Rule No. 1: The banksters win … always

The banks did this because there are too many regulations placed on them..

• Link
• Report this comment

An assessment of the loans in one security revealed that 24 percent of the sample was “materially defective,” the filings show. After exercising override power, a JPMorgan employee sent a report in May 2006 to a ratings agency that showed only 5.3 percent of the mortgages were defective.

Wow!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Given the size of Mr. Harvey’s audience, was he considered, ‘Mainstream?’

I enjoyed the ad during the SB, but was disappointed that it was for a Dodge Truck…I am a Ford man…

• Link
• Report this comment

A spot on worthy parody if there ever was one; our conned friends seem to think there is still too much regulation as they line up to the banksters and say, “thank you sir, may I have another”…

• Link
• Report this comment

and nothing has been done about it and the current prosecution
has little chance of success.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The banks did this because there are too many regulations placed on them..”

Very true. All of those regulations made it impossible to self-regulate.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Please Mr Banker, all that money I have in Savings and Retirement is just sitting there, pleae take it off my hands, purty please”

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog

There will surely be more talk than action.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you or I agreed to launder money for Mexican drug cartels how do you think that would end?

I bet they wouldn’t just slap us with a fine in an amount that we can earn back in 21 days of work. I’m thinking it might be bigger than that and might also involve some time staring at cinder blocks and iron bars and wishing I could once again look upon the tight black sweater worn this very morning by one come-hitherish television newscaster.

• Link
• Report this comment

E-mails! Who woulda ever thought that Wall Street needed a cone of silence around each one of them. Or maybe a self-destruct feature.

• Link
• Report this comment

I guess I should just let that image go…..or call the wife and ask her to tape the entire 4 hour broadcast?

Nah, that might not go over too well.

• Link
• Report this comment

I thought the Dodge ad was awful in several ways. http://ruralandprogressive.org/no-dodging-women/

• Link
• Report this comment

So what kind of creature was God envisaging when he created Timothy Geithner? Ben Bernanke?

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY

Too bad that money was used to influence that crap Dodd-Frank bill to welcome all too-big-to-fail banks and the like. Goldman may be worse that Morgan. Both were selling this knowing the higher risk tranches were already deteriorating. Then the other side of the house was betting against the same bundles they sold to clients and insured by AIG at 2% value based on S&P or Moody’s rating. The sellers made the packages so onerous that is made it near physically impossible to evaluate properly.

The Dodd Frank bill did zero to prevent the need to bail out more too big to fail entities. The could set a grand example by figuring out a means to bust up Goldman who is in tighter than a leech with BO, Bush, and any and all politicians..

• Link
• Report this comment

Spot on regarding Bankers. Here’s another one, a certain Bank in South Georgia fails , resulting in a $200+ million loss to the Fed and US Taxpayer….and the Officers and Board Members walk away, and keep living their fancy lives “without recourse”

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, the banks wouldn’t need to pull these hijinks if there wasn’t so many regulations. We need to turn them loose till the banking industry looks like the Wild, Wild West. These days you can’t even get fleeced halfway decent when you go to the bank. We try and do it right here in GA but then the Feds nose their way in and shut the banks down. There’s at least 20 banks run by good old boys that would still be in business if it wasn’t for this danged over-regulation.

Turn them loose. Turn them loose, I say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdaZ7N-W9vw

Have a good Friday everybody. I sure hope Bookman don’t give us another bunch of weirdos I never heard of to lead off FNM tonight.

• Link
• Report this comment

frog, a quick look at homepath.com indicates that the program is selling REO homes which have already been foreclosed. That being the case, there is no mortgage to payoff. The foreclosing lender would have credit bid at the foreclosure sale. Perhaps your understanding of the program is incorrect?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Rule No. 1: The banksters win … always”

Rule No. 2: Congress sets the rules

Rule No. 3: The Supreme Court upholds those rules

Rule No. 4: Jay ignores rules No. 2 & 3

Jay:

Did you forget that Congress forced banks all over the country to issue these idiotic loans ?

How about a thread on that ?

• Link
• Report this comment

There’s as much chance of real political choice, real change and reform, in this system as there is in a Stalinist one-party state.

Any other questions for the комиссар ?

• Link
• Report this comment

ATL Tiger — “Also, these provisions were strengthened during the Clinton administration, enforcing a federal law that MANDATES lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. In other words, the Community Reinvestment Act encourages banks and thrifts to make loans to riskier customers.”

BULLSPIT.

Over 80% of the subprime mortgage loans written prior to 2008 were written by lenders who were NOT EVEN SUBJECT to the CRA.

I swear, I have to debunk that garbage every freakin’ time we start talking about the mortgage meltdown.

• Link
• Report this comment

And no one goes to jail.

• Link
• Report this comment

REDNECK…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2KnIn5q_Qo

• Link
• Report this comment

0311 — “Jay: Did you forget that Congress forced banks all over the country to issue these idiotic loans ?”

Can’t forget something that never happened, Champ.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up
The foreclosure bid by the bank is what is owed on the
mortgage.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ivan

February 8th, 2013
9:42 am

And how many of those in the Senate/House were re-elected? I have voted against every associated one involved that I can ever since, regardless of party affiliation.

And Jay, I also remember your articles in the past during the bailout period were borderline “The entire Nation will die and the world will cease to exist if we don’t do it.”

So why whine about it now?
———————————————————–
.
Spot on.
As per Bookman…………………TARP was “wildly” successful.
.
.
lol

• Link
• Report this comment

ATL Tiger: Also, these provisions were strengthened during the Clinton administration, enforcing a federal law that MANDATES lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. In other words, the Community Reinvestment Act encourages banks and thrifts to make loans to riskier customers.

Actually, those regulations do not apply to most banks and lenders that were responsible for the housing bubble. In fact, here is just a small taste of the info that blows this entire theory apart:
——-
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

“Commentators say [a government push to make housing more affordable to Americans of more modest means is] what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They’ve specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial problems.

“Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

“Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

“Federal Reserve Board data show that:

-More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
-Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
-Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.”

• Link
• Report this comment

But, But, But…….. they are the job creators/producers. It’s those minorities and low life people and foreigners who are the problems remember.

• Link
• Report this comment

Regarding the Dodge commercial. What they failed to show was a single minority farmer. NPR reported on Tuesday that Hispanics account for 50% of the workers on those farms.

As many in the Twitterverse noted, it extolled an antiquated vision of American farm life that featured almost no Hispanics — though the latter made up nearly half of all hired farmworkers in 2010, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.And its focus on family farms struck some viewers as being out of sync with the realities of the modern American food system, which is dominated by industrial agriculture.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/02/04/171056911/-god-made-a-farmer-and-the-super-bowl-made-him-a-star

• Link
• Report this comment

The cons insist on Jay adding yet another topic to his Myth Busters collection–”The CRA and the bankrupted Republicans left in its wake.” Or something like that. Funny how cons can always follow Fox’s lead and throw out that bumper sticker comment but can never provide evidence to support their fantasy.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think the truck they showed was made in Mexico too.
OO

• Link
• Report this comment

My father was a mortgage banker who retired in the early 90’s, and my brother-in-law has been working for Fannie Mae about 25 years. Its interesting listening to them talk about how FEDERAL REGULATIONS CAUSED BANKS TO WRITE THESE FLAWED LOANS…really giving them no choice but to do so. Now of course, Bookman’s a devoted Leftist…which means, he’s going to omit anything in context or back story that demolishes his premise (you’ll never approach the full truth listening to a liberal). But, fact is…Jay’s only jibber-jabbering part of the story. It was interesting that ABC (of all outlets) did a decent job post-mortgage crisis of presenting a series on what really caused the meltdown. Part of that, exposed an element you’ll never get Jay to admit (it confronts his class resentment wiring, his head would explode!). It depicted the people who knowing full well that their poverty was getting them a pass in the HUD “No Doc” category, and without having to make down payments….they were able to lie on applications and buy all kinds of property (many flipping it fairly quickly). Again, my relative at Fannie Mae tells stories of the countless times they had to approve loans for PEOPLE ON WELFARE (the government considers having “stable income”), for quarter $million + homes. Fannie Mae estimates that if prosecuted for fraud by lying on loan applications [and again, receiving grace from documentation due to HUD rules]…there would be around 4 million people you’d have to put in prison. Doesn’t jibe with Bookman’s “the poor are always victim saints” theory does it! Well…again….you want a bitter case based upon a partial presentation of only selective facts…specifically shaped to demonize one group while exonerating his empathy class…count on Jay.

