the Dems in gov.

Whether or not they KNEW it would hurt our economy for the next 3008 election,

or were just being really STUPID.... is subject to debate.

the Dems in gov.

Whether or not they KNEW it would hurt our economy for the next 3008 election,

or were just being really STUPID.... is subject to debate.

And we DO know where the campaign money went? I don't even know what that means. The campaign money went ...to the campaign? I don't know what you're talking about. But it's not important.

Why don't you try to answer the question for the third time. What do you have to do if you want to get to the place you speak of, where banks aren't so big that we can't allow them to suffer the losses that result from their own bad decisions?

...Not that you believe they made bad decisions. They were just victims of bad loans made by crooks, right?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Steve, again, you haven't even gotten close to the rest of the story. You're still mired with the "crooks" in your mythical loan office.

How do we get to the place you're talking about, where banks aren't so integral to the overall economy that they can be allowed to fail? What would have to happen?

Of course, in order to answer this, you have to see how your answer above is wrong, and that the banks were re-capitalized because they would have brought down the entire economy with them, not because they give campaign cash. I'm not denying that corporate cash has a large influence on our political system, but to believe what you're saying you have to believe that without that cash the policymakers would have let the banks fail, and I don't think you want to make that case. In fact, I don't think I can recall anyone of repute who has ever made that case, so perhaps you should just take my word for it.

We bailed out the banks as a last ditch effort to save the economy from collapse.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But we DO know where the campaign money went.

Coincidence? You tell me.

We all try to rationalize bad decisions.

For certain that's tee excuse for every plan that fails.

"well it'd have been worse if we .....

WSS

Bank bailout, "saved" banks....

Mortage bailout "saved" all mortgages

anything bailout saves nothing after the money runs out.

What a cheap ass claim to pseudo-fame Heck clings to for the sake of the dirtbags in the WH...

I guess the OWS "saved" us from something....

It's all liberal jaw flappy to manipulate votes for the next election. No substance, no truth. Just Alinski tactics from the left.

How do we get to the place you're talking about, where banks aren't so integral to the overall economy that they can be allowed to fail? What would have to happen?

Of course, in order to answer this, you have to see how your answer above is wrong, and that the banks were re-capitalized because they would have brought down the entire economy with them, not because they give campaign cash. I'm not denying that corporate cash has a large influence on our political system, but to believe what you're saying you have to believe that without that cash the policymakers would have let the banks fail, and I don't think you want to make that case. In fact, I don't think I can recall anyone of repute who has ever made that case, so perhaps you should just take my word for it.

We bailed out the banks as a last ditch effort to save the economy from collapse.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

This is entirely insufficient. It doesn't do anything to address any of the problems raised by the crash, which we still haven't really identified. And again, you think we bailed out Wall Street because they give politicians cash, yet another example where you substitute cynicism for actually knowing something.

Yeah Pollyanna. That's touching.

I'n sure it's just a coincidence.

straight.

Tightening loan requirements is one part. Banks have generally done that on their own. But what else do we need to do?

And Steve, we've been doing this a while. This is the first time I can remember where you offered an explanation other than the CRA and people getting loans they didn't deserve. The first time. (And you never, ever mention the bank or lending institution that signed off on the loan, just the poor people who wanted to live beyond their means.) So let's stop pretending you have offered a much larger explanation than poor people getting bad loans, because you really haven't. You've been flogging that horse for years, and never said something like, "I'm not saying CRA loans played a big part at all." As far as you have been concerned, this was about people getting loans they didn't deserve, which brought down the housing market, which brought down the banks. Now you've added that banks may have been bundling some bad loans in "extremely smelly circumstances." Baby steps, I suppose.

No steps at all Heck.

Same old straw man.

If you keep repeating the underlined portion you're either illiterate or just a liar.

We'll be generous and assume the latter.

Whether it's one of your dear poor people or a well heeled investor that fudged the facts to get an easier loan there was a lender perfectly willing to overlook that.

More cynicism here.

Since most will actually try to make good on even an underwater loan the lenders should (under better circumstances) be OK on balance. So you write the loan take the bonus and sign off.

I'm not sure how big a part the privacy regulations go but I'm sure they play a part.

