Glen Beck's a Douche!

macinnis

macinnis

Active Member
redivider said:
actually CJ, government DEREGULATION contributed to the financial meltdown. You have NO idea what you say. The sarbanes-oaxley act signed by Bush made companies take on riskier loans. Since the guys high up had to sign-off on financial statements, they created credit-default swaps, which made SHIT loans look like chocolate cake loans.

you say whatever you want.

I know for a FACT, you are a good marijuana grower, you are not too savyy with financials, money flows, OR legislation....
Click to expand...
And don't forget the brilliant, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the "financial services industry".


This is the DEREGULATION that led to "To Big to Fail" and the collapse of Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, AIG, ETC. I agree with Redivider; CJ, you have no clue what you're talking about. Go take a basic economics class and then come rejoin the discussion
 
macinnis

macinnis

Active Member
CrackerJax said:
I get them from the numbers. Numbers always give it away. Forget the words and finger pointing. Follow the numbers and the truth is revealed.

Most ppl don't either look or can't put the correct numbers into the correct relationship with each other. I can.

Who was the main contributor to the meltdown? Why the very ppl who now wish to save all of us..... from them. The Govt. that's who.

It's a farce.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to show us all these "so called numbers" because if they exist, they contradict EVERYTHING else I have seen. Produce them or you'll be just like Joseph Smith; only you can read the golden mormon tablets, and we just have to take your word. (dum, dum, dum, dum,...dum, dum, dum (South Park Reference))
 
D

dimension 2350

New Member
No politicians are for you or the public. They never have been never will be. They lie and will say whatever they need to get votes. JFK did it with the blacks. He did a lot to change stuff for them to get there vote nothing else. Think about it why would some rich bastard care about a middle class person that they dont know personally? The pundants Beck,Coulter,O'reily etc... They do it for the fame and the money. Why because were nosey humans that like to see downfalls of other people to feel good about our selves. The only way to stop this is to stop watching. As far as Obama being a racist could be true. His pastor also could of thought black people were gonna get whatever they wanted because Obama was black and went to his church. The only people that will know the question to that is Obama and those close to him.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
there was also another legislation passed just before bush left office that allowed financial institutions to switch from what type of operation they were running, which was illegal before. an unnamed bank used this new legislation to change it's status from bank, to bank holding company, in order to rearrange the balance sheet. the whole process was discussed in detail in a conference with said bank's vice president of operations in my college, in front of about 25 student and faculty members.
I was sitting there watching this guy say how this new law would allow them to take on more loans, and expand their operations.

a finance professor, a guy from india, with no political affiliation, questioned the move. At which point the PR guy and someone I believed to be an attorney swiftly jumped in, and tip toed around the actual question.

american greed at it's finest.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
doobnVA said:
No, it not always a person's choice to be in a dead end job. Trust me. I work 2 jobs, go to school full time, and take care of 2 kids. I'm lucky I have a fiancee with a decent job who can pay the bulk of the bills, or I'd be stuck in a dead end job getting NO education and completely unable to do ANYTHING other than keep working and scraping by like I've done for YEARS on my own.[/COLOR]

Not everyone has the means and the opportunity to pursue a higher education. If you're working 60-70 hour weeks just to keep a roof over your head and food on the table, chances are you aren't going to have the TIME or MONEY to devote to furthering your education. Not to mention there are people who haven't even graduated from high school because their families were so poor they had to drop out and get a job so they didn't lose their home or starve, or to take care of younger siblings so their parents could work.

I'm going to graduate from college with close to $10,000 in debt, and that's actually pretty low compared to the national average. If college were more affordable, I'm sure more people would choose to attend. As it stands, it's hard to find a job even with a college degree and many people just don't see the benefit.

The middle class is dying. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. If that isn't a caste system, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...


What you've exhibited in the above statements is what Zig Ziglar would call "Stinkin' Thinkin' ..." Zig would say that you need a "check up, from the neck up." :lol:

A negative attitude is a terrible thing to be in possession of, and unless YOU decide to change that attitude, you will live a narrow, darkened little life.

Honestly and sincerely, order the Earl Nightengale tapes. You'll be glad you did ... and so will your family.

Take care ...
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
macinnis said:
And don't forget the brilliant, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and/or an insurance company. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the "financial services industry".


