The banking industry knew what they were doing and knew what it would lead to.. so.. why did they do it? why do we allow

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: cliftonite

I find it funny that in other threads you state that the president has VERY little influence in anything.

It is congress that passes laws and congress that ultimately approves them.

You used this logic to shift the blame for the Iraq war towards congress and away from GWB.

Yet now since it is convenient for you, you give him all the credit.

Zing !!! :thumbsup:

went over yours too. No suprise though :roll:

Do you deny this? And making 25% more than 1999 when the stock market collapse wiped out 5 trillion dollars worth of wealth (your number from another thread) is suppose to convince us that Bush has done great things?

Deny what? That the president has little to do with this? No I dont. And no he doesnt.

The 5 trillion dollar figure is easily verified with Forbes or Fortune, or for a good summary look it up in wiki. There are dozens of references.

Dude I was being sarcastic. I dont think Bush had much, if anything, to do with my increase in wages, my superior growth in my retirement fund, nor my 600% return on Yahoo. Im fine with my wages. If you think 25% is low and you doubled yours, good for you. Im more concerned with my retirement account, which made much, much, much more than that.

What are you getting at here?

 

[jackace]

Of course the banking industry knew what they were doing. They were counting on the housing industry to keep going up though. When it came down all those highly leveraged positions blew up in their faces, but they also knew that as a country we are much to reliant on them and Wall Street so if things got bad enough the government would bail them out. This is how things are done in the US now. We don't save and protect industries that provide blue collar jobs, we save and protect all the white collar greedy thieves and robbers when their scams backfire.

 

[dmcowen674]

Who said Dems control both House and Senate?

See bolded below from article:

Originally posted by: jackace
Of course the banking industry knew what they were doing. They were counting on the housing industry to keep going up though. When it came down all those highly leveraged positions blew up in their faces, but they also knew that as a country we are much to reliant on them and Wall Street so if things got bad enough the government would bail them out.

This is how things are done in the US now.

We don't save and protect industries that provide blue collar jobs, we save and protect all the white collar greedy thieves and robbers when their scams backfire.

and still doing so:

4-7-2008 Homebuilders may get more relief from a new government rescue plan than homeowners in need

The Senate on Thursday voted to reject a Democratic proposal to give bankruptcy judges the power to ease mortgage payment terms for some distressed borrowers as it began debating a housing market rescue plan.

Offered as an amendment by Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin to a broad housing bill hammered out earlier this week, the proposed bankruptcy law change was the most contentious of several Senate approaches to dealing with the housing crisis.

The Durbin amendment was rejected in a 58-36 vote, with several Democrats siding with Republicans to set it aside, allowing debate on the broader bill to continue.

The overall bill, likely to undergo days of debate, is estimated to cost $15 billion to $20 billion. It would give homebuilders and other businesses hit hard by the housing slump a $6 billion temporary tax break.

It would also give the Federal Housing Administration a bigger role in the mortgage market and create additional tax incentives to stimulate the housing business.

Critics of the overall bill have labeled the tax break an undeserved handout to corporations and faulted the Senate for excluding Durbin's bankruptcy proposal.

Durbin said the bankruptcy measure would help troubled families keep their homes.

But the banking industry and Republicans opposed it
=========================================
Corporations and Republicans still firmly control the Government.

I don't see any change in that anytime soon even for this November.

That's why McCain doesn't even have to campaign. He coasts into the oval office.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Here ya go, Blackangst1- GWB on the subject of the price of gasoline-

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...9feb29,0,7650740.story

Apparently, he doesn't even look out of the windows of the limo in the motorcade... there are a variety of other examples out there showing just how disconnected, pampered, and incurious he really is... he's no different wrt the price of credit or real estate, either, protected as he's always been by familial wealth and by the isolation inherent in the position of governor and president... none of it matters except in the abstract, and what he knows comes straight from Greenspan (now Bernanke) and Paulson, all of whom ascribe to the methods that put us up against the wall in the first place...

er...I have never contended that he didnt lead a posh life. Or that he didnt ignore things you and I think about. Hell, John Kerry does the same thing. My contention is that his policies have nothing to do with the price at the pumps.

If I were that rich I wouldnt care about gas prices either. Nor would most of us. Whats your point?

Deliberately obtuse? The instability achieved in the middle east has nothing to do with the price of petroleum? Huge defiicits driving down the value of the dollar, the currency of oil, the reserves of oil producing states, have nothing to do with it?