Hey Jay, why not for once hit your precious Welfare class and do a column of how they’re buying pre-paid credit cards so the Obamadministration can do a direct deposit…allowing the poor to circumvent the restrictions on using Welfare/Food Stamps to buy liquor and cigarettes…or how many are using the pre-paid cards to buy illegal drugs from dealers who now have smart phone card readers? NOPE, never happen…because Bookmanism states that the poor are always good people. Well, been around too many of ‘em to swallow your idealism!

• Link
• Report this comment

There are millions and millions of honest, hard working Americans who paid their taxes, played by the rules and did absolutely nothing wrong. Except that they thought that in this post Reagan nation the super-wealthy and powerful would also be held accountable to the rule of law. And would behave as Christian, ethical men of vision and decency. Who would actually put the nation before their own self-interests and wallets.

But greed is good. No, that was a slogan from the 80s. By the Bush years it had become greed is god.

So for you trickle downers, enjoy your working poverty. And hope your kids can keep their heads above water.

Long Live the Plutocracy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Zombies are an obamination to the real God.
(hence proof that Obama and Clinton are false ones).
.
lol

• Link
• Report this comment

The foreclosure bid by the bank is what is owed on the mortgage.

No frog. You are confused. When a property goes into foreclosure, the lender determines, often by appraisal, a FMV for the property. Generally a bank will bid only up to a % of FMV. It credit bids up to the entire loan amount. In GA, if any deficiency is confirmed, it may go after the borrowers. Again, a foreclosure eliminates the lien on the property.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thogwummpy — ” Its interesting listening to them talk about how FEDERAL REGULATIONS CAUSED BANKS TO WRITE THESE FLAWED LOANS…really giving them no choice but to do so.”

Bullspit.

Show me a SINGLE instance of any senior officer of any major bank going on camera prior to 2008 and complaining about being “forced” to make those loans. Go ahead, find me one. I’ll be right here when you’re ready to post it.

That said, I won’t hold my breath waiting for it, because you’re not going to *find* any.

• Link
• Report this comment

Meanwhile, as we sit here and grumble, the gravy train rolls on.

Penny Pritzker, Longtime Obama Fundraiser, May Finally Get Her Cabinet Position

[..] Now, it looks like Pritzker might get her commerce gig after all. Bloomberg News quotes three anonymous sources saying Obama could soon name Pritzker as his new commerce secretary. A president naming one of his top fundraisers to a cabinet position is not uncommon in Washington; fundraisers and donors are often rewarded with ambassadorships—or, in a few cases, cabinet jobs. This is how a winning presidential candidate thanks his biggest supporters. Indeed, folks who fundraise for a presidential campaign often go into the process eyeing a plush gig on the other side—if their candidate wins, of course. “You always have people that are interested in what’s next for them” in political fundraising, a former senior Obama campaign staffer says.

None of this is to say Pritzker lacks the qualifications for the job. She has years of experience in the private sector, having run a real estate company and served on the boards of Hyatt, the credit-reporting company TransUnion, and the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. That business experience, though, has caused her problems in the political world. Her family partially owned a bank that was ensnared in the subprime mortgage debacle, a blemish on her resume that hurt her chances of securing the commerce secretary job after the 2008 campaign.
[....]

• Link
• Report this comment

CRA again?

Good Lord.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Over 80% of the subprime mortgage loans written prior to 2008 were written by lenders who were NOT EVEN SUBJECT to the CRA.”

Ok, but didn’t the big commercial banks end up buying those loans? Weren’t those banks subject to CRA? Isn’t this article about ‘banksters’ making off with profits and not the independent lenders?

• Link
• Report this comment

The bottom line is that the Community Reinvestment Act forced loans for individuals with little or no ability to pay them back.

CLASSIC liberal emotion over conservative reason ………. and look what happened.

Anyone who can’t see that is from another planet.

“Other players—greedy investment bankers; incompetent rating agencies; irresponsible housing speculators; shortsighted homeowners; and predatory mortgage brokers, lenders, and borrowers—all played a part, but they were only following the economic incentives that government policy laid out for them.”

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan

• Link
• Report this comment

GG — “CRA again? Good Lord.”

Yep.

Never mind the fact that the first mortage pools to start going bad were the ones where the homebuyers had credit scores in the 680-730 range; the cons all think it was those damned lying poor people who screwed it all up for everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

Morality @ 9:58

“Bonnie Fwank and the Dem Congress threatened the banks to loan to unqualified clients or else. The gub’ment PUSHED their agenda down the throats of the banks and the banks that did not go along were threatened with lawsuits. That’s a fact.”

Thank you !

• Link
• Report this comment

And don’t forget LIBOR. Another group of crooks. And just think – the Dixie crowd wanted to put Romney in power. LOL!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Bonnie Fwank and the Dem Congress threatened the banks to loan to unqualified clients or else”

Dems controlled Congress during the height of the bubble?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay: “TARP was absolutely necessary.”

Sure, it was necessary. Necessary to rescue the US empire from a likely mortal crisis, outright collapse, with the toppling of the hegemony of the dollar-denominated world financial system and and US military hegemony that’s perched on top of it.

But was it really necessary in the fullest sense? I have my doubts.

Not that the social collapse that would have ensued is anything to take lightly — there is almost no question that we would have seen a full replay of Weimar right here in 2008 and thereafter, which would have put the nation in free-fall much the way Greece is today, with fascism standing a great chance of coming out on top.

But that might eventually come anyway. So it can’t really be said that by dodging catastrophe then that we have dodged it permanently.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bankers and lenders are greedy by nature. I know a few and they are among the stingiest, greediest people, I have ever run across. They also have lots of money.
So, when our government prompted them to make loans they knew were no good, heck yes they tried to dump them as soon as they could! They knew the people could make the payments for a while, at least until the “new” wore off of that shiny home. They also knew from prior history when the buyer would start to have these problems, as their income did not qualify them for that loan in the first place. That’s when they sold them. Right when the payment struggles were starting.
You see, you can’t make an $1800 a month mortgage payment when your income is $3500 a month. No way that will work for very long. These guys knew when to bail. Can’t blame em, really.

• Link
• Report this comment

“IN 1992, AN AFFORDABLE housing mission was added to the charters of Fannie and Freddie, which—like the CRA—permitted Congress to subsidize LMI housing without appropriating any funds. A 1997 Urban Institute report found that local and regional lenders seemed more willing than the GSEs to serve creditworthy low- to moderate-income and minority applicants. After this, Fannie and Freddie modified their automated underwriting systems to accept loans with characteristics that they had previously rejected. This opened the way for large numbers of nontraditional and sub-prime mortgages. These did not necessarily come from traditional banks, lending under the CRA, but from lenders like Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest sub-prime and nontraditional mortgage lender and a firm that would become infamous for consistently pushing the envelope on acceptable underwriting standards.

Fannie and Freddie used their affordable housing mission to avoid additional regulation by Congress, especially restrictions on the accumulation of mortgage portfolios (today totaling approximately $1.6 trillion) that accounted for most of their profits. The GSEs argued that if Congress constrained the size of their mortgage portfolios, they could not afford to adequately subsidize affordable housing. By 1997, Fannie was offering a 97 percent loan-to-value mortgage. By 2001, it was offering mortgages with no down payment at all. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie were required to show that 55 percent of their mortgage purchases were LMI loans and, within that goal, 38 percent of all purchases were to come from underserved areas (usually inner cities) and 25 percent were to be loans to low-income and very-low-income borrowers. Meeting these goals almost certainly required Fannie and Freddie to purchase loans with low down payments and other deficiencies that would mark them as sub-prime or Alt-A.”
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan

• Link
• Report this comment

alittlecommonsense
February 8th, 2013
9:33 am

…or do you want to take it to another level…….

God said, “I need someone who will take money from people who work, save, and invest and give it to someone who rips them off and gets richer…and brags about it”. So God made a Republican.”

You DO see that, don’t you??

