$700 Billion Bailout for Financial Firms

**MotoZ** · 09-29-08, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

For the record, I'm all for a bail out, so long as it also results in charges, class actions, jail time, and fines for the CEO's, boards, and fund managers that caused all of this. Just like enron.

Enron collapsed due to fraud.

All indicators now are that we are dealing with a structural failure. Perfectly legal. We wanted privatized retirement. Got it. We wanted deregulation. Got it. We wanted low interest rates. Got it. We wanted jobs. Got it. But the resulting structure was unsustainable.

**cop1991** · 09-29-08, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by IceHammer

If Obama is a clown what does that make McCain? A 4 year old with a temper? At least Obama can conduct himself like an adult and talks coherently about the issues at hand.

Yeah I saw that in the debate..... Calling McCain a liar and the whole interrupting thing....... As for talking coherently I read a count of "ums" said in the dabte and it was something like Mccain = 23 Obama = 123.

**SapiensErus** · 09-29-08, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I have been under the impression that the current administration's massive deregulation of the housing loan industry to encourage an "ownership society" is what caused these problems. But my understanding of economics is limited...

Techincally, it was the previous administration, and the pressure put on lawmakers and regulatory agencies to "let the little man buy a house" because it's the american dream. Understanding of economics, limited...but bias, you're pretty well stocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...hanges_of_2003

Actually it appears that is started much earlier than the Clinton administration; 1977, under Carter. But ammendments made by the Bush administration caused a spike in subprime lending. To be fair, the Clinton administration did require banks to increase access to loans by more risky markets. But under the current administration, banks were allowed to be rated as a larger bank than they actually were, thus allowing them to loan more money than they should; increasing the number of subprime loans substantially.

**MotoZ** · 09-29-08, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Bush bashing solves no problems.

I agree, but damn is it ever fun. IMO we are here becasue we, together, as a society, tried to make money from nothing like we did during the tech bubble. We wanted that bubble to occur again so bad that we couldn't stand it. We thought that this time we knew better and wouldn't get burned. Bush presided over it so he gets blamed. Mostly because Republicans endorsed the policies, but a lot of Democrats and citizens were caught up in the excitement as well.

**...bigdog...** · 09-29-08, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

For the record, I'm all for a bail out, so long as it also results in charges, class actions, jail time, and fines for the CEO's, boards, and fund managers that caused all of this. Just like enron.

Enron collapsed due to fraud.

All indicators now are that we are dealing with a structural failure. Perfectly legal. We wanted privatized retirement. Got it. We wanted deregulation. Got it. We wanted low interest rates. Got it. We wanted jobs. Got it. But the resulting structure was unsustainable.

If it was "so obvious" to everyone else that the sub-prime lending market was shady, and that free money shouldn't exist, then it's likely there's some laws being broken somewhere.

doesn't mean there can't be some civil charges for negligence and gross mismanagement....some class action suits from the investors......I like that too.

**Potemkine** · 09-29-08, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I have been under the impression that the current administration's massive deregulation of the housing loan industry to encourage an "ownership society" is what caused these problems. But my understanding of economics is limited...

Techincally, it was the previous administration, and the pressure put on lawmakers and regulatory agencies to "let the little man buy a house" because it's the american dream. Understanding of economics, limited...but bias, you're pretty well stocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...hanges_of_2003

Actually it appears that is started much earlier than the Clinton administration; 1977, under Carter. But ammendments made by the Bush administration caused a spike in subprime lending. To be fair, the Clinton administration did require banks to increase access to loans by more risky markets. But under the current administration, banks were allowed to be rated as a larger bank than they actually were, thus allowing them to loan more money than they should; increasing the number of subprime loans substantially.

Never trust wikipedia. When ever I go to cite things, I avoid it like the plague. Too much room for bias and incorrect edits

**SapiensErus** · 09-29-08, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I have been under the impression that the current administration's massive deregulation of the housing loan industry to encourage an "ownership society" is what caused these problems.  But my understanding of economics is limited...  

