ever you want to believe. I go by what my bankers tell me. I TRUST them, not Wiki. They did NOT buy into what happened. THEY still have the "pressure" letters from the government.

I am curious to know what your definition of a pressure letter is. I am intimately familiar with lending as it pertains to Fannie, Freddie, HUD, and the Secondary Market. Never have I come across a "pressure letter". Please explain.