Look at What Happens to Peaceful Protesters in the States

Wait til you see the next crop of losers.

 

Actually, the Republican Party was forged from the Abolitionist Whig Party. It's the other Party that favors slavery.

 

Well, it's about as relevant as anything Dave was saying. So I figured I might as well add it to the steaming pile.

Great pic, and a beautiful dog. He looks downright proud of himself....

 

Ya you missed the vast majority of the scam on the taxpayer. Lots of lenders made loans to folks who barely qualified with stipulations like balloon payments that meant many would end up in default. But it went much further than that. These would be considered high risk mortgages. They packaged the mortgages into securities ( mortgage backed securities ) and sold them on the bond market. But before they did they fraudulently upgraded the rating of the mortgages and pretended they weren't high risk. They sold the high risk bonds to the unsuspecting and to there competition in the banking industry and then hedged the values in open trading. IE bet against there own product so that when the bond defaulted they made money again.

Now I'm curious, what was it you were thinking the gubment told them to do.

 

No. It's been a long, long time since any genuine political party in this country favored slavery. Why are you digging up graves?

And you're wrong, even speaking historically. Only the southern wing of the Democrats favored slavery before the Civil War. That split in the party created a four-way race that helped Lincoln become President.

The Democratic Party nominated Stephen Douglas to run against Lincoln, and Douglas was also widely considered to be anti-slavery. Southerners in particular thought his proposal to let new states vote on slavery was a smokescreen to hide his true intentions. So the southern Democrats walked out. They held their own convention, and nominated John Beckinridge.

Just to add to the fun, former Whig John Bell and other southerners formed the Constitutional Union party, and he ran as a third-party (or fourth-party) candidate. Although Bell was a large slave owner himself, he and his followers opposed the expansion of slavery into new states and territories.

Had either Bell or Beckinridge not run, Lincoln would probably have lost to Douglas; he only pulled 45% of the total popular vote. So to a degree, the southerners could thank themselves for winding up with Lincoln....

 

Its my understanding that President Clinton instructed FanieMay to lower creditworthness and that this sparked the boom in overall property lending

 

I think it was due to legal action by Fannie and Freddie who wanted to lend to less credible borrowers. I don't think Clinton had anything to do with it. If you have some info tho please send it along.

 

No Info ...its just one of those things I always thought was true. I believe I read it during Fannie's troubles.

 

In the New york times

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

 

I'd love to see there references on "pressure from the Clinton administration" cause sometimes articles take on a decidedly partisan slant. Not saying it couldn't be true, but I'm always skeptical of blaming any one politician, I say there all guilty.

OK so you got me curious now, I dug up this paper on the subject, which seems pretty neutral on politics, just gives the dates of each act or law that helped the banksters along

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf

Many factors have contributed to the growth
of subprime lending. Most fundamentally, it
became legal. The ability to charge high rates
and fees to borrowers was not possible until the
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary
Control Act (DIDMCA) was adopted in 1980. It
preempted state interest rate caps. The Alternative
Mortgage Transaction Parity Act (AMTPA) in 1982
permitted the use of variable interest rates and
balloon payments.
These laws opened the door for the develop-
ment of a subprime market, but subprime lending
would not become a viable large-scale lending
alternative until the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA).
The TRA increased the demand for mortgage debt
because it prohibited the deduction of interest on
consumer loans, yet allowed interest deductions
on mortgages for a primary residence as well as
one additional home. This made even high-cost
mortgage debt cheaper than consumer debt for
many homeowners. In environments of low and
declining interest rates, such as the late 1990s
and early 2000s, cash-out refinancing6becomes
a popular mechanism for homeowners to access
the value of their homes. In fact, slightly over one-
half of subprime loan originations have been for
cash-out refinancing.7
In addition to changes in the law, market
changes also contributed to the growth and mat-
uration of subprime loans. In 1994, for example,
interest rates increased and the volume of origi-
nations in the prime market dropped. Mortgage
brokers and mortgage companies responded by
looking to the subprime market to maintain vol-
ume. The growth through the mid-1990s was
funded by issuing mortgage-backed securities
(MBS, which are sometimes also referred to as
private label or as asset-backed securities [ABS]).
In addition, subprime loans were originated
mostly by nondepository and monoline finance
companies.
During this time period, subprime mortgages
were relatively new and apparently profitable,
but the performance of the loans in the long run
was not known. By 1997, delinquent payments
and defaulted loans were above projected levels
and an accounting construct called “gains-on sales

 

Wrong. Banks don't do what the government 'tells' them to do; banks do whatever the government allows them to do.

And it's always depressing when people who supposedly believe in freedom and democracy start sneering at the 'rabble.' That attitude better becomes French aristocrats -- and even they got their heads separated from their necks for it.

How's your little land yacht coming along? Are you using it yet?

 

Interesting.


" The TRA increased the demand for mortgage debt
because it prohibited the deduction of interest on
consumer loans, yet allowed interest deductions
on mortgages for a primary residence as well as
one additional home. This made even high-cost
mortgage debt cheaper than consumer debt for
many homeowners."


Was the passage of the TRA a result of politcians pandering for votes ?

 

probably, whats the date on that TRA change and it becomes apparent what the prevailing party was at the time. But its important to note that these changes took place over about a 30 year period. The lobbyists backing the changes are far more indicative of the source and if there was an overall plan from the start to modify the system to favor any particular corporate interests.

OK looks like 1986 so I think thats Reorge senior

 

Hmm.... and everything people are debating right now in this thread regarding the behavior of banks is brought about by legislation.

Are you listening, Bntii?

This is another example. The government does have a say in what happens in the market and economy. Depending what legislation is passed, banks will behave differently, if you listen to one side of the debate. If you listen to the other side, banks are doing what the government tells them to do.

A simple example of legislation affecting the citizen would be the post 9/11 SAR rules. Banks must comply with this body of legislation, which stipulates that banks are to report everything out of the ordinary - all $10K or more transactions, changes in banking patterns, "suspicious" people opening accounts, etc... The banks are forced to do this via legislation and now the general citizenry do not want to be shuffling $10K often, or risk the federal authorities looking into their finances.

Legislation directly impacts the behavior of a citizen through banking laws. Just like the auto insurance laws.

Do you still not see causality between legislation and the behavior of banks, for example?

My point is (was) that those passing the legislation are quite corrupt, so they will pass legislation that favors whoever is paying them, if they can get away with it and not be outsted, politically. Once the legislation is passed by the corrupt politician, it then affects how people (banks, from above) behave - and behave toward the general population.

That's the circle of corruption I was talking about earlier that favors those few that control the government (through their wealth), leaving the majority of the population with a government that will only listen to them enough to keep an armed revolt down.

 

Sure...and in Europe the " Government" is asking...err emm ..directing banks to buy distressed euro debt. In exchange the banks will...with government approval....return and buy up state assets at knock down prices. The vultures from the big hedge funds are already circling the Euro carcass