Techincally, it was the previous administration, and the pressure put on lawmakers and regulatory agencies to "let the little man buy a house" because it's the american dream.  Understanding of economics, limited...but bias, you're pretty well stocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...hanges_of_2003

Actually it appears that is started much earlier than the Clinton administration; 1977, under Carter.  But ammendments made by the Bush administration caused a spike in subprime lending.  To be fair, the Clinton administration did require banks to increase access to loans by more risky markets.  But under the current administration, banks were allowed to be rated as a larger bank than they actually were, thus allowing them to loan more money than they should; increasing the number of subprime loans substantially.

Never trust wikipedia.  When ever I go to cite things, I avoid it like the plague.  Too much room for bias and incorrect edits

This particular chunk of data has a lot of citations and few flags. I could post a link direct to the original bill and then the ammendments made during each administration since Carter.  But this article summarized the scope of the bill and it's ammendments nicely.  Most people won't read an entire bill and then it's ammendments, if linked to, in an internet "discussion."  Were I writing an article for a class I would grab peer reviewed sources.

But here is a link to the .gov cra info: http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/

When a Wikipedia article has several flags or few citations, I would not cite it. But this one is pretty solid AND pretty much states the summary of the bill and it's ammendments with little discussion. And the discussion that is there is broken into it's own section and offers multiple partisan views WITH citations.

**Potemkine** · 09-29-08, 10:07 PM

Good point about the Dow Jones. What did it close at today verse the bottom of the trough after 9/11? Probably a couple hundred point difference.

**rock_lobster** · 09-29-08, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

If the bankers and lenders got themselves in some shit, and now have to declare bankruptcy and sell off their assets to banks that weren't stupid....then that's america.

The "do it right or we raid your shit and sell it to your competitors" agency (see: Washington Mutual).

Agreed

Originally Posted by IceHammer

If Obama is a clown what does that make McCain? A 4 year old with a temper? At least Obama can conduct himself like an adult and talks coherently about the issues at hand.

Obama has been highly touted for his ability to speak well. Wonderful, now lets move onto qualities that actually matter in a presidential candidate.

The blame game won't solve any problems. We can talk about when this shit started and what party was in control when it happened, but it won't do us any good. All this bullshit of going far left and far right just so Dems and Republicans can be so opposite of each other because of disdain for one another, is quite aggravating. Solve the problem at hand by fessing up to what's going on, take the consequences and move onto better and more stable things.

**Potemkine** · 09-29-08, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I have been under the impression that the current administration's massive deregulation of the housing loan industry to encourage an "ownership society" is what caused these problems. But my understanding of economics is limited...

Techincally, it was the previous administration, and the pressure put on lawmakers and regulatory agencies to "let the little man buy a house" because it's the american dream. Understanding of economics, limited...but bias, you're pretty well stocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...hanges_of_2003

Actually it appears that is started much earlier than the Clinton administration; 1977, under Carter. But ammendments made by the Bush administration caused a spike in subprime lending. To be fair, the Clinton administration did require banks to increase access to loans by more risky markets. But under the current administration, banks were allowed to be rated as a larger bank than they actually were, thus allowing them to loan more money than they should; increasing the number of subprime loans substantially.

Never trust wikipedia. When ever I go to cite things, I avoid it like the plague. Too much room for bias and incorrect edits

This particular chunk of data has a lot of citations and few flags. I could post a link direct to the original bill and then the ammendments made during each administration since Carter. But this article summarized the scope of the bill and it's ammendments nicely. Most people won't read an entire bill and then it's ammendments, if linked to, in an internet "discussion." Were I writing an article for a class I would grab peer reviewed sources.

But here is a link to the .gov cra info: http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/

I like to read this stuff. So much more informative getting it from second hand sources like Wikipedia