• Link
• Report this comment

Frog, again deed in lieu of foreclosure is the equivalent of foreclosure. And deed in lieu wipes out the security deed BY LAW. How you bought your home does not prove your claims about how Fannie would have allegedly paid BOA the full amount of the prior outstanding loan. Again, you have gotten the facts confused. Also, BOA could have been the servicer but not the owner/investor.

Your “?” shows that you don’t have the facts to support your original assertion: the Fannie Mae
Homepath program which are then sold for about 1/3 of the mortgage amount but the bank mortgage is paid in full by Fannie Mae

Get the facts and a comprehension of the legal documentation correct. So far you have moved the goal posts all over the field.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up
Any property sold for less than what is owed on it
means someone takes a loss on it and that loss is
shared by taxpayers through income tax deductions
unless the loser is a government entity. How big a
share of that loss the taxpayer absorbs is the question.

• Link
• Report this comment

ATL Tiger — “Ok, but didn’t the big commercial banks end up buying those loans?”

They ended up buying securitized tranches of *pooled* loans, yes.

“Weren’t those banks subject to CRA?”

Yes, but that’s irrelevant. You clearly don’t understand the difference between a mortgage loan and a Securitized Debt Obligation.

Investment banks bought up mortgages of all sorts (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did this too) and ‘pooled’ them. The pools were then broken up into ‘tranches’ of similar-quality loans and sliced up into shares. Those shares were then sold as securities. Rating agencies like S&P and Moody’s rated the *tranches* but not the underlying mortgages. And since the rating agencies’ business model relies on being paid by the people they are rating, they gave undeserved high ratings to many pools that didn’t deserve it.

All this is factual, and there’s no legal dispute involving any of it.

Ergo, a bank that’s subject to the CRA could buy securities *containing* mortgages of a type it couldn’t write.

“Isn’t this article about ‘banksters’ making off with profits and not the independent lenders?”

Once the lenders (that weren’t subject to the CRA) sold off their mortgages to investment bankers, they were done. The bankster part comes from the misrepresentation of mortgage pools being high-quality investments when they were nothing of the sort. And, FWIW, there’s documentary evidence that many banksters *knew* exactly what they were doing and, in some cases, staked out investment positions calculated to take advantage of the failure of the very instruments they were trying to sell their customers.

• Link
• Report this comment

0311 — “The bottom line is that the Community Reinvestment Act forced loans for individuals with little or no ability to pay them back.”

Lie.

• Link
• Report this comment

as Heyward Jr

February 8th, 2013
10:08 am

Free-market trickle downing benefits a helluva lot more people than Government-controlled trickle upping.
.
.
.
Piffle

• Link
• Report this comment

keith

February 8th, 2013
10:13 am

Remember bookman loves him some liberal leadership. they are such proven leaders in Chicago, the communist in chiefs own hometown, that they have decided not to respond to all 911 calls. this is the same bastion of brilliance that has had gun bans for decades. it took the NRA to kick they liberals butts on that. in fact chicago had to write the NRA a big fat check when they lost.
.
.
.
.
Hot mess alert.

• Link
• Report this comment

Free-market trickle downing benefits a helluva lot more people…

“Free” market???

Riiiiiight!

These white collar criminals cannot even run a business half way decently without constantly going to Uncle Sugar for handouts and bailouts and subsidies and tax shelters and legally stealing money from people.

THESE are your models of business excellence? THESE are your heroes of capitalism?

Take a good look around at your trickle down handiwork, Reaganistas.

Fortunately Republican fascism in lieu of American capitalism is on it’s way out…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Bonnie Fwank right there on C-Span threatened the banks with a gub’ment lawsuit if they did not lend to the “every day man” aka broke Dem Voters.”

I hope some just lie on blogs and not as a habit.

At least you put a question mark behind “Morality”

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up
Guess you are right the banks and Fannie Mae are just doing
this to aid one homeowner while they boink another. Good Bankster
and Fannie Mae. There is no transparency in these transactions
is my point. The assumption would be that the bank would receive
payment in full for its mortgage from Fannie Mae or it would sell
the house itself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus™

February 8th, 2013
10:10 am

Seems to me that would be akin to deciding not to take advantage of IRS legal loopholes to mininimze tax liabilities. IMO, there were too many variables by too many contributors and some simple market forces to lay blame effectively. The lowered downpayment government deals contributed. The Wall Street banks playing both sides of the fence and criminally selling while betting against….criminal in my mind anyhow. I think most of the blame rests with rating agencies. Oddly, I think AIG was somewhat of a scapegoat by trusting rating agencies to evaluate risk and rate for insuring these packages. Of course, the policy conditions of AIG’s (and others) allowed for collection in the event of a single default…Meanwhile, Frannie and Freddie decided to compete with private markets and assumed shady loans, some of which were high risk due to low down payments pushed by that Homes For All My Friends legislation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Has any Exec from AIG, Goldman, Lehman (RIP), Merrill, JPM, etc…EVER testified they were forced to make bad loans?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, ever hear Woody Guthrie’s “Pretty Boy Floyd”? I best remember the rendition done by folksinger Joan Baez, but others did it as well (like Woody Guthrie). Anyway, here’s the last two verses of a truly great song:

Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered
I’ve seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.

And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won’t never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.

Jay, somehow these just seemed fitting here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InWqYjQwrvU

• Link
• Report this comment

No government rule has ever been written that tells bankers they have to lend to subprime/icapable/troublesome/risky borrowers.

Never. How idiotic would a rule like that be? Think it through, people.

• Link
• Report this comment

anyone remember barney frank telling us that Fannie Mae was just fine financially? the gop tried to tell us that simply was not the case. history has proven the little liberal poster boy was full of crap. but then what liberal isnt full of crap?

• Link
• Report this comment

That was back in the day when the Oakland Raiders mattered. It’s been a long 28 years for Oakland fans.

• Link
• Report this comment

TBS @ 10:13

My point exactly!!

—————————

Stevie Ray @ 10:20

Seems to me that would be akin to deciding not to take advantage of IRS legal loopholes to mininimze tax liabilities.

Well, seems to me that if one cries about what the government MADE them do against their will, they wouldn’t want ill gotten gains in their bank account, right? That’s like the Madoffs complaining about what Bernie did while going on a shopping spree in Paris.

• Link
• Report this comment

The bankster coddlers and their insane hatred for the good Americans who started standing up to the criminals on Wall Street definitely cost them in this past election.

BIG time.

Their reaction was beyond disgusting and the soft-on-crime, corporations before people, GOP is now paying the price.

By 2016, the GOP will officially be a whites-only, rural only party of yesteryear that will be for all intents and purposes drownable in a bathtub.

Occupy that.

• Link
• Report this comment

keith:

“just because some liberal loon states a FACT is a lie doesnt not change thats its a FACT. It merely means the liberal loon is also an ignorant fool.”

Thank you ………… but go easy on our liberal friends (Mama, Granny, et al).

They are obviously having a bad day and when they want to ignore the facts/history, etc. they just bring out the name calling and hit their computer keys harder (they can’t yell on here so they do that instead).

The bottom, BOTTOM line is always the same.

Liberal emotion vs. conservative reason.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yea, I remember…it was about the same time McCain and his Chief Financial Adviser were saying we were only having a ‘Mental recession’…

• Link
• Report this comment

liberal induced COMA that is.

• Link
• Report this comment

‘Liberal emotion vs. conservative reason.’

Can you name me the Big Bank Execs that testified they were forced to make bad loans?

Otherwise…you lose…

• Link
• Report this comment

LHU — “Has any Exec from AIG, Goldman, Lehman (RIP), Merrill, JPM, etc…EVER testified they were forced to make bad loans?”

Nope. And you won’t find any of them on camera prior to 2008 making that claim, either.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up
Thanks for explaining that taxpayers only share in business
losses charged against profits but the income is reduced by
the losses thus reducing the profits.

• Link
• Report this comment

There is no transparency in these transactions
is my point. The assumption would be that the bank would receive
payment in full for its mortgage from Fannie Mae or it would sell
the house itself.

No transparency? Right. security deeds and other deeds are all public records and available online. I can in minutes trace the ownership history of your home as well as all title encumbrances.

I am sorry you made a claim that you cannot back but now to just go into some absurd rant and an unsupported assumption is just silly on your part.

