Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Myyco.com Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: johnm214]
    #10160439 -

johnm214 said:
isn't being completely destitute punishment enough?  Being basically a prisoner?  Maybe you have low expectations or something, but being broke sucks.


If bank executives walked away with nothing, that'd be fine with me.  Is that what happens when banks go down???

johnm214 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Banks owe billions, if not more which they can't afford to pay.  If the banks fail, they take everyone down with them that they owe money to.


Okay, so what?  Again, if you loan money to someone make sure they are trustworthy.  Why the hell should interest even exist if we are going to make it so these loans don't fail?


That sounds fine in principle, but how would you have known that AIG wasn't trustworthy???

I didn't realize interest wasn't necessary on risk-free loans (though I understand that riskier loans require higher interest to cover losses).

johnm214 said:
It is insulting for you to suggest that people's ideas aren't their own.  Its been probably a year since I've watched fox news.


I don't know what you mean.  Do you get your news by looking out the window?

johnm214 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
It's not the poor people who borrowed money that started this financial crisis (that's been going on forever), it's middle and upper class people that created the recent housing bubble with the help of banks willing to loan to anyone, regardless of ability to repay.  Banks made huge profits on the loans, and then repackaged and sold them to get rid of the risk.


Source?


Lots.  Here's the first one I came across:  Beleaguered Homeowners Get Housing Help

"When the mortgage industry was booming, almost anyone could get a home loan."

johnm214 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
There should have a been a law stating you can't take on more risk than you can afford to pay.  That's regulated capitalism (NOT socialism, which is Government ownership of business)


Why?


Um, so we don't have another Great Depression?

johnm214 said:If your not for this measure then what does "pay" mean and who decides if you can?


At the very least it means don't sell credit default swaps that are worth trillions if they get cashed in, unless you know how to come up with trillions to cover it. 

Quote:
johnm214 said:
What right do you have to jail or take my property or rights because I want to make a deal you don't like?  Its none of your buisness what deals I make.


It's none of my business unless your company makes deals that takes down the world economy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10160748 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
johnm214 said:
isn't being completely destitute punishment enough?  Being basically a prisoner?  Maybe you have low expectations or something, but being broke sucks.


If bank executives walked away with nothing, that'd be fine with me.  Is that what happens when banks go down???


No of course not.


So are you instead asserting that employees of the banks should be responsible for the bank?


I don't get it.

The bank made contracts.  The bank could not fulfill its contractual obligations.  You seem to be asserting that instead of the partys who signed the contract, and recieved the consideration of course, that some third party agent of the party should be responsible for the contract?


Look, its simple.  If the other party wanted to bind the employees of the bank, for whatever silly reason, they could have done so.  They didn't so they don't get to take their money.  What is the problem with this?


I know banks who've not approved loans untill agents, owners in that case, of buisnesses agreed to be severally liable for the contract.  That could have been done here of course.  It wasn't.


It just doesn't seem like a hard concept:  whoever contracts is bound by that contract.

What's the problem?
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Banks owe billions, if not more which they can't afford to pay.  If the banks fail, they take everyone down with them that they owe money to.


Okay, so what?  Again, if you loan money to someone make sure they are trustworthy.  Why the hell should interest even exist if we are going to make it so these loans don't fail?


That sounds fine in principle, but how would you have known that AIG wasn't trustworthy???

I didn't realize interest wasn't necessary on risk-free loans (though I understand that riskier loans require higher interest to cover losses).



What do you mean interest not neccesary on risk free loans?  Interest is never neccesary (ignoring regulation I don't understand) it is instead to componsate for the service provided, including the risk inherent in providing the service and capital.  That's my point.  Your advocating bailing out these loans.  What is the point of private party in this case?  They take the profit and stick the government with the bill for benifits it didn't reap? 


Your making the government a bank and still maintaining the profit for the person who fronted the capital but sees no risk.


And you'd know aig was not trustworthy by demanding whatever records you want to see.  Did you need to ask?  How does a bank determine who's trustworthy?  Same thing.  This isn't some mysterious process, you make sure they make enough to pay it back along with existing obligations.
Quote:
johnm214 said:
It is insulting for you to suggest that people's ideas aren't their own.  Its been probably a year since I've watched fox news.


I don't know what you mean.  Do you get your news by looking out the window?



