Thread: Financial Crisis Could Have Been Avoided

Answer is they gave loans to poop people that had no way of paying them back

Originally Posted by Captdick

Answer is they gave loans to poop people that had no way of paying them back

Would these poop people you refer to be border jumpers as well?

This isn't newsworthy. Ronnie Paul saw it coming whilst the govt sat back and pretended everything was just rosy.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

This isn't newsworthy. Ronnie Paul saw it coming whilst the govt sat back and pretended everything was just rosy.

Word


Fuck all those crooks in DC!

Originally Posted by Big Pimpin

Would these poop people you refer to be border jumpers as well?

The whole situation sickens me. Corporate greed. Those involved should rot in hell. So many have suffered, hell we all did.

Originally Posted by Big Pimpin

Would these poop people you refer to be border jumpers as well?

damn mexicans ruin everything

Originally Posted by Big Pimpin

Would these poop people you refer to be border jumpers as well?

Some of the banks were forced into giving minorities subprime loans. Since the group that would benefit the most were minorities, then government told the banks that if they didn't give out the loans that they would be charged with discriminatory lending. That's nice way of saying that someone is racist. Banks accused of being racist would lose their FDIC status, among other things. So they banks made the loans.

Granted, this was the only reason for the subprime loans, but it was one of them.

This piece spells it out very well.

Originally Posted by AdmiralRichard

damn mexicans ruin everything

Damn it! We live where we are the minority.

Hey I love the Mexicans, cuz they love us blonds. When we go to Mexico, they think Rob is Mexican, so they don't mess with us. Their food and beer rock. What I love most, is their family culture.

The arabs of the uk is the mexicans of the usa they take and give nothing

Originally Posted by Captdick

Answer is they gave loans to poop people that had no way of paying them back

you are just about 100% incorrect as about 80% of the mortgage loans written in the years before the meltdown were not held by CRA institutions but private lenders such as wall street banks. the rates of loans made by low to moderate income (LMI) borrowers at CRA banks did not substantially increase the years previous to the meltdown.

just about every report shows that CRA banks saw in increase in mortgage loan application denial the 2 years prior to the meltdown, which totally conflicts with claims that they lowered underwriting standards increasing the ability to write more loans to LMI borrowers.

home ownership rates have increased in some metro areas/states since WWII and decreased in others. in a healthy economy home ownership should increase at a rate fulled by borrowers that actually have the monies and potential to pay back the loan. this is pretty much the exact opposite of what happened in the US with stagnate wages in most markets for decades. the increase in home ownership was fueled by the opening up of various credit markets why caused unrealistic and unsustainable rates of appreciation in many markets as well.

pretty much all the data points to wall street as the culprit. for the most part banking deregulation in the 70's and 80's paved the way. basically when manufacturing started the leave the country in the mid 70's so did the capital used by wall street for investments. in turn wall street decided to use the american tax payer to provide them with monies for investments/gambling. the numbers at the DOW from 1970-2000 support this along with the unwarranted growth of the financial sector and the amount of income generated by that industry. in 40 years the financial industry went from making 20% of the countries total income to 40% all while manufacturing and real GDP decreased.

A new house cost 1050% more in 2006 than in 1970. That means a new house in 2006 is 10 ½ times more expensive than one in 1970. By comparison, the median household income increased 452% between 1970 and 2006 AND this is going from 1 to 2 wager earners. The 600% difference between income and housing expense is why there is a crisis of monumental proportions plaguing this country in terms of home ownership. The average middle income family simply can not afford to purchase a new home today even with government subsidy.

the periodic opening up of credit markets allowed home values to become artificially inflated simply by the increase in potential borrowers. this fulled speculation by many, some on wallstreet using credit default swaps and others such as baby boomers used equity in primary homes to purchase investment properties using interest only loans, etc. between 2006-2008 baby boomers pulled out almost 2T in equity in homes and spent it on cars, vacations homes, boats, etc. as of Jan, 2011 33% of baby-boomers have $0 alloted for retirement.

so to make a long story short the american tax payer was set up by the banking industry to purchase a product that they never could afford. currently there are foreclosing on and re-selling properties that they themselves never paid for.

Originally Posted by LAM

you are just about 100% incorrect as about 80% of the mortgage loans written in the years before the meltdown were not held by CRA institutions but private lenders such as wall street banks. the rates of loans made by low to moderate income (LMI) borrowers at CRA banks did not substantially increase the years previous to the meltdown.

just about every report shows that CRA banks saw in increase in mortgage loan application denial the 2 years prior to the meltdown, which totally conflicts with claims that they lowered underwriting standards increasing the ability to write more loans to LMI borrowers.

home ownership rates have increased in some metro areas/states since WWII and decreased in others. in a healthy economy home ownership should increase at a rate fulled by borrowers that actually have the monies and potential to pay back the loan. this is pretty much the exact opposite of what happened in the US with stagnate wages in most markets for decades. the increase in home ownership was fueled by the opening up of various credit markets why caused unrealistic and unsustainable rates of appreciation in many markets as well.

pretty much all the data points to wall street as the culprit. for the most part banking deregulation in the 70's and 80's paved the way. basically when manufacturing started the leave the country in the mid 70's so did the capital used by wall street for investments. in turn wall street decided to use the american tax payer to provide them with monies for investments/gambling. the numbers at the DOW from 1970-2000 support this along with the unwarranted growth of the financial sector and the amount of income generated by that industry. in 40 years the financial industry went from making 20% of the countries total income to 40% all while manufacturing and real GDP decreased.