Now if you are trying to claim that BOA defrauded Fannie Mae when it sold it the loan originally (moving the goalposts to an entirely new field), that is an entirely different issue unrelated to Homepath

• Link
• Report this comment

This above all:

Money talks and BS walks

• Link
• Report this comment

Morality

When did Democrats take the House? It is not hard. Google if you can’t seem to remember.

When did the “bubble” peak? Google if you need to remember

The government to include Democrats are not without blame, however the Barney the Boogeyman talking points meme that you willfully allowed yourself to be brainwashed with doesn’t wash with the facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

keith

February 8th, 2013
10:30 am

the economy was doing great during the bush admin until oh about the time pelosi became speaker of the house and reid bacame senate mkajority leader. everything went to hell when those nuts took control. go look it up.
.
.
.
.
pointing and laughing in 3…2….1

• Link
• Report this comment

0311 — “Thank you ………… but go easy on our liberal friends (Mama, Granny, et al). ”

I like how y’all don’t actually have any facts but still like to pet each other.

“They are obviously having a bad day and when they want to ignore the facts/history, etc.”

I was there. You weren’t/. Who’s got facts again?

“they just bring out the name calling”

I haven’t called you any names, but I have pointed out that you’re lying and relying on an unreliable political publication. Whereas the guy you’re thanking is well-known for having nothing but insults to back himself up.

“and hit their computer keys harder (they can’t yell on here so they do that instead).”

Shrug. Once again, I was *consulting* for one of the GSEs. I *know* what happened. You, not so much.

“The bottom, BOTTOM line is always the same. Liberal emotion vs. conservative reason.”

Liberal who was there vs conservative with a crank magazine article. (laughing, pointing)

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep Up
Thanks for your comprehension.

• Link
• Report this comment

keith – 10:13 “the communist in chief”

Obama has never endorsed this political philosophy.

Do you post these stupid lies just to get attention, child?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

• Link
• Report this comment

“The Times (THE NEW YORK TIMES !) itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers—a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks.”

“THE TRUE ORIGINS OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS”

“There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers—a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?

The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble.”

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan

• Link
• Report this comment

Sure thing Frog. You be a genius in your own mind

• Link
• Report this comment

Colonel Hasenpfefer…

Has any major bank Exec ever testified they were forced to make bad loans?

If you can’t answer, you are just being emotional about this…

• Link
• Report this comment

Wall St started bundling homeowner loans together, mortgage back securities and selling slices of those bundles to investors and they were making big money. So they started pushing the lenders saying “Come’on, we need more loans”

The lenders are already giving loans to borrowers with good credit so they go bottom feeding and they lower the criteria.

Before, you needed a credit score of 620 and down payment of 20%. Now they settle for 500, no money down

And the buyer, the regular guy in the streets assumes the expert know what they were doing. He’s saying to himself “The banks are willing to loan me money, I must be able to afford it” So he reaches for the American dream. He buys that house.

The banks knew the securities based on bad mortgages were risky.

So to control the downside, the banks started to buy the kind of insurance: If mortgages defaults, insurance companies pays: Default swap. The banks insured their potential losses to move their risk off their books so they can invest more, make more money

Well a lot of companies insure their stuff; one company is dumb enough to take on almost unbelievable amount risk

AIG

Why?

Hundreds of millions in fees

• Link
• Report this comment

I just read the most insane statement I’ve seen here in many a day:

…the economy was doing great during the bush admin…

During the first decade of this century, American debt exploded to the point where it far outpaced incomes. Which have barely budged since the days of Richard Nixon.

So people and businesses being leveraged to the hilt in lieu of sound investments in the middle class and in the non-war components of this country was the definition of doing great?

My goodness.

In reality, the American economy – for most Americans – has been wrecked for forty years.

But the smoke and mirrors and easy money sure looked great, huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

keith:

Take point ……… these libs. are starting to bore me and I have errands to run and grandchildren to babysit !

Everyone be nice !!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Keith

EPIC FAIL

Truly.

• Link
• Report this comment

Alittlecommonsense @ 9:33

You nailed Jay! His response suggests that you almost left him speechless. … but totally embarrassed.

• Link
• Report this comment

0311 — “LOL !!!!!!!!”

Please explain why the first mortgage pools to go bad *weren’t* subprime.

Please explain why the CS 680-720 pools were the first ones to spoil.

• Link
• Report this comment

Once again, I was *inside* one of the GSEs before this all went down.

my point exactly. people like you are exactly what made it all go down.look in the mirror and you will see the cause of all the problems. and while you are at it, put yourself in timeout for the rest of your life.you have done enough harm to this country

• Link
• Report this comment

If you are a banker and want to save your soul, then (1) repent now, and (2) kill yourself immediately before you are tempted to ruin anyone else’s life.

You’re welcome.

• Link
• Report this comment

BRO

“Well, seems to me that if one cries about what the government MADE them do against their will, they wouldn’t want ill gotten gains in their bank account, right? That’s like the Madoffs complaining about what Bernie did while going on a shopping spree in Paris”.

It seem odd to combine the concept of employee “will” and employee job description. I have no problems if they stuck around to take the money. The question is if within their job description they were required to assume loans they knew were flawed and that went against personal moral fibre, maybe another job would be feasible.

• Link
• Report this comment

In the 4+ years Obama has been president and Holder had been AG, how many prosecutions of banks has Obama, Holder made?

How many convictions of banksters?

• Link
• Report this comment

IQ TEST continued : Brain Surgeon, Rocket Scientist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BRAIN DEAD ZOMBIES FOR OBAMA.

• Link
• Report this comment

Excellent point, Marty. And many of us libs are sickened by it.

But would we vote for Romney over Obama? Oh, hell no. or McCain? Not as bad as Romney but still close to the bottom of the barrel.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keith — “interpretation: you cannot disprove a single fact i presented.”

First you have to *present* some facts, keith.

• Link
• Report this comment

some crummy little apartment in Lilburn.

Most.Depressing.Thought.Evah

• Link
• Report this comment

Matti
February 8th, 2013
10:45 am

You’re all class all the time.

• Link
• Report this comment

you admit you were on the inside when it all went down. WENT DOWN! Got it? so people JUST LIKE YOU and barney frank are the problem. you both owe the country an apology

• Link
• Report this comment

M. Huggins — “In the 4+ years Obama has been president and Holder had been AG, how many prosecutions of banks has Obama, Holder made? How many convictions of banksters?”

Not nearly enough.

The problem comes in getting enough evidence to prove criminal culpability, whereas it’s easier to bring civil cases — so that’s what the administration’s been doing. But the problem with *that* is that often, businesses want to *settle* civil cases, so those negotiations take years — and then if the businesses decide the government wants too much in the settlement, they’ll just tell them to go to court anyway.

So this crap ends up taking 10+ years, all too often.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thomas Heyward: “Free-market trickle downing benefits a helluva lot more people than Government-controlled trickle upping.”

50% of American wealth owned by a small cadre of about 400 oligarchic families, like some banana republic, vast numbers of Americans headed towards retirement with measly pensions, or non-existent ones, and a Social Security program under attack from governing elites, child poverty rates at third world levels.

You proud of that record? Is that a record of success for this “trickle down” system, which since Reagan at least has been in the driver’s seat ?

• Link
• Report this comment

Butch Cassidy (I)

February 8th, 2013
10:38 am

AIG’s “fees” were in the form of premiums that vascillated around 2% of package value based on ratings agency opinions. The availability of this “safety net” is a prime reason the packaging continued with trash once the more favorable risks were largely already done.

Funny, I have some experience with Hank Greenberg…His opinion of this product was unfavorable and the exposure taken subsequent to his departure are what brought them down…too much risk, not enough capital or reinsurance to cover. Too bad a means to keep him at the helm of AIG in the mist of the insured fees and commission scandal wasn’t figured out…

• Link
• Report this comment

You BRAIN DEAD ZOMBIES for Obama can’t handle the truth

And to think that not too long ago, this was posted….

Liberal emotion vs. conservative reason.

So, either Morality? is a liberal or that supposed conservative reason just took a 135 grain hollow point to the Gluteus Maximus.