Are you just being obstructionist here?  Look this is simple: don't accuse people of getting biased news when you disagree with their opinion.  Your saying someone has a belief you disagree with and insinuating they are a puppet because that's the only reason they'd believe something so silly.


Where I get my news is irrelevant.  I agree with him and I don't watch "faux news" and I don't think its very cordial to tell folks they are automaton that soak up propoganda just cuz you disagree with them.
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
It's not the poor people who borrowed money that started this financial crisis (that's been going on forever), it's middle and upper class people that created the recent housing bubble with the help of banks willing to loan to anyone, regardless of ability to repay.  Banks made huge profits on the loans, and then repackaged and sold them to get rid of the risk.


Source?


Lots.  Here's the first one I came across:  Beleaguered Homeowners Get Housing Help

"When the mortgage industry was booming, almost anyone could get a home loan."



What does the fact that "almost everyone could get a home loan" have to do with the opinion that it wasn't poor borrowers that started the financial crisis?  Was the problem that people were not paying back money they owed?  They are in debt.  Poor.  Yes?  They had homes.  They didn't pay.  Banks got screwed.  How is it not them who started this crisis? 


Unless your just saying that they caused it but did not start it I don't know what you mean.  And in that case the distinction seems perhaps accurate but harmful to your position.
Quote:
Quote:
johnm214 said:If your not for this measure then what does "pay" mean and who decides if you can?


At the very least it means don't sell credit default swaps that are worth trillions if they get cashed in, unless you know how to come up with trillions to cover it.

 


okay, that is much less burdensome and more reasonable then proposing the government decide who can afford their contract.  If we are going to have this sort of regulation lets do smaller targeted things like this first.
Quote:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
What right do you have to jail or take my property or rights because I want to make a deal you don't like?  Its none of your buisness what deals I make.


It's none of my business unless your company makes deals that takes down the world economy.






Okay, so you didn't really mean what you said?  You only mean that if you are taking down the world economy you get tehse regulations?



You still didn't answer my question, but appear to narrowed your position to something more reasonable.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: johnm214]
    #10161108 -

FYI for anyone proposing that this is socialism.

Government bailing out banks and corporations is oligarchy not socialism.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: johnm214]
    #10162511 -

> Why?  Should we outlaw mortgages and credit cards too?  Effectivly outlaw banking?

Nope, only usury should be illegal.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: Seuss]
    #10162600 -

Seuss said:
> Why?  Should we outlaw mortgages and credit cards too?  Effectivly outlaw banking?

Nope, only usury should be illegal.


Why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: johnm214]
    #10167188 -

johnm214 said:
You seem to be asserting that instead of the partys who signed the contract, and recieved the consideration of course, that some third party agent of the party should be responsible for the contract?


Not under normal circumstances.  But when "free market" Paulson says the financial system of this country and the world will melt down in a matter of days without a Government bailout, then there might be an exception (My link is to a fascinating one hour documentary explaining why Paulson had little choice on the bailout.  I realize that's probably too long to watch, but the point is Paulson hated Government intervention, then realized there was little choice).

johnm214 said:
Look, its simple.  If the other party wanted to bind the employees of the bank, for whatever silly reason, they could have done so.  They didn't so they don't get to take their money.  What is the problem with this?


If you're ok with an economic meltdown, there is no problem.  Remember that Bush, McCain, Obama, and the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats voted for the TARP bailout.  Interestingly, it wasn't as partisan until Obama got elected.

johnm214 said:
don't accuse people of getting biased news when you disagree with their opinion.

What does the fact that "almost everyone could get a home loan" have to do with the opinion that it wasn't poor borrowers that started the financial crisis?  Was the problem that people were not paying back money they owed?  They are in debt.  Poor.  Yes?  They had homes.  They didn't pay.  Banks got screwed.  How is it not them who started this crisis?


I didn't post a great link yesterday; I had to run out of town and posted the first I came up with.  Here's a much better link, backed by data and figures: 

Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?

The article is loaded with data showing why CRA had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, but I'll summarize the key points:

- CRA was enacted in 1977, the problems began in 2005
- CRA-related loans perform comparably to other subprime loans.
- Only 6% of subprime loans came from CRA-regulated lenders

So at best, CRA is 6% to blame.  The article goes on to argue it's actually less, but I think 6% is sufficient to show CRA is an insignificant factor in the mortgage crisis.  I can provide other links saying the same.  If you have data (not opinions) that supports CRA being at fault, please share it; I found none.

johnm214 said:
Okay, so you didn't really mean what you said?  You only mean that if you are taking down the world economy you get these regulations?