Do you somehow imagine that the Fed could maintain giveaway rates w/o approval from the Whitehouse, or that various financial entities could skirt the rules w/o a blind eye from neutered executive branch regulators? That expansive exploitation of existing methods and creation of new ones could occur w/o tacit acquiescence? That the current coverup wrt near insolvency iin banking could occur w/o the same?

Heh. Try to remember who the true Bush constituency really is, OK? And try to remember what I said about incurious George and how he filters what little information he's allowed to receive. In many respects, a cardboard cutout would serve as well as he does, or better...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Who said Dems control both House and Senate?

See bolded below from article:

Originally posted by: jackace
Of course the banking industry knew what they were doing. They were counting on the housing industry to keep going up though. When it came down all those highly leveraged positions blew up in their faces, but they also knew that as a country we are much to reliant on them and Wall Street so if things got bad enough the government would bail them out.

This is how things are done in the US now.

We don't save and protect industries that provide blue collar jobs, we save and protect all the white collar greedy thieves and robbers when their scams backfire.

and still doing so:

4-7-2008 Homebuilders may get more relief from a new government rescue plan than homeowners in need

The Senate on Thursday voted to reject a Democratic proposal to give bankruptcy judges the power to ease mortgage payment terms for some distressed borrowers as it began debating a housing market rescue plan.

Offered as an amendment by Illinois Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin to a broad housing bill hammered out earlier this week, the proposed bankruptcy law change was the most contentious of several Senate approaches to dealing with the housing crisis.

The Durbin amendment was rejected in a 58-36 vote, with several Democrats siding with Republicans to set it aside, allowing debate on the broader bill to continue.

The overall bill, likely to undergo days of debate, is estimated to cost $15 billion to $20 billion. It would give homebuilders and other businesses hit hard by the housing slump a $6 billion temporary tax break.

It would also give the Federal Housing Administration a bigger role in the mortgage market and create additional tax incentives to stimulate the housing business.

Critics of the overall bill have labeled the tax break an undeserved handout to corporations and faulted the Senate for excluding Durbin's bankruptcy proposal.

Durbin said the bankruptcy measure would help troubled families keep their homes.

But the banking industry and Republicans opposed it
=========================================
Corporations and Republicans still firmly control the Government.

I don't see any change in that anytime soon even for this November.

That's why McCain doesn't even have to campaign. He coasts into the oval office.

The banking industry has nothing to do with bankruptcy laws. And the decision to not allow judges to use bankruptcy laws in this case is a sound one.

 

[blackangst1]

Deliberately obtuse? The instability achieved in the middle east has nothing to do with the price of petroleum? Huge defiicits driving down the value of the dollar, the currency of oil, the reserves of oil producing states, have nothing to do with it?

Are you? When did I ever mention instability in the middle east? Are you trying to put words in my mouth? And how the fuck would you assume I DONT think it has to do with the price of oil based on what I said? I was clearly and specifically talking about Bush and the price of oil Keep up there kiddo.

Deficits? Notthing to do with it. The "currency of oil"? WTF are you talking about? Oil is a commodity. Read up kiddo. Reserves in oil producing states? I never said it didnt contribute to oil prices, now did I imply it. Quit putting words in my mouth. Youre as bad as Dave.

Do you somehow imagine that the Fed could maintain giveaway rates w/o approval from the Whitehouse, or that various financial entities could skirt the rules w/o a blind eye from neutered executive branch regulators? That expansive exploitation of existing methods and creation of new ones could occur w/o tacit acquiescence? That the current coverup wrt near insolvency iin banking could occur w/o the same?

WTF does the Fed have to do with commodities? Oh I guess we switched gears. I guess I'll answer your questions, although Im not sure why youre asking...
*Do you somehow imagine that the Fed could maintain giveaway rates w/o approval from the Whitehouse, or that various financial entities could skirt the rules w/o a blind eye from neutered executive branch regulators? No.
*That expansive exploitation of existing methods and creation of new ones could occur w/o tacit acquiescence? No.
*That the current coverup wrt near insolvency iin banking could occur w/o the same? Not sure what coverup youre talking about, so I cant answer this.

Heh. Try to remember who the true Bush constituency really is, OK? And try to remember what I said about incurious George and how he filters what little information he's allowed to receive. In many respects, a cardboard cutout would serve as well as he does, or better...

