Originally posted by Quark_666
Ha... just when I was starting to feel like an old-timer...I did hear about the bank's freedom of speech argument though. I was really disappointed that I wasn't allowed to chew those people out in person, actually.
I know, it'd be like arguing that price tags are just an opinion about the cost of a product
Originally posted by inimalist
srsly?they were selling stock they described in internal emails as "shit" as triple A rated (meaning, as secure as government bonds). They were approving people for loans they knew they couldn't pay, because it allowed them to bundle it as these toxic stocks, which would then be triple A rated. There was absolutely no accountability, because if the people didn't pay, the bank didn't lose any money.
I hate to be all like "watch this movie".... but, check out Inside Job, a doc about the recession
major banking institutions have for decades operated in ways very much comparable to organized criminal groups, up to and including engaging in activities that are criminal.
There is just no political will to prosecute the banks, in fact, the political establishment has all but given them immunity from prosecution (though I think the NY DA is going after them).
I can't believe you haven't heard this... 😐 I don't mean that as an insult, I mean, I figured Americans would be all over this type of thing more than some half-interested Canadian...
I think I will watch the "inside job."
Netflix keeps suggesting it to me.
But, I was talking about the "criminal" aspect of your statement, earlier. Millions of lives were affected and many were outraged. With that many people, at least some of them would have persued legal action. Some did. Some won. Some didn't. I don't think it was as criminally "bad" as you suggest...or at least how I interpretted your statement. I do remember some trying to sue financial/investment organizations that no longer existed and people sobbing about it because there was literally no one they could take their anger out on.
I also remember this one investor/advisor going completely bankrupt because he was "lied" to about the quality of the backing on the notes. Then his clients tried to sue him and he had not a dime to his name, forclosed, turned his car in, etc. He was married with children. He went from a millionaire to nothing almost overnight. His clients still hounded him and tried to sue him all the time. It was rather lame.
But, it seems I'm getting off track. It doesn't appear as criminally bad as you suggest. I did lots of research on this for a paper I had to write. For me, the problem was mostly over-zealous banks trying to cash in on the various bad-loans being offered because of the climate the Bush Administration created.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously banks lie all the time... in fact, bank of america has foreclosed houses they don't even own!
That happened before the recession. And not just from BoA. It's a "who's on first" problem, not criminal problem.
Originally posted by King Kandy
An outside party, that was completely bought off by the banks.
This sounds a bit conspiratorial and silly. Surely it's not as bad as you suggest?
Originally posted by The Dark CloudWhere are you getting just the elite? People who don't have enough to eat, are going to have jobs now. So it isn't about the whole for people here. It is about themselves. Which isn't a surprise, people do what they want in their own interest.
We need to do what's best for the citizens of our country, not just the global elite.And as for the video, can't you see what a big corrupt racket, and yes, racket is the proper description, the government and banks are pulling here? Because some don't pay their mortgages, I know some are abusing the system here but many simply aren't able to, you can't pay with money you don't have, the government is stealing the taxpayers money and giving it to the banks.
Originally posted by King KandyYou can work where you want to if you meet the requirements. Just like every business owner can go overseas. Nobody is restricting you from shopping somewhere, you either do or you don't, or you have the capital or the requirements the company is asking for. For consumers to shop somewhere the company has to meet their requirements. People vote for their feet.
But I don't shop or work where I want. If I want to ring up a million dollars of jewelry like Newt Gingrich, guess what I can't. So that kind of economic freedom, is only really freedom for the rich.But they only took those loans because the banks lied to them and told them they would be able to pay it back easily. And anyway it is not like they "refused" to pay the debt; they were literally incapable of doing so.
BTW, even if you pay your mortgage, that doesn't mean your house is safe from foreclosure. Like I said, banks have been committing fraud and foreclosing on houses that they never even owned in the first place. They don't keep all the paperwork, they just make it up.
People took out those loans because they were greedy. Many lied on their stated income loans, and many were trying to flip houses and were just as greedy as the guys up top. People are responsible on all sides, not just the rich or poor, but excusing people for not knowing what they sign or for not paying back their loans is an excuse. People (especially in America) need to educate themselves before they buy things. Americans want to spend, spend, spend without knowing the consequences, and most *don't* read. Nor do they check their own bank accounts regularly. Financial education here is terrible.
Any company that commuted fraud should be in trouble, but the losers who took out money they couldn't afford out of greed or ignorance deserve their fate as well, because guys like me have to pay for their stupidity and greed. I've seen many people like this and I know many people like this.
I'm safe because I know what I got into. Btw the overwhelming majority of those who had their mortgages readjusted just defaulted all over again in 6 months.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I will watch the "inside job."Netflix keeps suggesting it to me.
But, I was talking about the "criminal" aspect of your statement, earlier. Millions of lives were affected and many were outraged. With that many people, at least some of them would have persued legal action. Some did. Some won. Some didn't. I don't think it was as criminally "bad" as you suggest...or at least how I interpretted your statement. I do remember some trying to sue financial/investment organizations that no longer existed and people sobbing about it because there was literally no one they could take their anger out on.
