No bank was ever "forced" to make a loan to anyone without the means to pay it back, not will they be. The banks brought this crisis on themselves.
Not only that but they brought it on themselves before the start of 2009. There is a massive effort to blame the guy who is trying to fix this problem, but the fact is that all of this damage was done prior to Jan 20, 2009, and claiming otherwise won't change it. (See also Weapons of Mass Destruction, oil revenue will pay for Iraq war, Iraqis will welcome us as liberators, among many other whoppers from the same source)
Yeah, that stuff your spouting? It is complete bullshit and lies. Bill Clinton has made public statements saying the mortgage problems are his and the Democrats fault. He even said how the Democratic actions caused it instead of what they were hoping would happen. The video was even posted on this website. Gramps, if you really want to support Obama, you should shut up, because you are undercutting MacThulu's legitimate arguments in another pathetic attempt to blame all the world's ills on Bush.
At the risk of repeating myself...
Business wasn't "forced" to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. That whole argument is a right-wing fabrication that too many people are swallowing. Here's what got us into this mess:
1) Professional misconduct. Any licensed salesperson of financial products, such as a mortgage or stockbroker, is required to represent EXCLUSIVELY the interests of the purchaser. You are also the ONLY person directly involved in the transaction with this responsibility, the purchaser bears NO responsibility. That means that no consideration of self or employer is allowed when guiding people toward the acquisition of a mortgage or other financial instrument. How do I know? Because I have a Series 7 and Series 63 license. How was this violated? Because, when a client came in, the broker would calculate the maximum payment that the person cold afford and then put them into an inappropriate product such as an ARM. Why? Because the commissions are higher. When the client would ask about the propriety of the product, they would be told, "Don't worry, if rates start going up we will refinance and lock in a lower rate later." This wasn't true because ARMs damage your credit rating making refinancing at a low market rate almost impossible. The brokers knew full well that they refi would never go through and that a 30 year fixed was the appropriate product, but they didn't care.
2) Corporate malfeasance. You might wonder why the corporate bosses let this slide, given that it was their money at stake. Simply put, the planned to sell the "toxic" securities to the government, knowing that any upward rate movement would quickly lead to widespread defaults by those trapped in ARMs. This is where the socialization of losses comes into play.
3) Overestimation of government resources and underestimation of greed. In short, the corporate world didn't realize how many ARMs were being moved so they wrote far more than the government backed entities could take on.
Simple, no?
So groups like ACORN were not threating to sue banks for not giving loans to people who could not normally quality since they don't make enough money? I would sell them ARM mortgages, since the possibility of them keeping up with the mortgage was slim. The client could have said no and looked elsewhere.... The Government helped create the mess, so why should they not pick up the tab? The Democrats fought to keep the program going even if Freddy Mae and Fannie Mac were going to explode due to lies and back management even when the watch dog attempted to warn Congress.
At the risk of repeating myself...
Harmful Lending Mandates from Congress: The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), originally passed in 1977 and revised in the 1990s, requires banks to 1Cmeet the needs 1D of all types of borrowers in their communities. It was originally meant to combat racial discrimination, but quickly turned into a vehicle for the 1C affordable housing 1D goals of many in Congress. In plain English, that means that the federal government effectively strong-arms banks to extend loans to low- and moderate-income individuals, some of whom are unable to repay them.
Obama thinks the way out of this mess is to encourage the same lending practices that got us here.
Any licensed salesperson of financial products, such as a mortgage or stockbroker, is required to represent EXCLUSIVELY the interests of the purchaser. You are also the ONLY person directly involved in the transaction with this responsibility, the purchaser bears NO responsibility.
OK, I would really like to know what you are smoking, because that is simply not true. A person working at a banking handling mortgages has two parties to represent, the purchaser and the bank. Both parties need to be mutual benefited by the loan, and that is why there are things like credit scores to determine who and how much money to loan. Since the person working at the bank gets his or her paychecks signed by the bank, clearly they are going to do what the bank asks. In this case, the bank clearly authorized the loan, so the banks do hold some responsibility to what happened.
However, purchasers also know (or should know) their own finances intimately, as well as how to do basic math to determine what their loan rates will be over time (and when to refinance). The banks are not required to inform purchasers that it would be better to refinance (indeed, it is bad business for them to do so). That is the job of a financial planner. So the purchasers who did not figure out what they were getting into are also responsible.
2. Corporate malfeasance. You might wonder why the corporate bosses let this slide, given that it was their money at stake. Simply put, the planned to sell the "toxic" securities to the government, knowing that any upward rate movement would quickly lead to widespread defaults by those trapped in ARMs. This is where the socialization of losses comes into play.
3. Overestimation of government resources and underestimation of greed. In short, the corporate world didn't realize how many ARMs were being moved so they wrote far more than the government backed entities could take on.
Do you have any proof of this, or is this just more lies pulled out of your ass?
Simple, no?
No, actually, its not simple. What you've just describe is a nation-wide banking conspiracy. A massive number of people would have to be in on what your describing to pull it off, without any hint ever getting back to the government. Plus, you are missing one other responsible party. The government, by way of civil rights activist groups, put incentives in place to persuade banks to make riskier loans. The incentives should have been kept by banks to offset the losses from loans that would not be paid back, but of course what actually happened is the higher ups took and pocketed the money, then when the inevitable happened, they ran crying to mommy (i.e. the government).
It's not simple, and any claim that it is clearly is missing something. In this case, MacThulu is simple trying to hide two of the parties responsible for this, probably because his political party has claimed the "other guy" is responsible and he can't be bothered to think for himself. Economics is large and highly complex, and it wouldn't surprise me if I have missed a responsible party or two (it is even possible to say the public at large is also partially responsible, because they didn't reign in the government making these bad incentives). The best we can do now is to try to learn from history, and clean up this mess.
So, there were no credit checks involved? Seriously, there was NEVER a requirement for anyone to lend money to someone who didn't have means to pay it back. The laws you are referring to simply required banks to open branches in areas where they had previously operated payday loan scams instead of legitimate banking.
Sorry, but I've worked in the business and I know when people are talking out of their asses. Go read up.
The only thing the government created was an opportunity for sleezy moneylenders to loot the treasury. Why the bankers are not being held to the same level of professional liability as other professionals is beyond me, but they DO have responsibilities, hence the licensing regimen.
Oh really? Well, do you have anything specific to refute my comments, or are you engaging more logical fallacies (attacking the messenger, not the message) to suggest I don't know what I'm talking about, so you can cover the fact that you don't have any decent refutation of my statements? You don't even have any reply to the fact that Bill Clinton clearly said on a nationally televised interview that democratic economic policies that were put into place by Congress during his term as President led to the current mortgage problems. You have yet to refute a single statement I have made, so the only person spewing shit around here is you.
It's all a matter of public record. The pressure to make bad loans was there. And it was applied by your government. This free-for-all didn't just happen by accident.
lololololololol
AND, last night on the news, apparently CNN Headline News found it very news worthy, to report on how you, and I, and everyone can have 'sleek sexy arms like Michelle Obama.'
Give me a fucking break.
I love how the media is literally throat f-ing us with these 2 morons.
steamed
Now credit unions can become government dependents and there will be nowhere your selfish money is safe you greedy people who are rich enough to live under your means and save for the future.