Do you like the sound of your fingers typing?

 

[piasabird]

I dont think most home buyers are actually that stupid. I think they are conveniently stupid. I dont want to pay for stupid mistakes. This just makes the banks and the investment firms rich off of the government. Let them fail. This is a correction, and we need to let the correction happen. Otherwise the stock market will not work. What will happen is there will be an even larger crash later.

 

[StageLeft]

Republican matra is: The president doesn't have much say in the economy, so don't blame Bush for poor times. BTW, don't vote dem, they'll raise your taxes!

I dont think most home buyers are actually that stupid. I think they are conveniently stupid. I dont want to pay for stupid mistakes. This just makes the banks and the investment firms rich off of the government. Let them fail. This is a correction, and we need to let the correction happen. Otherwise the stock market will not work. What will happen is there will be an even larger crash later.

I'm more on board with the let them fail thing. Reason is that if all these people "lose their homes", lots of other people now have homes that they couldn't move into before but now can because the housing market has continued to dwindle to where the market says it should without artificial padding built in.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
The banking industry has nothing to do with bankruptcy laws. And the decision to not allow judges to use bankruptcy laws in this case is a sound one.

Are you serious? You don't think bank lobbyists have anything to do with bankruptcy laws?

You're as naive as they come, boy.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Republican matra is: The president doesn't have much say in the economy, so don't blame Bush for poor times. BTW, don't vote dem, they'll raise your taxes!

I dont think most home buyers are actually that stupid. I think they are conveniently stupid. I dont want to pay for stupid mistakes. This just makes the banks and the investment firms rich off of the government. Let them fail. This is a correction, and we need to let the correction happen. Otherwise the stock market will not work. What will happen is there will be an even larger crash later.

I'm more on board with the let them fail thing. Reason is that if all these people "lose their homes", lots of other people now have homes that they couldn't move into before but now can because the housing market has continued to dwindle to where the market says it should without artificial padding built in.

I think youre a little off Skoorb. The president has ALOT of "say" (literally, as in speech), but little to do with it OVERALL. He can certainly influence parts of it here and there, but too many people blame things on the pres, like this event, that he didnt have anything to do with. As with my farce of an example "Bush is responsible for my making more now than when he took office, and is responsible for my retirement account growing VERY WELL, and for my Yahoo stock increasing 600%, he has about as much to do with bank and brokers and people signing bad loans.

 

[Jhhnn]

The beauty of forum discussions, Blackangst1, is that whatever anybody had to say is still there- no matter how much they'd like to disown it. Which is precisely what you're attempting.

first, you offer this-

er...I have never contended that he didnt lead a posh life. Or that he didnt ignore things you and I think about. Hell, John Kerry does the same thing. My contention is that his policies have nothing to do with the price at the pumps.

His policies have nothing to do with the price at the pumps....

I point out just how his policies affect the price, by creating instability and uncertainty, and by creating a dollar surplus via debt, adversely afecting our trading partners in oil. Obviously, I'm getting a little too close to the truth, threatening your sense of well-being achieved thru denial, because you then bluster abusively-

Are you? When did I ever mention instability in the middle east? Are you trying to put words in my mouth? And how the fuck would you assume I DONT think it has to do with the price of oil based on what I said? I was clearly and specifically talking about Bush and the price of oil Keep up there kiddo.

Deficits? Notthing to do with it. The "currency of oil"? WTF are you talking about? Oil is a commodity. Read up kiddo. Reserves in oil producing states? I never said it didnt contribute to oil prices, now did I imply it. Quit putting words in my mouth. Youre as bad as Dave.

Who causes instability with unjustified pre-emptive war, half-assed occupations, and threats of more pre-emptive military action towards others in the region? the tooth fairy, or GWB?

And, if you really think that huge deficits have nothing to do with the value of the dollar, you're truly delusional- need I remind you that deficits don't just happen, whoops!, but are conscious policy decisions, signed into law by the chief executive himself? Or that trade policies allowing huge balance of payment deficits are conscious policy decisions, as well?