• Link
• Report this comment

Since i went green i have no need for car, darlin

• Link
• Report this comment

instantaneous

• Link
• Report this comment

Those of you familiar with root-cause-analysis need look not further:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/government-sachs-goldmans_n_210561.html

• Link
• Report this comment

When I purchased my home back in 2002, I had trouble finding any lendors that wanted to talk about anything other than a LIBOR. The pitch was to take a loan based on the current 0% London rate. Payment would be interest only, and in a few years refinance. I didnt bite because I knew the only place to go from 0 is up. I used an old rule of thumb to buy a house that was no more than 2.5 times my income. I was constantly being pushed by my Realtor and finance agent that I should go ahead and spend 500K and to not worry about a down payment because we can take out a first and second mortgage at the same time. It sounds silly but I almost had to fight to stay in a price point that allowed me to take out a conventional loan and have enough income to pay for it.. This was my 4th house so I have purchased enough homes to know better.

Culprit one was my finance guy
Culprit two was the realtor who was also too happy to make higher commission
Culprit three would have been me if I was stupid enough to listen.

Happy ending. Sold my home 4 years later and made a bundle.

• Link
• Report this comment

keith — “Joe helps bring ruin to the countrys financial stability and doesnt have the common decency to apologize.”

Keith’s failure to read what Joe actually said leads him to slander Joe online.

• Link
• Report this comment

And we bailed them out anyway. No one to blame but ourselves.

• Link
• Report this comment

alittlecommonsense, your comment was so true but it won’t register in their minds. Thank you for at least telling the truth even though it won’t matter.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jerome, back in 2009 I noted how there were multiple layers of indictable players and groups in both government and especially in the free market.

But for keith, scout, et al, who know nothing about what actually transpired, who was involved and who paid who in the nearly successful corporate destruction of capitalism – at least to the point where they can intelligently list any of it – they can always parse it down to one or two favorite bogeymen/entities. That homophobia gets tossed in is just bonus!

But this fits in perfectly with the complete lack of intellectual curiosity and honesty that has driven the neoconservative movement and pro-crime GOP to the brink of unelectability and irrelevancy.

OK, out to further the Obama Recovery from the Bush Depression. (LOL)

• Link
• Report this comment

keith

February 8th, 2013
10:56 am

BTW I googled “CHICAGO PAYS THE NRA”

About 5,110,000 results (0.32 seconds)

Still dispute
.
.
.
.
PARDON ME, nobody disputed it.

geez

• Link
• Report this comment

yep you said you were on the inside BEFORE it went down. so when it was about to go down you ran like a coward so you can sit here and say you had nothing to do with it. JUST APOLOGIZE

• Link
• Report this comment

The reason banks are immune is they have lots of money and the use it to get the rules made in their favor. They fund both parties at a high level.
In 2012:
Rank
2012 2-31%Dem, 69%Rep
2010 4-49%Dem, 51%Rep
2008 3-57%Dem, 34%Rep
2006 5-54%Dem, 46%Rep

Notice who was getting the most up until the financial breakdown. To the Dem credits they wanted to regulated them the money moved to the GOP.

Also, Jay has statement “the Wall Street types who financed the GOP’s 2012 campaign, donating hundreds of millions of dollars to the party as well as to the SuperPACs run by Karl Rove and others, are not a happy lot.” is simply false. The reason these bankers are immune is they contribute allot of money to both sides.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2012&ind=F07

• Link
• Report this comment

keith — “yep you said you were on the inside BEFORE it went down.”

Just to bring you up to speed on your middle school grammar, “before” does not mean “when.” I think the word “before” confused you because it has one syllable more than the word “when” does.

“so when it was about to go down you ran like a coward”

Really? Prove it.

“so you can sit here and say you had nothing to do with it.”

I *didn’t* have anything to do with it. Prove otherwise.

“JUST APOLOGIZE”

I don’t apologize to ignorant, boorish clods like you.

You don’t know anything about me, what I did there or even *when* I was there, but you have no problem accusing me of all sorts of malfeasance. You know, if we were doing this face to face, I’d have a pretty good defamation case against you.

So please, keep it up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thomas Heyward: “Free-markets and liberty will work.
Unfortunantly……………we’ve NEVER tried it………..since the inception of the Federal Reserve”

Huh? Never tried? What do you call the gilded age, the age of the robber barons, which saw violent swings and crashes, before finally culminating in the Hoover austerity measures, a laissez faire experiment under real crisis conditions if ever there was one.

It’s you, I’m afraid, who needs the clue.

Your claim that it’s never actually been tried is always the last desperate gasp of a failed ideology.

• Link
• Report this comment

OK, out to further the Obama Recovery

OBAMA RECOVERY??? Putting more and more people on food stamps is recovery? your food stamp president has done NOTHING positive for this country. obamacare has resulted in 2 things already. employers are replacing full time employees with part timers. he is talking about furloughs, raiding retirement accts, Egypt is now a terrorist supporting country like iran,. first dead ambassador since 1979, sold guns to mexican drug cartels (same guns he wants to ban for Americans), totally incompetent dealing with other nations like russia and china, lost billions paying off his cronies at solyndra, etc. selling the country piece by piece to china (GM,Jeep, A123, etc) anyone that calls this an obama recovery needs to recover from being stoned on crack.

• Link
• Report this comment

A sampling of the work on President Obama’s watch:

◦On October 24, 2012, the Department filed a $1 billion civil mortgage fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation and its predecessors Countrywide Financial Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans Inc. for engaging in a scheme to defraud the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), causing more than $1 billion dollars in losses and countless foreclosures.
◦On October 24, 2012, Rajat Gupta, chairman of an international consulting firm and member of the boards of directors at Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble, was sentenced to two years in prison for insider trading in which he provided confidential information about Goldman Sachs to his business partner and friend, Raj Rajaratnam.
◦On October 18, 2012, Dominick P. Carollo, Steven E. Goldberg and Peter S. Grimm, all former executives of General Electric Co. (GE) affiliates were sentenced in the Southern District of New York, for their participation in conspiracies related to bidding for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other municipal finance contracts.
◦On September 18, 2012, Shawn L. Portmann, a former senior vice president and loan officer at Pierce Commercial Bank in Washington pleaded guilty to a mortgage fraud scheme that resulted in the collapse of the bank.
◦On September 11, 2012, former bank executive Joseph M. Braas was sentenced to 180 months in prison for his role in a fraud conspiracy that caused the Bank of Lancaster County in Pennsylvania to cease its independent existence. As a result of the fraud, hundreds of jobs were lost.
◦On August 31, 2012, former UBS AG executives, Peter Ghavami, Gary Heinz and Michael Welty, were found guilty for their participation in frauds related to bidding for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other municipal finance contracts.
◦On August 17, 2012, Glen Alan Ward, a 12-year federal fugitive, was charged with aggravated identity theft and having operated a foreclosure-rescue scam in Southern California and other states that promised to postpone foreclosure sales for more than 800 distressed homeowners.
◦On July 12, 2012, top executives, including CEO and Board Chairman Edward Woodard, along with favored borrowers were indicted for masking non-performing assets for their personal benefit at Virginia’s Bank of the Commonwealth for their own personal benefit. This long-running scheme allegedly contributed to the failure of the bank in 2011, which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) estimates will cost the FDIC deposit-insurance fund $268 million.
◦On July 5, 2012, the CEO of Axius Inc. Roland Kaufmann and finance professional Jean-Pierre Neuhaus were indicted for their alleged roles in a scheme to bribe stock brokers and manipulate the share price of Axius stock.
◦On June 27, 2012, Barclays Bank PLC, agreed to pay $160 million penalty to resolve violations arising from its false submissions for benchmark interest rates used in financial markets around the world.
◦On June 14, 2012, Financier Robert Allen Stanford was sentenced to 110 years in prison for orchestrating a $7 billion investment fraud scheme.
◦On June 29, 2012, Peter Madoff, brother of Bernard Madoff and the former Chief Compliance Officer and Senior Managing Director of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, pleaded guilty to securities fraud, tax fraud, mail fraud, falsifying records of an investment advisor and making false statements to investors. Peter Madoff faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and must forfeit more than $143.1 billion including his personal property.
◦On June 1, 2012, CEO Eric A. Bloom and head trader Charles K. Mosley of Illinois bankrupt Sentinel Management Group Inc. were indicted on federal fraud charges for allegedly defrauding more than 70 customers of more than $500 million before the firm collapsed in August 2007.
◦On April 30, 2012, Minor Vargas Calvo, president of Costa-Rica based Provident Capital Indemnity Ltd. was convicted for carrying out a half-billion dollar fraud scheme that affected more than 2,000 victims in the United States and abroad.
◦On February 1, 2012, criminal charges were filed against two managing directors and a vice president at Credit Suisse Group for failing to assign a fair value to Credit Suisse’s RMBS and CMBS assets, contributing to a $2.6B write-down in March 2008 in Credit Suisse’s reported net income.
◦On November 17, 2011, Philip Baker, co-founder and managing director of hedge fund Lake Shore Asset Management Ltd. was charged in the Northern District of Illinois for his involvement in a $294 million investment fraud scheme which involved approximately 900 investors worldwide. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

• Link
• Report this comment

Benghazi!!!!!

