Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 37

Thread: It's not your money

  1. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: It's not your money

    Did Reagan sign all those spending bills? Did George W. Bush sign every spending bill that came his way the first seven years of his presidency?
    As I said- when Republicans are in charge.............we end up in massive deficit......and with assorted other problems due to their distaste for any accountability or oversight. This mortgage meltdown is a good example.
    Maybe since Republicans hate government so much...........they ought to leave the governing part to Democrats, eh?

  2. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: It's not your money

    did they have a choice considering the dem majority in both houses? if he hadn't, would the dems and the media accused them of stonewalling and shutting down government?

    you are avoiding the question though.. is it the increased revenue to the treasury from republican tax cuts or runaway spending that produces the deficit?....also..whose better off the guy making 50k or the one making 95K?

    the mortgage meltdown has nothing to do with republicans...

    republicans and dems need each other in order to scare their donars into giving them more money.."we need more money in order to stop this guy from getting into office because his policies will destroy you"....yada yada yada

  3. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Re: It's not your money

    Yes, they had a choice! And they chose to sign those bills......do you seriously think that the astronomical rise in earmarks ONLY under the last Republican majority Congress wasn't their fault? Or Bush's for not saying a peep about them but dutifully signing them into law?
    We had plenty of increased revenue coming into the treasury during Bill Clinton's presidency.......and he didn't have to give huge tax cuts to the wealthy to make it happen! Oh- Clinton balanced the budget also. Something Republican presidents seem unable to do. Even when they have a Republican majority Congress to work with. Why is that?
    The mortgage meltdown can be linked to Republicans- as, once again, they insist on no rules, no regulations, no accountability- with the predictable results. Just like the savings and loan debacle under Reagan.
    And I think campaigns should be taxpayer funded only. And short.

  4. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: It's not your money

    reines...calm down and take a breath.. I am professionally involved in the subrpime meltdown..I've been in the bidness for 20 plus years.. in my early years, we would carefully analyze applications and view the risk.. then we were attacked by the federal gov't saying that we were being unfair to certain areas that had declining values and other aspects that showed where those areas were creating unacceptable losses... unfortanately these areas were primarily heavily popoulated with minorities.. we were forced into going with a credit score... I'm not saying we were totally innocent...if you recall, before this crisis happened, I said that the bush admin bragging about record homeownership was trumped up due to excessively liberal lending guidelines that were going to bite us in the ass eventually... (why am I not on wall street instead of typing on this cheap computer?)... LOL..

    Clinton himself admitted to raising taxes too much...I"ve seen the video... and even still reines... compare the tax rates on the wealthy during clinton's rein versus where they were before reagan took over... there is no comparison.. during clinton, wall street was reaping false returns on cooked books along with the false money of the dot.com bidness...(not blaming clinton on either).. Newt's crew in the HOR had a lot to do with the balanced budgets..

    much to my surprise, carter actually started the de-regulation of the S&L'S..(kind of like the de-regulation of the accouning methods of wall street that was BI partisan that clinton signed off on...). those loose regulations were inherited by Reagan..of course he never considered changing that..

    I find it ironic that the left loves it when the "downtrodden" are given opportunities but when things go south, they blame republicans for granting those opportunities........

  5. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: It's not your money

    DId the govt. force your company to extend loans to people with no credit history, no down payment and no verifiable income? Did the govt. force these predatory lending companies (and I'm not saying your employer is one) to target and harass and drown consumers who fit in the above categories with constant come-ons and enticements?
    Where were the regulators when the "bubble" got bigger and bigger? Where was Alan Greenspan? Fantacizing about free markets and no regulation!
    With all due respect to you and the company you work for- it's pretty clear that de-regulation and lax lending practices.....and not govt, mandates, are to blame for this fiasco. The real problem is that the decision to extend credit was divorced from the bearing of the risk involved......isn't it? Because these banks and lending institutions knew they were only going to re-sell these mortgages.....to make a profit...........they didn't CARE. They counted on it being someone else's problem- not theirs. Doesn't that show an incredible lack of responsibility and business ethics?
    It sure seems to me that the real reason behind this mess.......and the core cause of the Savings and Loan debacle, the Keating Five scandal, the Enron mess........etc. etc. etc..........is basically this ideological notion that regulation is bad and that free markets are Gods. And time after time after time........we are forced to face the reality that business needs to be regulated...and that we just can't count on it acting in the best manner for all concerned.