You can call the employer and ask if X works there and how long but NOT how much X earns.

You could use "unverified income."

You could sell an "interest only" loan.

No money down leaving the borrower with zero equity and precious little incentive to pay off when tjimes get rough.

But if the president wants to bail out the crook that lied to get the loan or the crook who looked the other way to get it that at least reduces the incentive to make better judgements on both sides.

WSS

But let's move on. Contrary to your explanation, the banks were bailed out because they threatened to bring down the entire financial system and the world economy at large. If you want to "let it be known if you f#ck up you could actually suffer a huge loss" you have to avoid the problem we faced in 2008 - where financial entities are too big to be allowed to fail. If you think people didn't want them to be allowed to fail, you're wrong. Lots of people worry about moral hazard besides you. But most everyone came to the conclusion that we couldn't let these banks fail without causing enormous economic pain, far worse than what we're experiencing now, and for years. So your explanations are insufficient.

So, how do you get to the world you speak of, where these banks can be allowed to suffer huge losses if they xxxx up?

We bailed out Wall Street so we didn't collapse the entire global economy. Just like how countries like Germany are now bailing out Greece. It's not because we wanted to, or because we were bought off. Trust me, the Germans don't want to give billions to Greece. But when faced with two really lousy choices, you should take the less lousy one. In our case, that was bailing out the banks. In Germany's case, it's forking over a shit ton of their money to a country that can't shoot straight.

Tightening loan requirements is one part. Banks have generally done that on their own. But what else do we need to do?

And Steve, we've been doing this a while. This is the first time I can remember where you offered an explanation other than the CRA and people getting loans they didn't deserve. The first time. (And you never, ever mention the bank or lending institution that signed off on the loan, just the poor people who wanted to live beyond their means.) So let's stop pretending you have offered a much larger explanation than poor people getting bad loans, because you really haven't. You've been flogging that horse for years, and never said something like, "I'm not saying CRA loans played a big part at all." As far as you have been concerned, this was about people getting loans they didn't deserve, which brought down the housing market, which brought down the banks. Now you've added that banks may have been bundling some bad loans in "extremely smelly circumstances." Baby steps, I suppose.

But let's move on. Contrary to your explanation, the banks were bailed out because they threatened to bring down the entire financial system and the world economy at large. If you want to "let it be known if you f#ck up you could actually suffer a huge loss" you have to avoid the problem we faced in 2008 - where financial entities are too big to be allowed to fail. If you think people didn't want them to be allowed to fail, you're wrong. Lots of people worry about moral hazard besides you. But most everyone came to the conclusion that we couldn't let these banks fail without causing enormous economic pain, far worse than what we're experiencing now, and for years. So your explanations are insufficient.

So, how do you get to the world you speak of, where these banks can be allowed to suffer huge losses if they xxxx up?

With 15 to 25% down one is less likely to bail on the loan.

And the market will correct itself. Inflated prices will slowly come down.

Not painlessly but it wioll happen.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

It doesn't necessarily have to do with criminality in order to be something you want to fix. There isn't a criminal case to be made, so no, I'm not upset that no cases have been brought, nor do I think it's because Obama got money from Wall Street. Again, you look to these dastardly explanations first and ignore the reality: that these aren't criminal issues for the most part, and even if you find the guys you might accuse of fraud - and they have - the case is extremely difficult to make, and that's why it hasn't been made. You're just lost in your own head, imagining your cynicism makes you see things clearly when it's really just a substitute for actually knowing something.

Actually that's caused by blind allegiance on your end, but we know that.

So you blame Wall Street. OK. Then you say there was nothing illegal as far as you see. OK.

And if we talk about the CRA, and you mention giving loans to poor, and how the poor were to blame,

But that's your straw man. I never laid the entire blame on the CRA or your precious poor people.

I do (and did) lay a good portion at the feet of any investor buyer venture capital group or spec team that took risks without a plan for a downturn.

I do think that if you want to allow a risky investment let there be risk.

Interest only no money down negative equity loans unverified income on and on and on that made the toxic assets turn sour. Or at least greased the skids.

and then you start talking about the housing bubble at large, you'd be the one changing the topic. Me pointing out that you've changed the topic isn't a "straw man" at all.