I also remember this one investor/advisor going completely bankrupt because he was "lied" to about the quality of the backing on the notes. Then his clients tried to sue him and he had not a dime to his name, forclosed, turned his car in, etc. He was married with children. He went from a millionaire to nothing almost overnight. His clients still hounded him and tried to sue him all the time. It was rather lame.
But, it seems I'm getting off track. It doesn't appear as criminally bad as you suggest. I did lots of research on this for a paper I had to write. For me, the problem was mostly over-zealous banks trying to cash in on the various bad-loans being offered because of the climate the Bush Administration created.
you should check out inside job
Originally posted by inimalist
YouTube video
He skipped from number one straight to number three...but still called it number 2!
Other than that, it was frustrating listening to that guy. His speech was too broken. I couldn't stand watching him. I'm sure he had a good point.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
And the people who took out loans they can't afford are making us pay for them, so people on all ends played a part. Nobody made them take out those loans.
So how are they supposed to pay their mortgage if the business they worked for decided it was free to do business elsewhere and the alternative is now only a low paying service job....which is all that is coming back? You simply cannot pay if you don't have the money, it's impossible. Many got their homes with every intention of paying in good faith but because their job was relocated to China or India they are now f.u.c.k.e.d.
The problem is on all sides but the biggest part is those at the top of the corporations and government.
Originally posted by The Dark CloudMany of them lived in apartments and had no business buying a home, and then they lied on stated income loans. People do business elsewhere because the cost of doing business is too high in one area, people don't just want to up and move their operations if they didn't have a reason to. Employees are expensive. Ask the automotive industry.
So how are they supposed to pay their mortgage if the business they worked for decided it was free to do business elsewhere and the alternative is now only a low paying service job....which is all that is coming back? You simply cannot pay if you don't have the money, it's impossible. Many got their homes with every intention of paying in good faith but because their job was relocated to China or India they are now f.u.c.k.e.d.The problem is on all sides but the biggest part is those at the top of the corporations and government.
Originally posted by dadudemon
lol!I don't have that answer, but it is always a contributing factor.
you don't have a source then?
how about a single case study?
EDIT: poor people not being able to pay, or their deliberate deceit of those poor, poor bankers (who were only trying to help them), would not have caused major banking institutions to collapse.
Originally posted by inimalist
you don't have a source then?how about a single case study?
Why would there be a study? (There is...)
But let's go with 1/3.
I'm not joking.
http://www.articlesbase.com/loans-articles/is-it-smart-to-lie-in-your-loan-application-99969.html
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/5653569/loan-applications-falsified-at-bill-heard
That was just the first things I ran across. I don't really want to search to back up what someone else has said.
During the "sub-prime loan" period, people were sometimes encouraged to lie or "round up" on their loans.
So that made it worse.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would there be a study? (There is...)But let's go with 1/3.
I'm not joking.
http://www.articlesbase.com/loans-articles/is-it-smart-to-lie-in-your-loan-application-99969.html
from 2007, before the recession...
so, people lying on their loans wasn't a big deal until the recession, when it became prudent to blame anyone but the banks.
also, this says nothing about people not being able to afford the loans they are being given. Clearly some percentage of those 1/3 are people who lied just to make their application look better, as opposed to people who lied to qualify for something they couldn't pay.
Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/5653569/loan-applications-falsified-at-bill-heard
this appears to be a report about employees doctoring stuff to get people to qualify, such that they would sell more cars. Essentially exactly what I have been talking about.
Originally posted by dadudemon
During the "sub-prime loan" period, people were sometimes encouraged to lie or "round up" on their loans.So that made it worse.
hmmmm, when the police behave that way, it is called entrapment... I don't see how this reduces the culpability of banks at all, if anything, it is proof positive of the illegal practices I have been talking about
Let me put it like this:
Lets pretend that:
- Banks haven't lobbied and funded politicians for 30+ years to get massive deregulation unheard of in other first world nations
- The mantra of the republican party and academics (who made money from banks) didn't become "deregulate for deregulation sake"
- The state hasn't stopped any legal investigation into banks
- Banks didn't participate in widespread fraud against their customers
- Banks were responsible for their loans, rather than selling their loans to third parties
- banks hadn't corrupted the stock system such that they could get toxic stocks labeled as triple A
etc
etc
etc
pretend all of that is fixed. That you have a reasonable banking system that isn't surrounded by a culture of fraud and illegality. How many poor people does it take, who are deliberately coming in and deceiving these banks, to sink the economy? Remember, banks are now accountable for their loans, so they aren't just going to rubber stamp anything.
Or:
pretend the banking system was a corrupt as it really was, but, for a thought experiment, pretend no poor people came in and lied to the banks. Would you argue that the recession would have never happened. LOL, would you think the recession would be any better? LOL, do you think any fewer people would have lost their homes?
I mean seriously...