And, when I return to the actual topic at hand (read the thread title, just in case you're truly lost) you again go to the obtuse mode-

WTF does the Fed have to do with commodities? Oh I guess we switched gears. I guess I'll answer your questions, although Im not sure why youre asking...
*Do you somehow imagine that the Fed could maintain giveaway rates w/o approval from the Whitehouse, or that various financial entities could skirt the rules w/o a blind eye from neutered executive branch regulators? No.
*That expansive exploitation of existing methods and creation of new ones could occur w/o tacit acquiescence? No.
*That the current coverup wrt near insolvency iin banking could occur w/o the same? Not sure what coverup youre talking about, so I cant answer this.

I ask, because that's the topic... and you basically agreed with me, yet, I'm sure, maintain the idea that the mentioned policy decisions from the executive branch had no effect on the current situation whatsoever, right?

Sometimes we have to abandon our preconceived notions to look a little deeper, find the true relationships of cause and effect.

Watch how this real estate/ bank liquidity crisis shakes out. If the Fed and the executive branch just sit back and let the whole thing unfold in that natural "free market" way, both overextended homebuyers and their overextended creditors will mostly go under. That's the worst case scenario, and both the executive and the fed will do their damndest to prevent that.

Despite pious utterances to the contrary, very little will be done to extend a bailout beyond the banks to financially strapped homeowners, and real estate prices will continue to slide. Investors will continue to be wary of real estate paper, rightfully so, thus contributing to the decline. Homeowners who successfully refinance their ARMS into conventional notes will become locked into their dwelling for many years to come because they'll have negative equity. Many of them will just fold later than sooner, when some financial crisis forces them over the edge. People who have large cash downpayments and solid credit will find excellent bargains down the road, because a speculative market never regains equilibrium until it falls past that equilibrium point and climbs back up to it... that has to happen to re-establish confidence and investment.

Current efforts are merely intended to extend and soften the decline, particularly wrt the banking community. Incrementally smaller losses over longer timeframes help them survive, but really don't change the situation wrt homebuyers who are likely to go under- they just get to stay on the treadmill a little longer... as losses are transferred from the banks to the FHA and other federally insured entities, externalizing the costs of failure onto the taxpayers.

The Japanese real estate market went through something very similar in the early 90's, driving their economy into the doldrums for over a decade. There's little reason to think it'll play out much differently in this country, if it plays out that well...

 

[conehead433]

A lot of the problem could be solved by making it against the law for any banking institution to issue any adjustable rate mortgages as well as allowing the lending institutions to finance with these teaser payments and later balloon payments. And let the fracking financial institutions go down the tubes for practicing stupid lending policies instead of helping to bail them out.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The beauty of forum discussions, Blackangst1, is that whatever anybody had to say is still there- no matter how much they'd like to disown it. Which is precisely what you're attempting.

first, you offer this-

er...I have never contended that he didnt lead a posh life. Or that he didnt ignore things you and I think about. Hell, John Kerry does the same thing. My contention is that his policies have nothing to do with the price at the pumps.

His policies have nothing to do with the price at the pumps....

I point out just how his policies affect the price, by creating instability and uncertainty, and by creating a dollar surplus via debt, adversely afecting our trading partners in oil. Obviously, I'm getting a little too close to the truth, threatening your sense of well-being achieved thru denial, because you then bluster abusively-

As I've said before, I havent said anything about stability in the ME, nor have I eluded that the stability we're seeing DOESNT contribute to the price of oil. I think, to some extent, it does. But there is certainly more going on other than the war that would affect oil prices. Of course Im assuming the war is what you mean by instability in the ME, but thats an assumption. And certainly the Bush administration doesnt affect all the bullshit going on there. As I've asked in other threads about oil, what specific policy or bill has contributed directly to the price of oil? NONE. The ME factor is indirect. Hell, I can indirectly place blame on Bush for the fact my wife blew out a tire in a pothole if I wanted. Im talking about specifics. There arent any that Im aware of.

Are you? When did I ever mention instability in the middle east? Are you trying to put words in my mouth? And how the fuck would you assume I DONT think it has to do with the price of oil based on what I said? I was clearly and specifically talking about Bush and the price of oil Keep up there kiddo.

Deficits? Notthing to do with it. The "currency of oil"? WTF are you talking about? Oil is a commodity. Read up kiddo. Reserves in oil producing states? I never said it didnt contribute to oil prices, now did I imply it. Quit putting words in my mouth. Youre as bad as Dave.

Who causes instability with unjustified pre-emptive war, half-assed occupations, and threats of more pre-emptive military action towards others in the region? the tooth fairy, or GWB?