    Krugman: Housing / Mortgage “Unmitigated Disaster” Caused by Conservative Ideology

    December 21, 2007

    Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times today says conservative ideology destroyed proper lending regulation, and says that it was conservative thinking that led directly to the “unmitagated disaster” the nation is experiencing in the mortgage and housing industry. Excerpts from the article:
    • Apologists for the mortgage industry claim, as Mr. Greenspan does in his new book, that “the benefits of broadened home ownership” justified the risks of unregulated lending. But homeownership didn’t broaden. The great bulk of dubious subprime lending took place from 2004 to 2006 — yet homeownership rates are already back down to mid-2003 levels. With millions more foreclosures likely, it’s a good bet that homeownership will be lower at the Bush administration’s end than it was at the start.
    • Meanwhile, during the bubble years, the mortgage industry lured millions of people into borrowing more than they could afford, and simultaneously duped investors into investing vast sums in risky assets wrongly labeled AAA. Reasonable estimates suggest that more than 10 million American families will end up owing more than their homes are worth, and investors will suffer $400 billion or more in losses.
    • So where were the regulators as one of the greatest financial disasters since the Great Depression unfolded? They were blinded by ideology. “Fed shrugged as subprime crisis spread,” was the headline on a New York Times report on the failure of regulators to regulate. This may have been a discreet dig at Mr. Greenspan’s history as a disciple of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of unfettered capitalism known for her novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
    • In a 1963 essay for Ms. Rand’s newsletter, Mr. Greenspan dismissed as a “collectivist” myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, “would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings.” It’s no wonder, then, that he brushed off warnings about deceptive lending practices, including those of Edward M. Gramlich, a member of the Federal Reserve board. In Mr. Greenspan’s world, predatory lending — like attempts to sell consumers poison toys and tainted seafood — just doesn’t happen.
    • Mr. Greenspan wasn’t the only top official who put ideology above public protection. Consider the press conference held on June 3, 2003 — just about the time subprime lending was starting to go wild — to announce a new initiative aimed at reducing the regulatory burden on banks. Representatives of four of the five government agencies responsible for financial supervision used tree shears to attack a stack of paper representing bank regulations. The fifth representative, James Gilleran of the Office of Thrift Supervision, wielded a chainsaw.
    • Also in attendance were representatives of financial industry trade associations, which had been lobbying for deregulation. As far as I can tell from press reports, there were no representatives of consumer interests on the scene.
    • Two months after that event the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the tree-shears-wielding agencies, moved to exempt national banks from state regulations that protect consumers against predatory lending. If, say, New York State wanted to protect its own residents — well, sorry, that wasn’t allowed. Of course, now that it has all gone bad, people with ties to the financial industry are rethinking their belief in the perfection of free markets. Mr. Greenspan has come out in favor of, yes, a government bailout. “Cash is available,” he says — meaning taxpayer money — “and we should use that in larger amounts, as is necessary, to solve the problems of the stress of this.”

  6. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Posts
    1,947

    Re: It's not your money

    Can I just throw in a dose of personal responsibility? Just because you are allowed to get credit, doesn't mean you should get credit. People knew they were borrowing above their means, and they did it anyway. Many good people got caught thinking the market wouldn't burst like it did. But others still borrowed from Peter to pay Paul in terms of home equity to buy a bigger car, more trips etc.

    What free markets allow is for growth and change. And we will always have those that take advantage (enron) but for every one Enron, there are 10 Microsoft's or Dell's or Yahoo's. And in the end Enron did lose. Sadly people lost also.

    At what point do we stop blaming all our ills on one side or another and not take personal responsibility for it?

  7. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Post Re: It's not your money

    damn G... that's too much common sense.. too much substance over the abundance of symoblism... good post..

  8. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: It's not your money

    Quote Originally Posted by MeganG View Post
    Can I just throw in a dose of personal responsibility? Just because you are allowed to get credit, doesn't mean you should get credit. People knew they were borrowing above their means, and they did it anyway. Many good people got caught thinking the market wouldn't burst like it did. But others still borrowed from Peter to pay Paul in terms of home equity to buy a bigger car, more trips etc.

    What free markets allow is for growth and change. And we will always have those that take advantage (enron) but for every one Enron, there are 10 Microsoft's or Dell's or Yahoo's. And in the end Enron did lose. Sadly people lost also.

    At what point do we stop blaming all our ills on one side or another and not take personal responsibility for it?
    Personal responsibility is great.....but we still need regulation.
    Sure, a lot of people ignored common sense and got in over their heads.......but a lot of people were also taken advantage of by low-life lenders. Have you read about the tactics and lies they used to ensnare so many people who just weren't savvy about mortgages?
    If you are seriously making the argument that all we have to do is be personally responsible....and there will be no problems- well, I think that's naiive.
    There's a reason why banks and financial institutions need to be regulated. It's because we just can't count on them to always act with integrity and honesty...........and they also can lie very well to cover up what they are doing. To say that an ordinary consumer should just be aware of everything these crooked companies are doing isn't very realistic, is it?
    I don't have much sympathy for the people who were just flipping houses...or those who were borrowing off of equity that they just didn't have.
    But for every one of those....there is a family who were lied to, pressured and misled by lending institutions chasing greed.......and I think we need more aggressive regulation to keep this from happening.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •