A new way for banks to screw the 99%ers. . .and get a bail out!

[GenSeneca]

You are saying that the government would still be corrupted if the big corps didn't provide the incentive for corruption through the use (andfor the purpose) of greed and power?

Don't ignore the following question, please answer it. Saying "greed and power" is not an answer. Corporations must believe there is some benefit that can be derived from spending their money on campaign contributions and lobbyists... What is it that a politician can do that a corporation cannot?

I do notunderstand your referenceto Mrs. Strawman?

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement. ​

 

[BigRob]

the government encourage home ownership for lower income people by providing access to government insured loans, evenfor those who could not put down a lotof money in front. The private .market went crazy encouraging people to purchase houses, with no or low down payments that they could not afford.

Aka the government helped people buy houses who had no business buying a house. Certainly I can agree some of this blame falls with the private sector, but government sent them yet another clear message that no matter what happens, government will save you, by bailing out all of these banks that should have failed.

The private industry (from the real estate agents, who preferred to get their 7% commission on $250,000 than on $150,000, to the mortgage broker who also preferred to get that higher commission, and had nothing to lose, personally,if the home buyers couldn't keep up with the mortgage payment!, and the banks who didn't care whether or not the criteria used to qualify for the mortgage were not sound, because they already knew they would "package" the mortgage in a pool of mortgage, and sell it to investors, thus covering their losses!) was the real driver of this debacle.

That is not a bad business model persay, it is the ease in which they could package these things together and get an implicit government assurance against their failure that was the problem.

 

[Openmind]

Aka the government helped people buy houses who had no business buying a house. Certainly I can agree some of this blame falls with the private sector, but government sent them yet another clear message that no matter what happens, government will save you, by bailing out all of these banks that should have failed.



That is not a bad business model persay, it is the ease in which they could package these things together and get an implicit government assurance against their failure that was the problem.

You mean. . .selling crap in a velvet box to people is a good business model?

Okay, I'm given up on you. I really thought you had some fairness and ability to think rationally. . .if you do not see what is unethical about those practices. . .No wonder you are a 1%er!

I bet you didn't learn that "business ethic" from your grand father!

And, I'm sorry, I do not believe in the excuse "the devil made me do it!!!"

By the way, there was nothing wrong with trying to give a break to lower middle class people and get them into home ownership. What was wrong is the way private industry JUMPED on this to fool people who. . .unfortunately didn't have enough business sense and smarts to realize they were being given bad advice.

And yet. ..how do you explain the "wealthy" falling for it? How do you explain the multi million dollars mansions whose owners over spend to the point that THEY fell "under water?" (i.e., Johnny Carson's former side kick?).

 

[dogtowner]

And yet. ..how do you explain the "wealthy" falling for it? How do you explain the multi million dollars mansions whose owners over spend to the point that THEY fell "under water?" (i.e., Johnny Carson's former side kick?).

He didn't fall for anything.

 

[Openmind]

He didn't fall for anything.

Exactly. . .as a "famous, wealthy" person, he took advantage of the system. . .and he found plenty of wealthy fools to cover his tracks.

Now, why doesn't a hard working, lower middle class man get the same chance. . .to "lease" his home back from the bank (or a "wealthy" friend), instead of being forced into foreclosure?

 

[BigRob]

You mean. . .selling crap in a velvet box to people is a good business model?

No, I mean mitigating risk is a good business model.

Okay, I'm given up on you. I really thought you had some fairness and ability to think rationally. . .if you do not see what is unethical about those practices. . .No wonder you are a 1%er!

If a salesman sells you mud and call it gold, who is the bigger idiot...the guy who called mud gold, or the people who bought mud convinced it was gold?

I bet you didn't learn that "business ethic" from your grand father!

The business model of what? Mitigating risk?

And, I'm sorry, I do not believe in the excuse "the devil made me do it!!!"

Nor do I.

By the way, there was nothing wrong with trying to give a break to lower middle class people and get them into home ownership. What was wrong is the way private industry JUMPED on this to fool people who. . .unfortunately didn't have enough business sense and smarts to realize they were being given bad advice.

If someone cannot afford a house, they have no business buying one..period.