Simply an opinion. Dont pass it on as fact.

And, if you really think that huge deficits have nothing to do with the value of the dollar, you're truly delusional- need I remind you that deficits don't just happen, whoops!, but are conscious policy decisions, signed into law by the chief executive himself? Or that trade policies allowing huge balance of payment deficits are conscious policy decisions, as well?

when did I mention value of the dollar in relation to deficits?? I didnt. Maybe I wasnt clear when I posted that, but I was referring to oil prices. My statement is true in that regard, and the rest of your statement is therefore an invalid hot air rant.

And, when I return to the actual topic at hand (read the thread title, just in case you're truly lost) you again go to the obtuse mode-

WTF does the Fed have to do with commodities? Oh I guess we switched gears. I guess I'll answer your questions, although Im not sure why youre asking...
*Do you somehow imagine that the Fed could maintain giveaway rates w/o approval from the Whitehouse, or that various financial entities could skirt the rules w/o a blind eye from neutered executive branch regulators? No.
*That expansive exploitation of existing methods and creation of new ones could occur w/o tacit acquiescence? No.
*That the current coverup wrt near insolvency iin banking could occur w/o the same? Not sure what coverup youre talking about, so I cant answer this.

I ask, because that's the topic... and you basically agreed with me, yet, I'm sure, maintain the idea that the mentioned policy decisions from the executive branch had no effect on the current situation whatsoever, right?

Never said that. And of course I agree with you on some points. If people would quit nitpicking we would probably find ALL of us (well, except Dave) agree on more things than not. But I digress.

Sometimes we have to abandon our preconceived notions to look a little deeper, find the true relationships of cause and effect.

I hope you looked in the mirror when you posted that.

Watch how this real estate/ bank liquidity crisis shakes out. If the Fed and the executive branch just sit back and let the whole thing unfold in that natural "free market" way, both overextended homebuyers and their overextended creditors will mostly go under. That's the worst case scenario, and both the executive and the fed will do their damndest to prevent that.

I agree 100%

Despite pious utterances to the contrary, very little will be done to extend a bailout beyond the banks to financially strapped homeowners, and real estate prices will continue to slide. Investors will continue to be wary of real estate paper, rightfully so, thus contributing to the decline. Homeowners who successfully refinance their ARMS into conventional notes will become locked into their dwelling for many years to come because they'll have negative equity. Many of them will just fold later than sooner, when some financial crisis forces them over the edge. People who have large cash downpayments and solid credit will find excellent bargains down the road, because a speculative market never regains equilibrium until it falls past that equilibrium point and climbs back up to it... that has to happen to re-establish confidence and investment.

OK I agree for the most part.

Current efforts are merely intended to extend and soften the decline, particularly wrt the banking community. Incrementally smaller losses over longer timeframes help them survive, but really don't change the situation wrt homebuyers who are likely to go under- they just get to stay on the treadmill a little longer... as losses are transferred from the banks to the FHA and other federally insured entities, externalizing the costs of failure onto the taxpayers.

Agree again.

The Japanese real estate market went through something very similar in the early 90's, driving their economy into the doldrums for over a decade. There's little reason to think it'll play out much differently in this country, if it plays out that well...

It will, and it may or may not be harder or softer or shorter or longer. Who cares? Its a cycle and a correction. It will take as long as it takes. *shrug* I can find opinions on both ends of the argument as far as predictions go, all with very detailed analysis. So can you. If you and I agree with different ones, who is right? We dont know do we. It's OPINION. No one can predict the future. Right? And something to keep in mind is just because a majority believes something doesnt make it true. If you disagree with THAT, be prepared to be peppered with dozens of examples.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: conehead433
A lot of the problem could be solved by making it against the law for any banking institution to issue any adjustable rate mortgages as well as allowing the lending institutions to finance with these teaser payments and later balloon payments. And let the fracking financial institutions go down the tubes for practicing stupid lending policies instead of helping to bail them out.

And to prevent another Enron we should just make it illegal to trade stocks.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Your denial is all-encompassing, Blackangst1. Your arguments run along the lines of the notion that in order to prove that a defendant actually killed his victim, witnesses would have had to see the bullet travel from the fired weapon into the victim's body.

Consider, for a moment, that oil suppliers seek value from the commodity they sell, and they sell in dollars. When the worldwide value of the dollar is driven down by our own policy foolishness, explosive debt, they demand more dollars to cover the gap, given that they buy in a variety of currencies, particularly Euros. They also see the value of their reserves, held in dollars, declining at the same time, so they'll tend to demand even more dollars for their commodity to increase numerical reserves, maintain the purchasing power of those reserves. Very straightforward.

You've issued blanket statements of denial, then attempted to obfuscate your way around them-

"My contention is that his policies (Bush's) have nothing to do with the price at the pumps."

WRT the price of oil-

"Deficits? Notthing to do with it."

And this one, which we haven't even approached, is ludicrous at face value-

"The banking industry has nothing to do with bankruptcy laws."

I mean, uhh, WTF? They handed out millions to get so-called "reform" passed, easily documented-

"Finance and credit companies contributed more than $8.2 million in individual and PAC contributions during the 2004 election cycle, 64 percent to Republicans. Credit card giant MBNA's employees and PAC contributed more than $1.5 million, including $354,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign. The company spent $5.2 million on federal lobbying in 2003."

http://www.opensecrets.org/pay...issueid=BA3&CongNo=109

That's just from a very quick Google... What is it you think they were lobbying for, anyway- cookies and milk?

Conehead433 made a valid point wrt the methods used in setting up the current imbroglio- that adjustable rate, balloon payment and other rigged forms of mortgage lending should be made illegal. They *were* illegal, prior to 1982, and we seemed to do fine under that scenario...

http://w2jig.blogspot.com/2007...-mortgage-history.html

But, of course, flippancy is an easy defense, particularly when on lacks a valid response...

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You've issued blanket statements of denial, then attempted to obfuscate your way around them-

"My contention is that his policies (Bush's) have nothing to do with the price at the pumps."

WRT the price of oil-

"Deficits? Notthing to do with it."

And this one, which we haven't even approached, is ludicrous at face value-

"The banking industry has nothing to do with bankruptcy laws."

I mean, uhh, WTF? They handed out millions to get so-called "reform" passed, easily documented-

"Finance and credit companies contributed more than $8.2 million in individual and PAC contributions during the 2004 election cycle, 64 percent to Republicans. Credit card giant MBNA's employees and PAC contributed more than $1.5 million, including $354,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign. The company spent $5.2 million on federal lobbying in 2003."

http://www.opensecrets.org/pay...issueid=BA3&CongNo=109

That's just from a very quick Google... What is it you think they were lobbying for, anyway- cookies and milk?

Conehead433 made a valid point wrt the methods used in setting up the current imbroglio- that adjustable rate, balloon payment and other rigged forms of mortgage lending should be made illegal. They *were* illegal, prior to 1982, and we seemed to do fine under that scenario...

http://w2jig.blogspot.com/2007...-mortgage-history.html

But, of course, flippancy is an easy defense, particularly when on lacks a valid response...

I agree with most of above.

1. Bush's policies have *everything* to do with the price at the pump.

2. the credit companies were the ones who pushed for the bankruptcy reform, to shackle consumers, everybody knows that.

3. alternative mortgages shouldn't be made illegal, they operate fine in normal circumstances, as history has shown. However, things need to be changed to minimize this problem happening in the future.

 

[spittledip]

They did it b/c they wanted to make money at any cost. The govt should have regulated credit and loans to a greater extent, but they did not for whatever reason. Possibly corruption but most likely lack of caring.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: conehead433
A lot of the problem could be solved by making it against the law for any banking institution to issue any adjustable rate mortgages as well as allowing the lending institutions to finance with these teaser payments and later balloon payments. And let the fracking financial institutions go down the tubes for practicing stupid lending policies instead of helping to bail them out.

And to prevent another Enron we should just make it illegal to trade stocks.

Stop Oil sticks until the Industry is reformed, absolutely.

Clearly the Enron debacle didn't fix a damn thing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Your denial is all-encompassing, Blackangst1. Your arguments run along the lines of the notion that in order to prove that a defendant actually killed his victim, witnesses would have had to see the bullet travel from the fired weapon into the victim's body.

Consider, for a moment, that oil suppliers seek value from the commodity they sell, and they sell in dollars. When the worldwide value of the dollar is driven down by our own policy foolishness, explosive debt, they demand more dollars to cover the gap, given that they buy in a variety of currencies, particularly Euros. They also see the value of their reserves, held in dollars, declining at the same time, so they'll tend to demand even more dollars for their commodity to increase numerical reserves, maintain the purchasing power of those reserves. Very straightforward.