Got that outta the way…

• Link
• Report this comment

keith

bless your heart

you are one hot mess to be sure.

Hope your life gets better.

• Link
• Report this comment

‘Who is this keith, and why is he such an idiot?’

Bobby Jindal wants to have a word with him…

• Link
• Report this comment

комиссар (Occupation)

February 8th, 2013
11:11 am

Thomas Heyward: “Free-markets and liberty will work.
Unfortunantly……………we’ve NEVER tried it………..since the inception of the Federal Reserve”

Huh? Never tried? What do you call the gilded age, the age of the robber barons, which saw violent swings and crashes, before finally culminating in the Hoover austerity measures, a laissez faire experiment under real crisis conditions if ever there was one.
———————————————————————————
.
The gilded age?
An age where super rich people in collusion with Government paid for monopolies.
The Robber barons? ooooooooooooooooh. The Railroad tycoons couldn’t have did it without government contracts.
(but you have a good point in demonstrating that not ALL corruption can be traced to the birth of the FED.)(but on a national level, 99% of widespread misery can usually be traced to State collaberation).
The FED(the State controlling/momopolizing the currency merely “codified” the corruption).
Hoover austerity?……….ha ha. give me a break. Leave your goverment schooling behind. The big government Hoover merely set the stage for FDR……..( see Bush setting the stage for Obama for “trickle up” governmetn controlled misery.
.
And as far as laissex faire……………trust me……..unless you’re over 200 hundred years old……….you’ve only HEARD the term. NOT lived it.
Intelligent people know the difference.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bankers……too big to fail companies…….a government moving shells and that are all empty…….can we all agree a big game is being played on all of us……from all sides!

• Link
• Report this comment

Cons, listen up. Jindal has said that you guys have just got to stop being stupid. I know it’s a big order but at least give it a try.

• Link
• Report this comment

What, me worry?

O’bozo fixed the financial system with Dodd-Frank.

I thought everyone knew that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Does this blog have a mercy rule? Keith has been badly beaten and needs a way out.

• Link
• Report this comment

keith — “defamation case? so your real name is joe hussein mama. lmao. you are a cartoon charcter on here. thats all.”

Learn to read, son. Pay extra-special attention to the words in bold.

I don’t apologize to ignorant, boorish clods like you.

You don’t know anything about me, what I did there or even *when* I was there, but you have no problem accusing me of all sorts of malfeasance. You know, if we were doing this face to face, I’d have a pretty good defamation case against you.

So please, keep it up.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer

February 8th, 2013
11:15 am

Those are all good but to me the point is to get the really big fish in addition to BoA. Morgan, Goldman and the likes but because of Government Sachs and the revolving doors between cabinet and FED assignments and corresponding campaign contributions, it will never happen.

One set of laws applies to Goldman, another to the small banks and individual crooks. Not exactly atypical..

• Link
• Report this comment

Banks are like any other business. Don’t like’em then don’t use’m. There are credit unions, private lenders and so on. Also, heaven forbid, don’t borrow money. Save it and spend only what you have.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer

February 8th, 2013
11:15 am

Do you have anything on those involved in the mortgage crisis?

• Link
• Report this comment

if we were face to face you would do the typical liberal tactic when confronted. NOTHING BUT RUN.

• Link
• Report this comment

keith — “if we were face to face you would do the typical liberal tactic when confronted. NOTHING BUT RUN.”

Just keep telling yourself that, son. Personally, I think you’d just hit me with your purse.

• Link
• Report this comment

A Simple Man
February 8th, 2013
11:29 am

That a little too common sense and logical for this here blog.

See it either got to be republicans fault or democrats fault.

We are not the problem, we have no guilt in this those bankers and politicians forced everyone to take out those loans.

• Link
• Report this comment

I really liked that ad right up until I realized it was an automobile ad. At that very moment I was utterly disappointed.

I thought it was an ad for farmers, perhaps even by Monsanto. Even though they’re a big evil corporation at least they’re RELEVANT to the topic! But maybe NICFA!

That would have been awesome.

But noooooooooooooo, it was a bit let down. It was Dodge.

There’s nothing slimier. Except maybe a bankster.

• Link
• Report this comment

Under a mixed-economy statist system such as we have now, those who rise to the top in business are the ones best at playing corruption games.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, those who rise to the top in business are the ones best at making things more productive.

• Link
• Report this comment

God said, “I need someone with no morals.”

So God made a con.

• Link
• Report this comment

keith – 11:23

You would do away with unemployment and food stamps and let people starve, right?

Boy, has it ever occured to you, even once, that its difficult to conduct a good job search when you’re hungry and living on the street?

• Link
• Report this comment

St Simons – he-ne-ha

February 8th, 2013
11:37 am

Guess that means they don’t vote with their money. DEMS have gotten material contributions from every strain of wall street types.

• Link
• Report this comment

it gets better…..
everyone ASSUMED that the too big to fail banks had written off the losses from their MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES…………. WRONG

the banks have HELD these TOXIC ASSETS on their books the whole time (probably taking tax write offs on losses incurred)……….

now comes THE FED to the rescue…… with QE3………. buying these TOXIC ASSETS and taking them off the books of the banks……. AT WHAT PRICE?????

the banks can move on….. THE FED will sell them AT WHAT PRICE???……. and all this BACKED BY THE TAXPAYERS

THE BANKS ARE REWARDED FOR THEIR BAD DECISIONS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO PAY THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF THEIR ACTIONS

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/fed-plans-to-buy-40-billion-in-mortgage-securities-each-month.html

• Link
• Report this comment

One thing we need ASAP, but won’t get for a long time, is a Constitutional amendment banning bailouts.

• Link
• Report this comment

The bankers did that, and the cons put thee blame on the government for their failure to regulate and stop them. These are the same cons who also want smaller government, lower taxes nd less regulation.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife
February 8th, 2013
11:42 am

Was that one so good you had to post it 3 times?

• Link
• Report this comment

SOMETHING TO CHEW ON LEW

In the wake of the financial meltdown, President Barack Obama derided Wall Street bonuses as “obscene,” calling them examples of “fat cats who are getting awarded for their failure.”

But now, Mr. Obama has announced that he will nominate as his next Treasury secretary Jack Lew, a man who in 2009 bagged a $950,000 bonus after his bank, Citigroup, received billions in a taxpayer-funded bailout.

• Link
• Report this comment

Donovan: “What is the difference between a liberal and a commie? Well, to be completely honest with you, there is no difference”

It was the “liberals” in the 50s and 60s in Democratic party circles who played the key role in purging the unions and other labor organizations of all traces of communism. But you wouldn’t know that from your half-baked political ‘education’ you get in FOXlimbaughland, would you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Donovan there is a huge difference even between a liberal and Obama more less a liberal and a communist.

What I think you are going to see less daylight between is the mob and Wall Street. There will be a day pretty soon where the thugs of Wall Street will be serving more time than all the mob crimes combined. Hell of a thing when Harvard grad are getting life sentences or the equivalent, and serving in the same prisons as Scarface. And you still think it was big government? That is kind of like criminal thinking isn’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

The banksters always win in no small part due to tens of millions of citizens willing to blame this and future crises on Barney Frank’s gaydar.

• Link
• Report this comment

Uncle Samantha: “In the wake of the financial meltdown, President Barack Obama derided Wall Street bonuses as “obscene,” calling them examples of “fat cats who are getting awarded for their failure.”

Yeah, he’s a complete fraud. Duh.