I meant regulations should be passed to prevent the world economy from being taken down in the first place.

johnm214 said:
You still didn't answer my question, but appear to narrowed your position to something more reasonable.


Did I answer it yet, or was there another question?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10167299 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?

The article is loaded with data showing why CRA had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis, but I'll summarize the key points:

- CRA was enacted in 1977, the problems began in 2005
- CRA-related loans perform comparably to other subprime loans.
- Only 6% of subprime loans came from CRA-regulated lenders

So at best, CRA is 6% to blame.  The article goes on to argue it's actually less, but I think 6% is sufficient to show CRA is an insignificant factor in the mortgage crisis.  I can provide other links saying the same.  If you have data (not opinions) that supports CRA being at fault, please share it; I found none.





It wasnt even a day i go i pointed out this is a strawman, This is not the argument for the CRA causing the mortgage crisis.Though a part of it,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: Redstorm]
    #10167392 -

Redstorm said:
Seuss said:
> Why?  Should we outlaw mortgages and credit cards too?  Effectivly outlaw banking?

Nope, only usury should be illegal.


Why?



because a few elitists bankers are paying themselves millions of dollars to steal our money and loan it back to us with interest.....


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: buckwheat]
    #10167799 -

buckwheat said:
It wasnt even a day i go i pointed out this is a strawman, This is not the argument for the CRA causing the mortgage crisis.Though a part of it,


I was responding to

johnm214 said:
How is it not them (the poor) who started this crisis?



--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: lonestar2004]
    #10167822 -

lonestar2004 said:
Redstorm said:
Seuss said:
> Why?  Should we outlaw mortgages and credit cards too?  Effectivly outlaw banking?

Nope, only usury should be illegal.


Why?



because a few elitists bankers are paying themselves millions of dollars to steal our money and loan it back to us with interest.....


I'm with you on this.  But how do you get the banks to agree???

Edit:  I think I understand - make it a bailout requirement

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/14/09 10:09 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10169464 -

If you don't like usury either get a better credit score or don't apply for a loan. It's their money and they should be able to loan it at what rate they please.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: Redstorm]
    #10170181 -

Redstorm said:
It's their money and they should be able to loan it at what rate they please.


that used to be true.....

Banks have received billions of dollars in bailout money from the American taxpayer.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Obama Stakes His Fortunes on Failed Banksters: [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #10170465 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
lonestar2004 said:
Redstorm said:
Seuss said:
> Why?  Should we outlaw mortgages and credit cards too?  Effectivly outlaw banking?

Nope, only usury should be illegal.


Why?



because a few elitists bankers are paying themselves millions of dollars to steal our money and loan it back to us with interest.....


I'm with you on this.  But how do you get the banks to agree???

Edit:  I think I understand - make it a bailout requirement




"He who pays the piper calls the tune"


the banksters have paid off BOTH parties....


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Myyco.com Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Top Clinton Adviser Says Superdelegates Will Decide Election, Obama's Victories 'Irrelevant'
( 1 2 all )		 lonestar2004 3,588 29 02/18/08 04:57 PM
by zappaisgod
* Obama Practiced Islam
( 1 2 all )		 bodynotdead 2,523 24 01/20/08 11:10 PM
by blackegg
* Black Americans fear for Obama's life! lonestar2004 682 5 02/05/08 06:31 PM
by gluke bastid
* Sen. Obama Warns TV to Clean Up or Congress Will Act
( 1 2 all )		 lonestar2004 2,948 23 11/13/05 11:27 PM
by crunchytoast
* Bush's Prime Time Speech fails to impress daussaulit 552 2 04/16/04 10:57 AM
by Learyfan
* McCain's Senior Advisor Willing To Step Down for Obama?
( 1 2 all )		 blackegg 2,664 28 02/19/08 10:38 AM
by zorbman
* Obama Warns Pakistan on Terrorism elbisivni 966 5 08/01/07 05:52 PM
by Penguarky Tunguin
* OBAMA CLAIMS DELEGATE LEAD
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 lonestar2004 5,234 73 02/12/08 07:12 PM
by Gastronomicus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,748 topic views. 1 members, 31 guests and 37 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.