You've issued blanket statements of denial, then attempted to obfuscate your way around them-

"My contention is that his policies (Bush's) have nothing to do with the price at the pumps."

WRT the price of oil-

"Deficits? Notthing to do with it."

And this one, which we haven't even approached, is ludicrous at face value-

"The banking industry has nothing to do with bankruptcy laws."

I mean, uhh, WTF? They handed out millions to get so-called "reform" passed, easily documented-

"Finance and credit companies contributed more than $8.2 million in individual and PAC contributions during the 2004 election cycle, 64 percent to Republicans. Credit card giant MBNA's employees and PAC contributed more than $1.5 million, including $354,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign. The company spent $5.2 million on federal lobbying in 2003."

http://www.opensecrets.org/pay...issueid=BA3&CongNo=109

That's just from a very quick Google... What is it you think they were lobbying for, anyway- cookies and milk?

Conehead433 made a valid point wrt the methods used in setting up the current imbroglio- that adjustable rate, balloon payment and other rigged forms of mortgage lending should be made illegal. They *were* illegal, prior to 1982, and we seemed to do fine under that scenario...

http://w2jig.blogspot.com/2007...-mortgage-history.html

But, of course, flippancy is an easy defense, particularly when on lacks a valid response...

:thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You've issued blanket statements of denial, then attempted to obfuscate your way around them-

"My contention is that his policies (Bush's) have nothing to do with the price at the pumps."

WRT the price of oil-

"Deficits? Notthing to do with it."

And this one, which we haven't even approached, is ludicrous at face value-

"The banking industry has nothing to do with bankruptcy laws."

I mean, uhh, WTF? They handed out millions to get so-called "reform" passed, easily documented-

"Finance and credit companies contributed more than $8.2 million in individual and PAC contributions during the 2004 election cycle, 64 percent to Republicans. Credit card giant MBNA's employees and PAC contributed more than $1.5 million, including $354,000 to President Bush's reelection campaign. The company spent $5.2 million on federal lobbying in 2003."

http://www.opensecrets.org/pay...issueid=BA3&CongNo=109

That's just from a very quick Google... What is it you think they were lobbying for, anyway- cookies and milk?

Conehead433 made a valid point wrt the methods used in setting up the current imbroglio- that adjustable rate, balloon payment and other rigged forms of mortgage lending should be made illegal. They *were* illegal, prior to 1982, and we seemed to do fine under that scenario...

http://w2jig.blogspot.com/2007...-mortgage-history.html

But, of course, flippancy is an easy defense, particularly when on lacks a valid response...

I agree with most of above.

1. Bush's policies have *everything* to do with the price at the pump.

2. the credit companies were the ones who pushed for the bankruptcy reform, to shackle consumers, everybody knows that.

3. alternative mortgages shouldn't be made illegal, they operate fine in normal circumstances, as history has shown. However, things need to be changed to minimize this problem happening in the future.

Wow, getting 2 out 3 from LK with his beloved Corporate Banking thieves is pretty good :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

This is one of the banks I said would fail well back last January 2007.

Wells Fargo is getting more desperate by the day.

4-11-2008 Wells Fargo forces Frontier to file for bankruptcy protection

DENVER - Frontier Airlines sought bankruptcy protection Friday, the fourth carrier to do so in the past several weeks as exorbitant fuel prices eat into earnings and a weak U.S. economy keeps more people grounded.

The Chapter 11 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York prevents the credit card processor from increasing its "holdback," Frontier CEO Sean Menke said.

"Unfortunately, our principal credit card processor very recently and unexpectedly informed us that, beginning on April 11, it intended to start withholding significant proceeds received from the sale of Frontier tickets," he said. "This change in established practices would have represented a material change to our cash forecasts and business plan. Unchecked, it would have put severe restraints on Frontier's liquidity and would have made it impossible for us to continue normal operations."

He said Frontier Holdings Inc. was prepared to litigate, if necessary.

The creditor listed in bankruptcy court documents as having the largest general unsecured claim against Frontier by far was Wells Fargo, with $93.5 million. Frontier said it had fewer than 50 creditors.

At the end of last year, Frontier said, it had assets of $98.3 million and debts of $92.2 million.