Originally posted by The Dark CloudConcerning outsourcing: if it's economically favorable, it's economically favorable. It might sound patriotic to protect American employees, but it's just a trade-off against American consumers, who ultimately happen to be the same people. Of course, that's just the pro-America argument. If you're pro-human-race, you might also consider that Asians are hard workers with wives and children too.
So how are they supposed to pay their mortgage if the business they worked for decided it was free to do business elsewhere and the alternative is now only a low paying service job....which is all that is coming back? You simply cannot pay if you don't have the money, it's impossible. Many got their homes with every intention of paying in good faith but because their job was relocated to China or India they are now f.u.c.k.e.d.The problem is on all sides but the biggest part is those at the top of the corporations and government.
As for fault, well gosh, the government should have regulated what happened, the banks should have regulated what happened, and the homeowners should have regulated what happened. Listening to you blame the government, you'd think the government hired spies to dupe the American people into stupid contracts. C'mon.....it's a sin of omission in three directions.
EDIT: What am I saying? The banks didn't "overlook" this, they planned it. That's not omission, that's pure crime. Anyway, it makes that much less sense to blame the government.
Originally posted by inimalistSeriously?
I would like to see a source that says the intentional lying of people to get mortgages on homes was a major factor in the recession
http://www.survivingtherecession.net/started-recession-part-2-housing-bubble-pop/
Stated income loans are normally used for self employed people or business owners to buy their homes because they have a harder time tracking their income. These subprime loans were given out to people who then lied on them to get houses. Some to live in, others were flipping houses left and right trying to be real estate gurus. I saw it with my own two eyes (and someone also posted a source), it definitely played a part.
Originally posted by inimalistNobody is saying the banks were innocent, they were trying to make money. That is what banks do.
you don't have a source then?how about a single case study?
EDIT: poor people not being able to pay, or their deliberate deceit of those poor, poor bankers (who were only trying to help them), would not have caused major banking institutions to collapse.
But the poor people weren't victims like people who want to be PC paint them out to be. People who borrow money and can't pay it back or lie on a stated income loan (which a huge amount did) then they deserve no type of mercy. People on all ends played a part in something this big. Not just one side. Nobody made those people get those loans.
If you are dumb enough to think a 0% interest loan will stay that way forever then you deserve to lose your house. Not only that but these people re-defaulted after a few months of their mortgage being adjusted.
Which just goes to show, if they didn't have the houses they couldn't have lost them. People like that will stay perpetually broke.
The economy is failing because America can't control oil in Iran. I think that's what's being built in Iraq, ways of stealing Iran's oil. America of course can't invade Iran because of China, which doesn't trust America because America caused east Asia to be bankrupt during the 90s.
It's a failing system anyway. I hope the all money collapses. People think it'll turn to chaos, I think people who offer the best resources will instead be turned to. You know, how it's supposed to be?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Seriously?http://www.survivingtherecession.net/started-recession-part-2-housing-bubble-pop/
Stated income loans are normally used for self employed people or business owners to buy their homes because they have a harder time tracking their income. These subprime loans were given out to people who then lied on them to get houses. Some to live in, others were flipping houses left and right trying to be real estate gurus. I saw it with my own two eyes (and someone also posted a source), it definitely played a part. Nobody is saying the banks were innocent, they were trying to make money. That is what banks do.
But the poor people weren't victims like people who want to be PC paint them out to be. People who borrow money and can't pay it back or lie on a stated income loan (which a huge amount did) then they deserve no type of mercy. People on all ends played a part in something this big. Not just one side. Nobody made those people get those loans.
If you are dumb enough to think a 0% interest loan will stay that way forever then you deserve to lose your house. Not only that but these people re-defaulted after a few months of their mortgage being adjusted.
Which just goes to show, if they didn't have the houses they couldn't have lost them. People like that will stay perpetually broke.
Originally posted by inimalist
Let me put it like this:Lets pretend that:
- Banks haven't lobbied and funded politicians for 30+ years to get massive deregulation unheard of in other first world nations
- The mantra of the republican party and academics (who made money from banks) didn't become "deregulate for deregulation sake"
- The state hasn't stopped any legal investigation into banks
- Banks didn't participate in widespread fraud against their customers
- Banks were responsible for their loans, rather than selling their loans to third parties
- banks hadn't corrupted the stock system such that they could get toxic stocks labeled as triple A
etc
etc
etc
pretend all of that is fixed. That you have a reasonable banking system that isn't surrounded by a culture of fraud and illegality. How many poor people does it take, who are deliberately coming in and deceiving these banks, to sink the economy? Remember, banks are now accountable for their loans, so they aren't just going to rubber stamp anything.
Or:
pretend the banking system was a corrupt as it really was, but, for a thought experiment, pretend no poor people came in and lied to the banks. Would you argue that the recession would have never happened. LOL, would you think the recession would be any better? LOL, do you think any fewer people would have lost their homes?
I mean seriously...
also, how could you possibly think that link supports your point?