80 percent of US adults face near poverty

NOVA said:
\


Of course they sold them off....Freddy and Fannie eventually bought up the loans....thats what they are for...banks have been selling loans to other institutions
for a hundred years....

The the banks were forced to invest in previously red-lined neighborhoods or they were labeled racist....they gave people loans that would not have
qualified for them before, both whites and blacks...thats what the gov. wanted them to do....selling mortgages to Freddie and Fanny is normal business thats been going on
for decades....the gov. would take the risk....

Charging higher rates for some but not others certainly is racist....thats a different matter than the wholesale sub-prime issue....
whites were given more sub-prime loans than any other race...
Lets not mix apples and oranges here.....gov. got just what they demanded....loans to unqualified borrowers....all races were included....

The racist treatment of some lenders concerning blacks and Hispanics was another issue...
gov. caused the problem that led to the racist lending by some banks.
Click to expand...

You just moved your own goalposts. Your original post was:

What advantage did the banks get by giving loans to those that could not afford to pay them back....how did that help banks ?
Click to expand...

As SP and I pointed out - banks got huge advantages because they got all the fees and then sold off the loans and didn't have to suffer the risks of them not succeeding.

Didn't know banks could be forced to do anything; can we force them to start giving out loans so small businesses can get our economy going again?
 
We Moved from a Manufacturing to a Service Economy under Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush

***RacerX*** said:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED OBAMA


22.jpg
Click to expand...

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/20...ervice-economy-under-reagan-bush-clinton-bush

gop-min-agree-4.jpg


We are well on our way of becoming the next India, with abject poverty and a caste system too!

RichMan_PoorMan.jpg
 
cawacko said:
The bailout of the banks was one of those big issues that transcended partisan lines as there were supporters and detractors on both sides. If you believe President Obama all the loan money has been paid back so there was no loss there.

I don't support bailing out homeowners. If someone took home equity money out to spend on different items then found themselves in over their head later on why should the taxpayers bail them out? If someone signed up for a teaser loan to buy a house they really couldn't afford again why should the government bail them out? I don't mean to sound heartless because I do feel for those who lost their homes but from a policy perspective I think it's wrong to support them.

You mention taking government money to provide jobs. What jobs did you have in mind? The economy is not going to grow by the government growing. It's the private sector and really the small business sector that provides economic and job growth.

You blame the Republicans for blocking Obama's jobs plans but look at the plans he's passed. The stimulus did not have near the effect his economic team claimed it would when implemented. The health care act is not helping job growth. The Dodd-Frank bill is a massive clusterfvck. It's understandable to me why people are questioning if another stimulus five years later is really the answer.

I know you wrote more but just my initial response.
Click to expand...

Let me just fill a bit in.

a.) I'm no expert when it comes to the stimulus, but I do know our "recovery" is more complex than that. There's a trend of transition in this phase of capitalism; to be exact, the more developed nations are looking less appealing to corporations.

b.) Bailing out homeowners? Why? For the same reason we bailed out banks: to help the economy. To do so is to prevent the erosion of tax bases, destruction of communities, to keep home prices up, to retain demand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top