This is the DEREGULATION that led to "To Big to Fail" and the collapse of Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, AIG, ETC. I agree with Redivider; CJ, you have no clue what you're talking about. Go take a basic economics class and then come rejoin the discussion
Click to expand...
You are partially right. While those mergers may have pulled more companies into the mix, the single largest cause of the meltdown was the changes Clinton made to the CRA which REQUIRED banks to write risky sub-prime loans. As banks realized they were holding bad paper they lumped the bad loans with good ones and sold them as prime loans.

That's what happens when Government gets involved with private industry. had banks not been REQUIRED to write these loans the whole meltdown would never have happened and we would all be doing fine.
 
macinnis

macinnis

Active Member
RickWhite said:
You are partially right. While those mergers may have pulled more companies into the mix, the single largest cause of the meltdown was the changes Clinton made to the CRA which REQUIRED banks to write risky sub-prime loans. As banks realized they were holding bad paper they lumped the bad loans with good ones and sold them as prime loans.

That's what happens when Government gets involved with private industry. had banks not been REQUIRED to write these loans the whole meltdown would never have happened and we would all be doing fine.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with those provisions. Where would I find them? I would like to look it up, but am not having much luck
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
macinnis said:
You're going to have to show us all these "so called numbers" because if they exist, they contradict EVERYTHING else I have seen. Produce them or you'll be just like Joseph Smith; only you can read the golden mormon tablets, and we just have to take your word. (dum, dum, dum, dum,...dum, dum, dum (South Park Reference))
Click to expand...

You've got to get better sources then... yours stink.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Even the nation's top economists are pointing the finger at Fannie Mae:

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

It wasn't deregulation that caused this mess, it was government interference.

Have you heard of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000? The CFMA exempted certain derivatives from existing state and federal regulation. Why was the exemption needed? The short answer is that both federal and state law banned many useful financial transactions. The problem wasn’t regulation, it was prohibition, which is over regulation to the EXTREME.

 Now over a century old, the state laws, and a federal statute past 70 were reactions to prior market crises. But the over-breadth and inflexibility of the laws proved too constraining for a modern economy. Because laws and regulations are notoriously difficult to change, financial firms found a way around them. Inflexible regulations ultimately backfired. Rather than limiting risk, the overly-strict regulations magnified it by forcing non-compliant activity out of the regulated sphere. Since the activity made economic sense, private parties found ways to conduct it, but without the transparency and stability that a sound regulatory scheme can provide.
The clear lesson is that, in the wake of a market crisis, over-regulation can be more dangerous than under-regulation. Not only will over-regulation tend to slow economic recovery, it may even sow the seeds of a subsequent crisis.

================================================

Like I said.... you need better sources
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
The housing crises is the result of unintended consequences of the "Do Gooders" of the Progressive Movement. CSA was the start. ACORN started threatening the banks to give sub-prime mortgages. The capitalists jumped right in as soon as they saw the opportunity to make money off of the deal. Fannie and Freddie started guaranteing the loans. The Bush Administration tried to put the brakes on Fannie and Freddie, but the DEMOCRATS in congress; Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and B. H. OBAMA refused to supply the oversight. So now, Mr. and Mrs. America has to pick up the bill.

And again ... the T.E.A. Parties are NOT about Republicans and Democrats ... they are about being fed up with corruption, arrogance and lack of credibility in government as stated above.
 
macinnis

macinnis

Active Member
We all agree, subprime loans were horrible. The government should have regulated, so they weren't allowed.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
The push was from the Govt., not the private sector.

It was Congress who were the eager beavers. One of the very reasons why govt. should never become overseers of business. They ignore business models. They use political ones, and it always costs us. The larger the govt. involvement, the greater the damage and cost.

This is the primary reason for Obama having a steady patterned drop in popularity. At least with the sort of ppl who understand what's really going on.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
actually, the problem isn't the sub-prime loans.

the problem was that junk loans were getting "bundled" with AAA securities and sold off.

this happened because corporations had to begin disclosing their risk levels , and the top management had to sign off on the financial statements after the ENRON scandal...

this led the creative minds in wall street to create new investment products that looked good, but were really junk....

either way,

check this article out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_wasted_aid_to_pakistan

what do you think about this? i think it's fucked up....
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
It was the govt. which allowed the bundling.... encouraged it.... guaranteed it.

Again, why the govt. has no role in business. It only messes things up.

It was set up for failure. By the government.
 
I

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
I think these banks knew what the score was.
I bet the Fed told them secretly "We got your back."
No way these guys didn't know what they were doing.
Then again maybe I'm giving the intellegencia to much credit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top