So the bailouts are for the rich?

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
The bailout plan also gave billions of dollars to ACORN, a total joke of an organization (liberal aligned) that is largely responsible for all this mess.

For the 100th time....the money for ACORN was stripped out of the bill before it went for a vote.

 

[Insomniator]

I'm going to post the following, and will be flamed out of the topic by any liberals here. But take 5 minutes (eh maybe a half hour or so for some of you) and see the facts.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho...nt/01125108.guest.html

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Insomniator
The bailout plan also gave billions of dollars to ACORN, a total joke of an organization (liberal aligned) that is largely responsible for all this mess.

For the 100th time....the money for ACORN was stripped out of the bill before it went for a vote.

ah true

but it still clearly shows the BS libs are still, and always trying to pull off.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Insomniator
The bailout plan also gave billions of dollars to ACORN, a total joke of an organization (liberal aligned) that is largely responsible for all this mess.

For the 100th time....the money for ACORN was stripped out of the bill before it went for a vote.

ah true

but it still clearly shows the BS libs are still, and always trying to pull off.

:roll:

Why do you even bother with this partisan BS? Right now, who gives a damn who is at fault -- can't we just get together and get a damn bailout passed? We can then spend MONTHS trying to pin the blame on each other.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
I'm going to post the following, and will be flamed out of the topic by any liberals here. But take 5 minutes (eh maybe a half hour or so for some of you) and see the facts.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho...nt/01125108.guest.html

This propaganda has already been debunked a hundred times here. It is a ridiculous lie. No bank was ever forced to make a bad loan.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Insomniator
The bailout plan also gave billions of dollars to ACORN, a total joke of an organization (liberal aligned) that is largely responsible for all this mess.

For the 100th time....the money for ACORN was stripped out of the bill before it went for a vote.

ah true

but it still clearly shows the BS libs are still, and always trying to pull off.

:roll:

Why do you even bother with this partisan BS? Right now, who gives a damn who is at fault -- can't we just get together and get a damn bailout passed? We can then spend MONTHS trying to pin the blame on each other.

eh fine

Many are still not convinced that a bailout is needed. Like, YESTERDAY it was 100% fact that the market was going to crash and the world was over because the bailout didn't get passed.

Well, that didn't happen. The market goes up 400-500 points and now it is 100% FACT that the rebound is only because of the hopes for another bailout.

What happens in two weeks when nothing is done and the market is stable? Just a matter of time? When do the rampant speculation/scare tactics end?

And this crap comes from both sides unfortunately, plenty of R's voted for it of course.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Insomniator
I'm going to post the following, and will be flamed out of the topic by any liberals here. But take 5 minutes (eh maybe a half hour or so for some of you) and see the facts.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho...nt/01125108.guest.html

This propaganda has already been debunked a hundred times here. It is a ridiculous lie. No bank was ever forced to make a bad loan.

enlighten me

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Insomniator
The bailout plan also gave billions of dollars to ACORN, a total joke of an organization (liberal aligned) that is largely responsible for all this mess.

For the 100th time....the money for ACORN was stripped out of the bill before it went for a vote.

ah true

but it still clearly shows the BS libs are still, and always trying to pull off.

:roll:

Why do you even bother with this partisan BS? Right now, who gives a damn who is at fault -- can't we just get together and get a damn bailout passed? We can then spend MONTHS trying to pin the blame on each other.

eh fine

Many are still not convinced that a bailout is needed. Like, YESTERDAY it was 100% fact that the market was going to crash and the world was over because the bailout didn't get passed.

Well, that didn't happen. The market goes up 400-500 points and now it is 100% FACT that the rebound is only because of the hopes for another bailout.

What happens in two weeks when nothing is done and the market is stable? Just a matter of time? When do the rampant speculation/scare tactics end?

And this crap comes from both sides unfortunately, plenty of R's voted for it of course.

Markets are up because people are expecting the bailout. Have you noticed that the financial sector is still getting hammered? Do you have any idea the number of banks that are on the cusp of failure?

The point is that just because the market is up today isn't a reason to say "oh, we don't need a bailout." The market isn't going to stabilize in the next two weeks without some sort of cash infusion. There is too little credit available for banks, businesses, and individuals.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Insomniator
I'm going to post the following, and will be flamed out of the topic by any liberals here. But take 5 minutes (eh maybe a half hour or so for some of you) and see the facts.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho...nt/01125108.guest.html

This propaganda has already been debunked a hundred times here. It is a ridiculous lie. No bank was ever forced to make a bad loan.

enlighten me

Is the forums' search function broken or something?