A new house cost 1050% more in 2006 than in 1970. That means a new house in 2006 is 10 ½ times more expensive than one in 1970. By comparison, the median household income increased 452% between 1970 and 2006 AND this is going from 1 to 2 wager earners. The 600% difference between income and housing expense is why there is a crisis of monumental proportions plaguing this country in terms of home ownership. The average middle income family simply can not afford to purchase a new home today even with government subsidy.

the periodic opening up of credit markets allowed home values to become artificially inflated simply by the increase in potential borrowers. this fulled speculation by many, some on wallstreet using credit default swaps and others such as baby boomers used equity in primary homes to purchase investment properties using interest only loans, etc. between 2006-2008 baby boomers pulled out almost 2T in equity in homes and spent it on cars, vacations homes, boats, etc. as of Jan, 2011 33% of baby-boomers have $0 alloted for retirement.

so to make a long story short the american tax payer was set up by the banking industry to purchase a product that they never could afford. currently there are foreclosing on and re-selling properties that they themselves never paid for.

I would agree with all of this, but as much of the responsibility belongs to the purchaser who signed on a loan they never could afford. Caveat Emptor.

The "securities" that were traded were in reality loads of known bad debt and mortages. The wallstreet crowd trades them back and forth between themselves, generating a profit each time. These are termed complicated and sophiscated trading practices. Trouble only happens when the bills come due, your 401k takes a dive and Wallstreet walks away with all the profit and a bailout, thanks to the tax payers. Oil prices are driven higher by the same practices, oil futures traded between oil companies. Self induced profits.

I cant wait until the GOV is shot down.Do not raise the debt ceiling put that homo Barry on his heels until he has to break.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I would agree with all of this, but as much of the responsibility belongs to the purchaser who signed on a loan they never could afford. Caveat Emptor.

the Fed also shares a decent amount of blame for continuing to push the "American" dream of home ownership when they knew many people could not realistically afford those homes or ever pay them back. the Fed encourages home ownership by guarantees and tax breaks from the government while renters get no help for the government even though they spend same percentage of the income on housing, basically you get punished for renting. this caused many low income people/families to buy homes when they realistically couldn't afford it but they were enticed by the tax breaks that come along with home ownership. at the peak in 2007 I think US home ownership was almost 70%. In 2007, 45% of renters spent more than 30% of their incomes on housing, the threshold for affordable housing as compared with 30% of homeowners.

Originally Posted by Irishman012

The "securities" that were traded were in reality loads of known bad debt and mortages. The wallstreet crowd trades them back and forth between themselves, generating a profit each time. These are termed complicated and sophiscated trading practices. Trouble only happens when the bills come due, your 401k takes a dive and Wallstreet walks away with all the profit and a bailout, thanks to the tax payers. Oil prices are driven higher by the same practices, oil futures traded between oil companies. Self induced profits.

you got it! from what I have found there are 3 major causes all sponsored by the GOP and Texas republicans

the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act and finally the Gramm Guts America Act which was the cou de gras and removed derivatives and credit default swaps from the purview of federal oversight. the GOP is all about socialism but only for those that work on Wall Street.

it actually used to make sense for the Fed Gov to subsidize housing via Fannie & Freddie, etc. decades ago after WWII when the US economy was still heavily manufacturing based. the Gov helped you buy a house and then you could fill it up with goods made in the US but with manufacturing gone the Fed Gov still subsidizes housing but there is no return on that investment since the majority of goods purchased are not manufactured in this country anymore so those monies spent leave the country.

Special interest groups and their lobbyists are the financial force that get a politician elected. Until the people get control of who stands in office, we are all just food for the sharks. Campaign finance laws must be changed to give the people back their constitutional right to elect the government. We are suppose to be a nation of laws. But right now we are a nation controlled by greed and self interest.

Originally Posted by LAM

the Fed also shares a decent amount of blame for continuing to push the "American" dream of home ownership when they knew many people could not realistically afford those homes or ever pay them back. the Fed encourages home ownership by guarantees and tax breaks from the government while renters get no help for the government even though they spend same percentage of the income on housing, basically you get punished for renting. this caused many low income people/families to buy homes when they realistically couldn't afford it but they were enticed by the tax breaks that come along with home ownership. at the peak in 2007 I think US home ownership was almost 70%. In 2007, 45% of renters spent more than 30% of their incomes on housing, the threshold for affordable housing as compared with 30% of homeowners.

For cereals.

The best part is the only ones who get to pay for it are the ones least able to afford it, the fed and wall street walk away Scot-free, and both made money on the deal with a taxpayer bailout.