This sums it up pretty well

Darla said:
LOL. The king of faux outrage speaks.

I blame who I always blamed, predatory lenders and the forces of deregulation, made possible through politicians who have whored themselves out to big business, and their ignorant minions on message boards all over the world. Period.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you have figured out three of the four responsible parties.

Unfortunately for you, you don't believe in personal responsibility. You think the vast majority of people are too stupid to understand such a simple concept.
 
Desh said:
It was the second part in 1999 that made writting masses of these loans profitable for the industry.

Before this portion was changed it was still to costly to writ very amny of these loans and they would only write a small purportion of them compaired to the rest of thier loans. This is the one which caused the fray.
Click to expand...

Again desh....

Could the Dems have killed this bill? Yes or no desh.
 
She isn't going to answer, just like she isn't going to answer why "welfare queens" is a racist statement...apparently only one ethnicity is on welfare in Desh's mind.
 
Darla said:
Wow thanks Sherlock.

Hey guys, everyone in America doesn't own a home!

.
Click to expand...

Ergo--it IS a dream, a myth right up there with Cadillac welfare moms. People who believe in greedy fantasies will always fall victim to their own idle desires. We're gonna get offered up free lunches here pretty soon and someone is gonna bitch because they taste bad.
 
Darla said:
Can you show where I wrote "republican"?

Yet another strawman erected and manfully knocked over by dilldock.

Wow, you man you.

Let me know when you want to debate something that, you know, I actually said.
Click to expand...

Would a Democrat make someone buy something that wasn't worth the price ?
 
"Congress Sends Financial Services Reform Bill to President
Washington, DC, November 5, 1999 - On November 4, the Senate approved the conference report on S. 900, the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act," by a 90-8 vote. A few hours later, the House of Representatives passed the conference report by a 362-57 vote. The votes are historic steps for financial modernization legislation, which has been considered in Congress for more than 20 years. The President is expected to sign S. 900 shortly."

Bottom line Desh... regardless of the names on the bill.... it was supported by a wide bi-partisan vote.
 
Dilloduck said:
Ergo--it IS a dream, a myth right up there with Cadillac welfare moms. People who believe in greedy fantasies will always fall victim to their own idle desires. We're gonna get offered up free lunches here pretty soon and someone is gonna bitch because they taste bad.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the Amerian dream is a myth?
 
gonzojournals said:
The welfare queen driving a cadillac isn't a myth, anyway. I have lived around those welfare queens for years.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are not aware of how that little phrase was used in the 80s by Reagan.

You are young and were not old enough to realize that was ALL about race.
 
Desh said:
Maybe you are not aware of how that little phrase was used in the 80s by Reagan.

You are young and were not old enough to realize that was ALL about race.
Click to expand...

That must be it...however, I have seen people abuse the welfare system for years, including whites.
 
Superfreak said:
So you are saying the Dems are idiots and vote for bills they don't understand???
Click to expand...


It was packaged and presented as a comsumer protection bill. It was touted as a bill designed to protect the consumers information from being used improperly by the industry. In the bill was this little nugget which allowed the lending industry to consolidate. Are you really surprised that they can not read every bill in full? You see they used to trust each other to some extent. That is pretty much gone now.
 
gonzojournals said:
That must be it...however, I have seen people abuse the welfare system for years, including whites.
Click to expand...


That is from your perception. There are peopel who do abuse it to some extent but these problens could be cured with better education in the inner cities and rural areas and job training and like programs. You would rather blame than really solve any of this though. It would be better to teach these people who to fish instead of giving them a fish every day huh?
 
Desh said:
Damo these loans were helping not hurting anyone at the low levels they were being written at before the new law which gave the lenders a way to make profits off of them.

If they consolidation had not taken place these program would have been harmless like it was until they started writting en mass.

It was the number of subprime they packaged in not that sub prime was packaged in.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't have been "harmless" Desh, the effect would have been the same. Those loans began the bubble, the law you point to just exacerbated the effect and made the end come more quickly.

Again you are desperately wanting that the law that began as "help" to be a perfect and "harmless" law. It wasn't harmless. It was bad policy. Banks created those risk factors they used to make loans for a reason, it wasn't to be "unfair" it was to be effective in collecting the money they were owed. When the government began mucking around in it they created the environment that caused the effect. Without it they wouldn't have been lobbying for the furthering of the bad policy.

Pretending it is only their "selling" loans (which they did before that law you refer to) was the only thing wrong with these loans is pretense. They were largely bad to begin with. Interest rates WILL go up, EVERY TIME. They are not "harmless" if your goal is to keep the banks profitable so they don't fail, if you want people who purchase homes to be able to continue living in them instead of working for two to three years to repair their credit after a foreclosure.

If you want housing markets to stay high, instead of being harmed by foreclosure drops...

All of these things were effected by the original bad policy. In the beginning it made it "grow", but in the end it was only hiding the negative effects behind crows of "More <insert group here> own homes than ever before!" That people wanted to take advantage of the enforced bad policy is simply what happens when bad policy creates short term huge profits without regard to the actual rise and fall effect of ALL markets, including housing.

They too wanted to catch one more wave, but they didn't want to be out surfing when the tidal wave finally hit... all supported by and cheered on by the government crowing how great they were doing in getting more people into homes than ever before...
 
Desh said:
It was packaged and presented as a comsumer protection bill. It was touted as a bill designed to protect the consumers information from being used improperly by the industry. In the bill was this little nugget which allowed the lending industry to consolidate. Are you really surprised that they can not read every bill in full? You see they used to trust each other to some extent. That is pretty much gone now.
Click to expand...

They god damn better not be signing bills into law that they do not understand. It is there JOB to understand the legislation they create. While I grant you that not every politician is going to read every word of every bill, every committee is composed of both parties. The purpose of those committees is to ensure that both parties have members that DO understand the bills their committees put forth.

The bill was CREATED to allow the consolidation (which had already begun) to be permanent. It went through the House and Senate... back and forth until they reached a compromise between the two. BOTH parties were in on these negotiations.
 
Damo the run up in price coincided with the escalation of these loans. They had been around for a decade and not create this escalation. They were a small cost of business during those years. They were not a big profit maker now were they? The only reason they started writing them in the numbers they did was they found a way to profit from them.
 
Desh said:
Maybe you are not aware of how that little phrase was used in the 80s by Reagan.

You are young and were not old enough to realize that was ALL about race.
Click to expand...

gonzo.... desh is correct on this point. It was the use of "cadillac" that made it racist in nature, given the popularity of the vehicles among blacks. Had Reagan simply said welfare queens and left out the stereotype it would not have been. Because of the manner in which he used it, it is considered racist when used today.... especially when you also included the reference to cadillacs.
 
Superfreak said:
They god damn better not be signing bills into law that they do not understand. It is there JOB to understand the legislation they create. While I grant you that not every politician is going to read every word of every bill, every committee is composed of both parties. The purpose of those committees is to ensure that both parties have members that DO understand the bills their committees put forth.

The bill was CREATED to allow the consolidation (which had already begun) to be permanent. It went through the House and Senate... back and forth until they reached a compromise between the two. BOTH parties were in on these negotiations.
Click to expand...

can you go get the history of the law so we can go through it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top