Because Rush specifically said that banks were forced to make subprime loans in your link, I will address that issue head-on. No bank was ever forced to make a subprime loan. Quite the opposite, they desperately want to be able to make them, because making loans is how banks make money. The more applicants they can get approved, the more money they make.

Here's a fun example: Link
Earlier this year, a newspaper discovered an internal memo at Chase that explained to their loan officers how to get a risky loan approved through their automated underwriting system. The tips were:
1. Lump all of an applicant's compensation as the applicant's base income, rather than breaking out commissions, bonuses and tips.
2. Do not disclose use of gifts for down payments.
3. If all else fails, simply inflate the applicant's income. Inch it up $500 to see if you can get the findings you want. Do the same for assets.

A high-ranking VP of Flagstar Bank's large wholesale mortgage dept was credited with coining the phrase that IMO best defines the latter part of the housing boom, "Fuck it, fund it, fix it later."
My wife was a underwriting manager for a largish wholesale subprime lender, one not subject in anyway to CRA. At the height of the boom, they were making so much money packaging and selling these deals to Wall Street (and not to Fannie, Freddie, or anything tied to CRA, this was the real dirty subprime they wouldn't touch, Fannie and Freddie does not buy any deal that does not first pass their automated underwriting systems), that the principals of the company would frequently overrule her denials, even in her opinion in cases of obvious and outright fraud.
There is mountains and mountains of evidence of fraud from all sides that led up to this. Lenders, brokers, realtors, appraisers, and yes, even (especially IMO) borrowers.

Look, I can't even begin to get how silly the notion is that the poor banks and lenders were being forced into making loans they didn't want to make. If you actually believe that, well...

Now, one could argue that the CRA helped play a role in this by providing banks and lenders with a conduit to sell off some of these loans (but not all by long shot), but that was only something they were already all too eager to do in the first place.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Many are still not convinced that a bailout is needed. Like, YESTERDAY it was 100% fact that the market was going to crash and the world was over because the bailout didn't get passed.

Well, that didn't happen. The market goes up 400-500 points and now it is 100% FACT that the rebound is only because of the hopes for another bailout.

What happens in two weeks when nothing is done and the market is stable? Just a matter of time? When do the rampant speculation/scare tactics end?

And this crap comes from both sides unfortunately, plenty of R's voted for it of course.

WTF? The market is rebounding today only because it believes a bailout of some kind is certain.

Here, put away the tinfoil and read this. That is what just happened in our economy.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Is just raising interest rates to encourage more lending too simple of an idea to do any good? The credit market stalling seems to be the main concern I see being tossed around by the talking heads. Interest rates are so low now there isn't much incentive to lend anyway. I suppose doing this would compound the problems in the housing market and lead to more foreclosures and put more banks in jeopardy. But wouldn't that be a fair trade off to keep the overall market functioning? Isn't that how the market is supposed to function?

There is no money to lend. A huge portion of banks' money is tied up in mortgages, many of which are being defaulted on. That means a huge a portion of banks' money is tied up in property which they cannot sell.

The bailout plan(s) is/are designed to give banks money to work with.

Interest rates don't matter if there is no money to lend.

A lack of liquidity doesn't really seem to be the problem.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2233081&enterthread=y

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Is just raising interest rates to encourage more lending too simple of an idea to do any good? The credit market stalling seems to be the main concern I see being tossed around by the talking heads. Interest rates are so low now there isn't much incentive to lend anyway. I suppose doing this would compound the problems in the housing market and lead to more foreclosures and put more banks in jeopardy. But wouldn't that be a fair trade off to keep the overall market functioning? Isn't that how the market is supposed to function?

There is no money to lend. A huge portion of banks' money is tied up in mortgages, many of which are being defaulted on. That means a huge a portion of banks' money is tied up in property which they cannot sell.

The bailout plan(s) is/are designed to give banks money to work with.

Interest rates don't matter if there is no money to lend.

A lack of liquidity doesn't really seem to be the problem.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2233081&enterthread=y

If you read my reply you'd understand.