So you’ve caught on to the con that is American politics.

What do YOU propose to do about it?

In other words, something tells me you were a Romney voter. And if Romney had been elected, guess who would have been his nomination for Treasury Secretary?

That’s right, a clone of Jack Lew.

So you see, whether there is a D or a R leading things in Washington, the result is the same: the oligarchy prevails.

• Link
• Report this comment

It was the “liberals” in the 50s and 60s in Democratic party circles who played the key role in purging the unions and other labor organizations of all traces of communism.

“Once I was young and impulsive,
I wore every conceivable pin,
Even went to the socialist meetings,
Learned all the old union hymns.
But now I’ve grown older and wiser
And that’s why I’m turning you in,
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal.”

• Link
• Report this comment

The banks do this because the they run everything. The Federal Reserve is a central BANK. Each region has a bank. Banks have the power. Always have and always will.

• Link
• Report this comment

A Simple Man

February 8th, 2013
11:29 am
Banks are like any other business. Don’t like’em then don’t use’m. There are credit unions, private lenders and so on. Also, heaven forbid, don’t borrow money. Save it and spend only what you have.
+++++
I would agree with you. In most of the cases people had a choice. I have a house loan and car loan. None of them have been a problem. However, I knew how much I could borrow. Banks serve a useful purpose. Also, I was reading back in the 20’s and 30’s most loans were 15 years with 50% down. Most people back then would not borrow like they do now. I believe after WWII the 30 year 20% down became the standard. Then you had 0% down. A friend mine said he had brother call and say he needed money for the closing. He was seller!!! He had taken out a 105% loan. While friend has his house paid for.

However, at the same time if a bank commits fraud they should be prosecuted. If banks are making loans they people can not pay they are putting us all at risk because they are going to be bailed out by the government which means we pay.

• Link
• Report this comment

BF, I agree mobsters are people too. If Wall Street were mobsters they would legalize prostitution and drugs, maybe even murder, but why go to all that trouble when they can make twice as much money screwing up with our life savings so they can get their bonuses and sit on the board of opera and private schools. They are crooks literally with keys to the banks. The mob by the way thinks there is too much law enforcement too. I say apparently not.

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels
February 8th, 2013
11:54 am

Who did that?

How does that spelling of his name mean one is blaming the crisis on his gaydar?

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife @11:34, 11:37, & 11:39

Does God make mistakes?

• Link
• Report this comment

dbm @11:47

“…I can’t possibly exist.”

So who exactly was around to say that?

• Link
• Report this comment

God said he needed people who on Sunday talk about helping the poor and needy and looking out for his/her fellow citizens and then do the total opposite every other day of the week.

So he made a Con.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t even drink and I liked the Budweiser ad.

Who doesn’t like big ole Clydesdales?

• Link
• Report this comment

About that well-regulated militia thing. A rogue cop bent on revenge against perceived enemies and their children (including those whose school recess times he claims to know) who is a great fan of Obama (who told people during his campaign to vote for revenge) supports gun control though he himself has an impressive arsenal. The inept cops he has targeted, who evidently can’t distinguish one make of Japanese car from another and who can’t distinguish two elderly Asian women from one huge burly black cop in their panic opened fire on and wounded those two Asian women. And that is why individuals have the constitutional right to make sure that all militias are indeed well regulated .Dorner’s complete manifesto is available from Anonymous.

• Link
• Report this comment

The first 20 comments were the usual sad but predictable kook simpleton gobbledegook. Jeez.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus™

February 8th, 2013
10:24 am
TBS @ 10:13

My point exactly!!

—————————

Stevie Ray @ 10:20

Seems to me that would be akin to deciding not to take advantage of IRS legal loopholes to mininimze tax liabilities.

Well, seems to me that if one cries about what the government MADE them do against their will, they wouldn’t want ill gotten gains in their bank account, right? That’s like the Madoffs complaining about what Bernie did while going on a shopping spree in Paris
+++++
Maybe they should not want the gains but if true how does that change whether congress pushed these loans.

• Link
• Report this comment

комиссар (Occupation)

VOTED FOR ROMNEY?
laughable

hate to burst your perception of me but here is who i have voted for in the past

1988 – Dukakis (now thats laughable)
1992 – Perot
1996 – Perot
2000 – Nader
2004 – None of the above
2008 – None of the above
2012 – None of the above

waiting for THE third party to form………. will be patient……. once baby boomers start sucking out medicare funds and put is in financial crisis………. boom……. the third party will form

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn – God said he needed people who on Sunday talk about helping the poor and needy and looking out for his/her fellow citizens and then do the total opposite every other day of the week.

So he made a Con.

so much for a broad brush…use a wagner power roller instead!

• Link
• Report this comment

Moderate is on to something. I notice in Enron all those people claiming the corporation ruins their careers. Maybe those people were taking paychecks for something they were not doing or were not qualified to do. I can promise if a hospital went under today for no fault of its own every doctor and nurse would be employed tomorrow.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another good line:

corporations and billionaires owe their wealth to the state and not the other way around. Without favorable patent and copyright laws, a court system, an educated workforce, and an infrastructure to move goods about the country, then no one would be able to get rich in America. We’d be like the Libertarian paradise of Somalia.

As Harry Moser, the founder of the Reshoring Initiative,argued in The Economist, “Corporations are not created by the shareholders or the management. Rather they are created by the state. They are granted important privileges by the state (limited liability, eternal life, etc). They are granted these privileges because the state expects them to do something beneficial for the society that makes the grant. They may well provide benefits to other societies, but their main purpose is to provide benefits to the societies (not to the shareholders, not to management, but to the societies) that create them.”

http://www.alternet.org/economy/ayn-rands-gospel-selfishness-and-billionaire-empowerment-plaguing-america

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe they should not want the gains but if true how does that change whether congress pushed these loans.

I can’t or won’t lump the issue on the individuals, but Congress doesn’t do these laws on their own. Somebody lobbies for the legislation. That somebody usually even has a hand in crafting the legislation. You simply have to follow the money trail.

Personally, if I were employed where the general behavior of that company was unacceptable to me, I’d either seek employment elsewhere, or I’d be the most famous whistleblower this country has ever seen. More than likely in this case, I would have sought employment elsewhere.

• Link
• Report this comment

That’s the reason the big banks give hundreds of millions to politicians in both the republican and democratic parties. They get what they pay for: Billion-dollar bailouts (because they’re “too big” to fail) when then top officers should be going to prison.

• Link
• Report this comment

God said he needed people who on Sunday talk about helping the poor and needy and looking out for his/her fellow citizens and then do the total opposite every other day of the week.

So he made a Con.

So who do you suppose has given more to charities over their lifetimes Obama or Romney? iF YOU SAY OBAMA, WRONG ANSWER. So your post is nonsense.

• Link
• Report this comment

You are correct David.

Not breaking up the banks was a mistake and the fed is still bailing them out.

• Link
• Report this comment

Told ya keith does not have a job.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife thinks we should be able to drink and do drugs as we want and STILL have a job. bless your heart

• Link
• Report this comment

“What percentage of obama voters pay taxes? And what about Romney?” – Not sure. So how about you post a link?

• Link
• Report this comment

“getalife thinks we should be able to drink and do drugs as we want and STILL have a job.”

Why not, as long as it is not done while at work?

Bless your heart, don’t you believe this is supposed to be a free country?

• Link
• Report this comment

was a democrat until i was kicked out of the party in the 90’s while in college……..Sam Nunn blue dog………. no longer wanted

and can’t be a republican……….. not wanted there either

cant be a libertarian…… that philosophy led to the housing bubble and financial crisis

• Link
• Report this comment

“What percentage of obama voters pay taxes? And what about Romney?”

100% for both. But an intelligent individual as yourself already knows that, but you think it is best to regurgitate talking point that you heard or read.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think I know who Keith is ..I’m gonna call his wife….

• Link
• Report this comment

leave it to the bedwetters to take a commercial that lifts up the working man and turn it into a pile of vomit that has nothing to do with how banking actually operates.

• Link
• Report this comment

“if the burn a supposed witch in some foreign land, why can’t we burn a bankster o wall streeter?”

I’m dumber just for having read that.

I would love to see this person try to find Papua New Guinea on a globe.