And yet. ..how do you explain the "wealthy" falling for it? How do you explain the multi million dollars mansions whose owners over spend to the point that THEY fell "under water?" (i.e., Johnny Carson's former side kick?).

That is the market at work..people make bad decision, they should have to pay for them...in the terms of banks however, the government has already told them they will never let them fail regardless, so why would a bank care about taking risks?

 

[dogtowner]

Exactly. . .as a "famous, wealthy" person, he took advantage of the system. . .and he found plenty of wealthy fools to cover his tracks.

Now, why doesn't a hard working, lower middle class man get the same chance. . .to "lease" his home back from the bank (or a "wealthy" friend), instead of being forced into foreclosure?

perhaps they should call Trump and make their case. Hey... sounds like a new reality show for the Donald !

but you missed the point apparently. Ed gamed his celebrity on a fawning lender then found his earning power gone (when Publishers Clearing House dumped him).

 

[Openmind]

No, I mean mitigating risk is a good business model.



If a salesman sells you mud and call it gold, who is the bigger idiot...the guy who called mud gold, or the people who bought mud convinced it was gold?



The business model of what? Mitigating risk?



Nor do I.



If someone cannot afford a house, they have no business buying one..period.



That is the market at work..people make bad decision, they should have to pay for them...in the terms of banks however, the government has already told them they will never let them fail regardless, so why would a bank care about taking risks?

I'm glad you were just talking about "mitigating risks," but they did a LOT more than that! We all know they purposely sold crap, knowing it was crap. They lied, and because of that, they took not just the US economy, but the world economy with them.

It may be "good business," if the only focus in GREED, it is horrible ethic and social conscience.

Then if people who cannot afford a house cannot buy one no matter what without risking to lose everything, wouldn't it be fair to either give as much "tax deduction" for the rent they pay than the "tax deduction" that the people with a mortgage get?

 

[dogtowner]

I'm glad you were just talking about "mitigating risks," but they did a LOT more than that! We all know they purposely sold crap, knowing it was crap. They lied, and because of that, they took not just the US economy, but the world economy with them.

It may be "good business," if the only focus in GREED, it is horrible ethic and social conscience.

Then if people who cannot afford a house cannot buy one no matter what without risking to lose everything, wouldn't it be fair to either give as much "tax deduction" for the rent they pay than the "tax deduction" that the people with a mortgage get?

they gave Congress and Frank Raines what they wanted, nay demanded.

 

[Openmind]

they gave Congress and Frank Raines what they wanted, nay demanded.

Could you possibly write in full sentences, so that your intent is clear?

I have no intention of "reading your mind," I'm afraid it would give me nightmares. . .so please explain yourself.

Who are "they" and what is "nay demanded?"

 

[dogtowner]

Could you possibly write in full sentences, so that your intent is clear?

I have no intention of "reading your mind," I'm afraid it would give me nightmares. . .so please explain yourself.

Who are "they" and what is "nay demanded?"

they are the evil mortgage originators and nay is an old form of "no".

 

[Openmind]

they are the evil mortgage originators and nay is an old form of "no".

I am aware that NAY means NO. . .but what does "no demanded" mean?

You make no sense!

 

[dogtowner]

I am aware that NAY means NO. . .but what does "no demanded" mean?

You make no sense!

How can I know your areas of ignorance ?

Start here

lenders were required to write mortgages where the applicant was not required to demonstrate income.

 

[Openmind]

How can I know your areas of ignorance ?

Start here

lenders were required to write mortgages where the applicant was not required to demonstrate income.

Thank you for pointing that Wikepedia article to me. . .very interesting how the repeal of the Glass-Seagall act affected the whole crisis. . .

There wa also this very interesting part under the "Fanny Mae. . ." paragraph:

Criticism for blaming Fannie and Freddie
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006 and the share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[44] Despite conservative criticism for government lending programs as the main cause of the crisis,[45][46][47][48] much of the crisis was independent of government home loan programs.

Very honest of you to point out the weak points of your arguments!

 

[dogtowner]

Thank you for pointing that Wikepedia article to me. . .very interesting how the repeal of the Glass-Seagall act affected the whole crisis. . .

There wa also this very interesting part under the "Fanny Mae. . ." paragraph:



Very honest of you to point out the weak points of your arguments!

You forget about the derivatives behind the crash ?