Actually you accusing me of saying it's ohnly poor people is the straw man.

And a lie.

It's pointing out that you've changed from a very narrow and incomplete explanation to one that's rather important, and no longer involves "poor people."

It does involve poor people. Among other factors. Even you say it does when you claim your dear CRA has only a minor role.

That means some role.

But we are getting somewhere. So, tell me what do you think needs to be done about Wall Street practices to ensure we don't face the same problem again?

For one thing let it be known if you f#ck up you could actually suffer a huge loss.

(insaterad of "if you pay off the politicians they'll bail you out after you crash)

I'd think shitting on police cars is further down the list of possible cures.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

WSS

It doesn't necessarily have to do with criminality in order to be something you want to fix. There isn't a criminal case to be made, so no, I'm not upset that no cases have been brought, nor do I think it's because Obama got money from Wall Street. Again, you look to these dastardly explanations first and ignore the reality: that these aren't criminal issues for the most part, and even if you find the guys you might accuse of fraud - and they have - the case is extremely difficult to make, and that's why it hasn't been made. You're just lost in your own head, imagining your cynicism makes you see things clearly when it's really just a substitute for actually knowing something.

And if we talk about the CRA, and you mention giving loans to poor, and how the poor were to blame, and then you start talking about the housing bubble at large, you'd be the one changing the topic. Me pointing out that you've changed the topic isn't a "straw man" at all. It's pointing out that you've changed from a very narrow and incomplete explanation to one that's rather important, and no longer involves "poor people."

But we are getting somewhere. So, tell me what do you think needs to be done about Wall Street practices to ensure we don't face the same problem again?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

The housing market and the Community Reinvestment Act are two very different things, my friend.

Hey! The Straw man right off the bat. That was quick.

But you still don't seem to know what part Wall Street played in all of this. You seem to think they were victims of the housing bubble, and that's where their responsibility ends. Is that accurate?

Not at all. I'd bet those toxic assets were bundled and sold under some extremely smelly circumstances.

Of course I've yet to see anyone prosecuted and despite whatever misdeeds were foisted on us we [Obama's wall street backers] rather than do that, rewarded them with a bailout.But you support that bailout and I assume you aren't really outraged that Holder has done jack shit.

And there are a few reasons why the toxic assets are, well, toxic. But they're still toxic.

As for my thoughts on the protests, I've already written about them earlier. I think some of them have a point, and some of them don't. But I certainly understand their frustration, and some of the issues they raise are real. But I don't need OWS to speak for me. I can do that myself.

WSS

But you still don't seem to know what part Wall Street played in all of this. You seem to think they were victims of the housing bubble, and that's where their responsibility ends. Is that accurate?

As for my thoughts on the protests, I've already written about them earlier. I think some of them have a point, and some of them don't. But I certainly understand their frustration, and some of the issues they raise are real. But I don't need OWS to speak for me. I can do that myself.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Um, okay. Ridiculous, but let's move on.

I'll ask again. What else happened? What part did they play in the financial crisis? What's your opinion on that?

Move on?

You've said nothing of worth. For the sake of discussion, we will assume that you know what toxic assets are.

If you can avoid the straw man just once, try to remind yourself of they came to be so toxic.

Then you can explain to me 1 more time, how the housing market has little or nothing to do with the crisis.

Then if you care to get back to the point, you can try and tell me 1 more time Why these protestors don't have their collective head up ther collective ass.

WSS

What to the protesters at OWS want?

They want to poop on private homeowners' porches. And pee on those porches.

They hate porches. They hate homeowners, who are, btw, Americans.

They also hate children and don't want them to get any sleep.

They hate people who have a job. They hate children who go to school and would like to get some sleep.

But you go ahead, Heck, and put lipstick on a rabid boar and call it a pretty girl hamster.

Not workin. Now, go ahead and continue to see if you can sway Steve into your thinking, so you can

learn how to do your job.