• Link
• Report this comment

Like I said. I am pretty certain Romney paid more. MUCH MORE. But thats only if you leave out all of our money barack hands out to his charities. Charities like Planned Parenthood, Solyndra, The Muslim Brotherhood, ACORN and its many fronts, etc.

• Link
• Report this comment

class,

My bad I meant pea not you.

• Link
• Report this comment

get

Just set up a hydroponics system and be done with it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Pea – getalife thinks we should be able to drink and do drugs as we want and STILL have a job. bless your heart

as long as it’s not while on the job, why should they care? It won’t be long before it’s body fat, or riding a motorcycle or skydiving or any other behavior the insurance companies deem too costly – Why do you want your employer or your employers insurance to control your home life PeeDawg?

• Link
• Report this comment

Read “the big short” by lewis, it’s not only the “banks”, too loose a term anyways…

• Link
• Report this comment

Didnt barry say something about keeping green energy jobs in this country? He sure seems to be find with them moving to China. Ever heard of lithium battery maker A123? Green jobs obama used taxpayers money to create in China. But….obama sheeple smile, nod their heads and say yes master.

• Link
• Report this comment

Libertarianism led to the housing bubble, Uncle Samantha? Don’t believe the hype.

It was caused by bleeding hearts like Barney Frank who wanted people with lousy credit and low incomes to still get approved for mortgages. That’s why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (quasi-federal institutions) backed the loans.

If someone else wants to dispute this, go for it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

• Link
• Report this comment

The world economic structure is a game where the winners
live large and the losers work hard and pray.

• Link
• Report this comment

Class of ‘98

February 8th, 2013
12:51 pm
Libertarianism led to the housing bubble, Uncle Samantha? Don’t believe the hype.

It was caused by bleeding hearts like Barney Frank who wanted people with lousy credit and low incomes to still get approved for mortgages. That’s why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (quasi-federal institutions) backed the loans.

If someone else wants to dispute this, go for it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

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

disagree
GREENSPAN believed the markets would correct themselves so therefore THE FED would stay out and let Wall Street correct itself……….

WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT TURNED OUT

government regulation CAN be a good thing
thats why libertarianism is not so good

another example was letting the oil companies and deep sea rig companies REGULATE THEMSELVES………… we know how that turned out

• Link
• Report this comment

Rule #2: The banksters win….all ways.

• Link
• Report this comment

Moderate Line

No arguement from me on your response. I agree with your statement on ideology and lobbyist interest. I remember reading about the Madoff guy, and things like that tend to make my blood boil. I know people are not going to be 100% perfect and honest as it’s impossible to be perfect. I just hate purposefully dishonest people with a passion.

Speaking of ideology and lobbyists, things in Georgia will start to get a bit more interesting if the lobbyist fee change form $300 to $25 passes the Georgia Assembly.

• Link
• Report this comment

The main problem with the left is that they are so busing mouthing off the liberal talking points they dont hear anything. If all you do it talk and never listen, you will learn nothing. They are told how to think and how to act. When they venture off the reservation they are crucified. Lieberman has proven that. So goosestep on liberals to your leaders orders.

• Link
• Report this comment

In 1913, the Banking Cartel, led by the Rockfellers and the Morgans used the power of the government, and the criminal mindset of the Progressive movement to install the greatest criminal enterprise every conceived of on the American people and the world. With the support of both democrats and republicans the Federal Reserve Act was passed in the dead of night right before the Christmas break (when the greatest crimes occur in D.C.). With that Act, every single citizen of the US became a permanent SLAVE to the bankster crime syndicate.

If you have not bothered to research the Federal Reserve or continue to believe the lies that they “stabilize the value of the dollar” and “keep employment high,” then you are doing yourself, your children, and everyone a disservice.

There are fantastic sites that will give you all the information you need to know. The best in my opinion is the Ludwig von Mises Institute (google them). There are also fantastic books (hundreds of free ones on the Mises site).

Literally hundreds of trillions of dollars have been stolen by the Fed from the poor and the middle class of america and given to the rich, the banksters, and the parasites that feed at the federal trough. Don’t continue in ignorance. Do something, learn something, and get active in shutting them down.

• Link
• Report this comment

Class of ‘98

February 8th, 2013
12:51 pm
It was caused by bleeding hearts like Barney Frank who wanted people with lousy credit and low incomes to still get approved for mortgages

If someone else wants to dispute this, go for it. You have no idea what you are talking about.
======
I am amazed at how powerful Barney Frank was considering that from 1997 until 2007 his party did not even have a majority in the Senate. Barney Frank was against the war in Iraq and Bush’s tax cuts but could not stop them.

• Link
• Report this comment

My biggest disappointment in the Obama administration, is their faliure to prosecute the banks. They have had more than sufficient evidence, and now that the banks can’t effect his election to a second term, he has zero excuses not to. They not only crashed the U.S.’s economy, they crashed the entire world’s economy, and paid themselves bonuses for a job well done. If they are not prosecuted, there’s something else going on between the banks and our government, and those Americans who aren’t living in Limbaugh’s and Fox News’ parallel universe, should demand an exclamation.

• Link
• Report this comment

class of 98

you can blame wall street………..
instead of making money off a mortgage………. they created MORTGAGE BACK SECURITIES……….. to make more money without creating a product of service…..

then they sold CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS which was insurance to investors but NOT INSURANCE when it came to capital requirements….

THE HOUSING BUBBLE WASNT THE PROBLEM

it was the MORTGAGE BACKED SERCURITIES AND CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS that nearly took us under………..

any investor holding a straight loan would have seen someone making $40,000 should not have a $500,000 mortgage………

Wall Street masked the risk………… thanks to hiring all the FORMER ENRON workers

• Link
• Report this comment

If someone else wants to dispute this, go for it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

That’s like 4 pages back…

• Link
• Report this comment

Stop crying about the banks and join the majority to level the playing field for your children so they can leave your house and have a better chance to make it on their own.

• Link
• Report this comment

Erwin’s cat
February 8th, 2013
1:20 pm

I don’t know what your blabbing on about but I had to “pee in a cup” in order to work at Target and Ingles when I in high school/college. Not sure what the problem is….

• Link
• Report this comment

pea,

I am talking about the total waste of your money for testing the unemployed.

• Link
• Report this comment

If someone else wants to dispute this, go for it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/

• Link
• Report this comment

Perhaps pea should follow his own advice and listen.

The gop will continue to focus to help Americans like our bankers that need no help from any American.

That will not change.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Perhaps pea should follow his own advice and listen.” – Aaand that would be…..????

“The gop will continue to focus to help Americans like our bankers that need no help from any American.”

I agree.

????

• Link
• Report this comment

“Conservatives as well as liberals. Democrats as well as Republicans.”

That was my point.

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog
February 8th, 2013
1:37 pm

No clue what you’re blabbing about

• Link
• Report this comment

You can lead a blogger to knowledge but you can’t
make them think.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife,

Kind of like when conservatives repeat the “47% pay no taxes”. You need to be more specific so you don’t have to move the goalposts later on.

• Link
• Report this comment

moving the goal posts assumes that commenters have
goals…

• Link
• Report this comment

For a while there I was really hoping for a breakthrough. But I didn’t even make it to the end of the first page before folks go out their soundbite books and I read “Barney Frank.”

The lack of critical thought in the face of new perspectives is stunning.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Hussein Mama

Something about being too effing busy or vise versa.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oops! askikg is a typo for asking. Sorry.

• Link
• Report this comment

Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)

February 8th, 2013
12:30 pm

Patent and copyright laws and a court system, if done right, are not favors done by government. They are the government performing its proper function of defending individual rights. But once we’ve reformed the system enough, we should probably have some of the costs paid by those who most directly benefit, by such policies as requiring that a fee be paid before an agreement can have the legal status of a contract.

We would have a better educated workforce if we had separation of state and education. We would have a better infrastructure if we had separation of state and infrastructure.

Somalia is not a good example of libertarianism, just as it is not a good example of separation of church and state.

Perhaps we should reexamine limited liability.

Corporations do not have eternal life; they can die. Not being biological organisms, they do not age the way organisms do, but this is not a special privilege any more than it is a special privilege for us organisms that we can function without directors or employees.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just don’t get God started on hedge-fund “managers”!

• Link
• Report this comment