A Frontier spokesman said earlier this week the airline had "no concerns about bankruptcy" but added that it was working on strengthening its cash position.

Last month, Frontier said it had agreed to sell four planes to counter rising fuel costs.

Frontier shares lost most of their value in premarket trading Friday, tumbling $1.27 to 30 cents each.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Where do you link Wells Fargo to the credit card processor.

Airlines are having problems - why should Wells Fargo or any other creditor stay on the hook for them?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is one of the banks I said would fail well back last January 2007.

Wells Fargo is getting more desperate by the day.

4-11-2008 Wells Fargo forces Frontier to file for bankruptcy protection

DENVER - Frontier Airlines sought bankruptcy protection Friday, the fourth carrier to do so in the past several weeks as exorbitant fuel prices eat into earnings and a weak U.S. economy keeps more people grounded.

The Chapter 11 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York prevents the credit card processor from increasing its "holdback," Frontier CEO Sean Menke said.

"Unfortunately, our principal credit card processor very recently and unexpectedly informed us that, beginning on April 11, it intended to start withholding significant proceeds received from the sale of Frontier tickets," he said. "This change in established practices would have represented a material change to our cash forecasts and business plan. Unchecked, it would have put severe restraints on Frontier's liquidity and would have made it impossible for us to continue normal operations."

He said Frontier Holdings Inc. was prepared to litigate, if necessary.

The creditor listed in bankruptcy court documents as having the largest general unsecured claim against Frontier by far was Wells Fargo, with $93.5 million. Frontier said it had fewer than 50 creditors.

At the end of last year, Frontier said, it had assets of $98.3 million and debts of $92.2 million.

A Frontier spokesman said earlier this week the airline had "no concerns about bankruptcy" but added that it was working on strengthening its cash position.

Last month, Frontier said it had agreed to sell four planes to counter rising fuel costs.

Frontier shares lost most of their value in premarket trading Friday, tumbling $1.27 to 30 cents each.

Where in that article did it say that Wells forced them into bankruptcy?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This is one of the banks I said would fail well back last January 2007.

Wells Fargo is getting more desperate by the day.

4-11-2008 Wells Fargo forces Frontier to file for bankruptcy protection

DENVER - Frontier Airlines sought bankruptcy protection Friday, the fourth carrier to do so in the past several weeks as exorbitant fuel prices eat into earnings and a weak U.S. economy keeps more people grounded.

The Chapter 11 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York prevents the credit card processor from increasing its "holdback," Frontier CEO Sean Menke said.

"Unfortunately, our principal credit card processor very recently and unexpectedly informed us that, beginning on April 11, it intended to start withholding significant proceeds received from the sale of Frontier tickets," he said. "This change in established practices would have represented a material change to our cash forecasts and business plan. Unchecked, it would have put severe restraints on Frontier's liquidity and would have made it impossible for us to continue normal operations."

He said Frontier Holdings Inc. was prepared to litigate, if necessary.

The creditor listed in bankruptcy court documents as having the largest general unsecured claim against Frontier by far was Wells Fargo, with $93.5 million. Frontier said it had fewer than 50 creditors.

At the end of last year, Frontier said, it had assets of $98.3 million and debts of $92.2 million.

A Frontier spokesman said earlier this week the airline had "no concerns about bankruptcy" but added that it was working on strengthening its cash position.

Last month, Frontier said it had agreed to sell four planes to counter rising fuel costs.

Frontier shares lost most of their value in premarket trading Friday, tumbling $1.27 to 30 cents each.

Where in that article did it say that Wells forced them into bankruptcy?

Bolded for you

 

[craftech]

If you watch C-Span you can see the Senate and House live. If you are going by the news media reports about what goes on you won't know a thing. And that includes Frauds like Lou Dobbs. They lie to you every day. Watch it for yourself and you will know which party has which priorities and for whom. Then vote accordingly depending upon your priorities. Most people are not going to do that. That is why I was able to win two bets and will win the third. The bet in 1999 was that George Bush would win. I then upped the ante in 2003 by betting someone twice what I bet the last time that Bush would win in 2004. This time I bet the ranch that John McCain would win in 2008 by betting in 2004 that McCain would win in 2008. People don't realize that the news media determines who is president not the people. Pavlov proved that with dogs. I have no doubt that I will win a lot of money this year thanks to CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and even PBS and Oh Yeah - Fox News too.

John