*************************************

“They are defecating on our doorsteps,” fumed Katherine Hughes, a stay at home mom who has the misfortune of living one block from the chaos. “A lot of people are very frustrated. A lot of people are concerned about the safety of our kids.”Fed up homeowners said that they’ve been subjected to insults and harassment as they trek to their jobs each morning. “The protesters taunt people who are on their way to work,” said James Fernandez, 51, whose apartment overlooks the park.“I walk out of my apartment and see people urinating on my steps.”

Board member Paul Cantor said that residents are fed up with the incessant racket that emanates from the protest at all hours. “It’s mostly a noise issue,” he said. If people can’t sleep and children can’t sleep because the protesters are banging drums then that’s a problem.”

I'll ask again. What else happened? What part did they play in the financial crisis? What's your opinion on that?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

But this isn't changing the subject. If you want to talk about what should be done about Wall Street, and what the goal of the protests should be about, you have to understand the part Wall Street played in the financial collapse. But I've yet to see any evidence that you know anything other than "some people got loans they shouldn't have gotten."

Actually a shitload.

What else happened? What was the Wall Street part?

Your protestors don't have the slightest idea what they want.

You're only behind them because they seem vaguely left.

They're not even bright enough to realize which politician got the lions share of the money.

Go back and read any of the shit from those here who support them.

Watch a little coverage. Niot Fox Hannity or Drudge. Watch your gang.Listen to yur own team screeching about the bailout.

Listen tio your own team moaning about bonuses and expensive getaways.

You gave me one video of a guy reading a prepared text.

I'd bet not one in 500 of these choads would give that answer.

You yourself seem pissed that the rich run things. That big gap thing.

So what?

And since you seem to think it's a problem that government can't solve you want it "addressed."

Great. Give a speech.

Or better yet take another shit on a cop car.

That should help.

WSS

In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies.

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation.

Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal.

That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

Source Wall St

What else happened? What was the Wall Street part?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Oh, brother. The barroom prophet is back.

I can't argue with someone who thinks the pertinent issues here are the CRA and envy. I really can't.

Well that was a witless response.

Congratulations.

You must have your sights set on Axelrod's gig.

WSS

I can't argue with someone who thinks the pertinent issues here are the CRA and envy. I really can't.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I mean, you're not surprising me, if that's what you mean. You're a proudly complacent man.

Look, there are times I see or hear an actor or artist making millions that I don't think is anywhere near as good as I am.

My choice is to remind myself that this is the way it goes and I'm happy with my life or I can sit around and seethe.

I know plenty of guys who choose the latter.

Being pissed off at that guy doesn't make me better or happier.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

If you wanted to explain why the Browns suck, and your only answer was that Chris Cocong can't rush the passer well enough, that wouldn't be a very good explanation.

But that isn't similar to what I said.

If I said the Browns suck because the defense isn't doing it's job that's a big reason.

You, then, would counter "What??? You blame it ALL on Chris Cocong???? Howe dare you!!!!"

And that's what's dishonest.

So even though the CRA was a bad idea in the end (though I'd had more hope for it) it was part and parcel of the whole sub prime debacle and the free money.

Not just to your pet poor people but to any investor who could get a barely secured loan hoping the prices would continue to skyrocket. And the guy who writes it up gets a commission anyway. And the investor gets a loan on his word. Or as my mortgage lady calls it "unverifiable income."

Oops.

But the housing market tanked for all that.

Yes the saintly poor are part of it, as is Chris Cocong.

But nobody said it was ALL his fault.

And don't think we didn't notiuce that you tried to change the subject to this false claim.

Trust me, I'm not shying away from your arguments because they're so true and I can't admit it. Trust me.

Trust. Heh.

WSS

Sounds like the bad housing loan (per Fannie and Freddie and Dems in Congress.....) had something to do with it.

***************************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

The late-2000s financial crisis (often called the Global Recession, Global Financial Crisis or the Credit Crunch) is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market had also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged vacancies. It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, and a significant decline in economic activity, leading to a severe global economic recession in 2008.[2]

The financial crisis was triggered by a liquidity shortfall in the United States banking system in 2008.[3] The collapse of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[4] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[5] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[6][7][8]

While many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts,[9] the United States Senate issuing the [Levin–Coburn Report [3] [4] found “that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products;[10] undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself[11] to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”[12]

Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[13] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks.[14] In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[15]