By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Tea Parties: Whats really going on?

ironman on 18 April 2009

Well considering this was Bill Clinton's doing, after all he signed the bill that forced mortgage companies to make loans out to people who couldn't afford them, and made it profitable at that by guaranteeing our money for other people's mistake. What transpired next was a huge boom in housing, followed by the crash as debt was not paid back. What Bush did in giving the first bailout package was wrong, not because it wasn't necessary, but because it didn't fix the problem. No legislation was passed to kill the previous bill, and 1.2 trillion dollars was passed out to companies that were still being forced to make the bad loans. Now we have Obama, he not only wants to keep giving out the money, but, being the geniouse that he is, he is only going to expand the TARP and HUD programs to ensure that the banks and lending companies make even MORE bad loans. No I see that in order for us not to get a whole lotta hurt, the bailout may have been necesary, but unless you fix the root cause, all you do is fead this beast. and mark my words, if we let it get too big, it will rip apart the chains binding it and go on a rampage unlike anything ever seen before.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Around the Network
akuma587 on 18 April 2009

Forced to make bad loans? Please show me evidence that they were FORCED to make these loans. They were HAPPY to make them and the banking firms actively encouraged their employees to make them. Everyone was making so much money on the primary and secondary mortgage markets that they never thought it would come back to bite them in the ass.

What you are saying is like blaming me for someone killing themselves if I leave a gun in the house. Yeah, maybe I should have been more careful, but I can't be responsible for the decisions that a rational individual chooses to make simply because one of my acts enabled them to make that decision. That is, unless you are trying to say that those banks were not rational.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

ironman on 18 April 2009

Yes the banks must meet a certain criteria of sub prime loans set by the government. I know for a fact that there was unscrupulous dealings, but that will happen in any industry, the people making bad loans should be fired no doubt, but that is up to the company, you see, a banker is like a life insurance agent, they are not held accountable, the corporation they work for is. So it is in the best interest of the corporation to get rid of sleezy characters.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Tyrannical on 18 April 2009
akuma587 said:

Forced to make bad loans? Please show me evidence that they were FORCED to make these loans. They were HAPPY to make them and the banking firms actively encouraged their employees to make them.

 

 The "forced" usualy involves discrimination lawsuits claiming the banks are turning down to many minority loan applications.

Freddie Mac was the government agency that  was encouraging it by continuing to buy these bad loans.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

akuma587 on 18 April 2009

You can counter a discrimination lawsuit pretty easily with a showing that there is a legitimate business reason for doing so. All you have to do is get a copy of their credit report and that is usually enough to throw the case out of court.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
ironman on 18 April 2009

unfortunately that is not the way it works my friend. The court will rule in favor of the less fortunate over a large corperation 9 times out of 10. And with the government making this mandatory, and profitable by backing the bad loans with our tax dollars, where is the incentive to do the right thing?



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

akuma587 on 18 April 2009

How much higher was the amount of sub-prime loans that they were required to make versus those that they actually made? You can't claim that they were forced to make loans that they made complete outside the scope of any government regulations.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 on 18 April 2009
ironman said:

unfortunately that is not the way it works my friend. The court will rule in favor of the less fortunate over a large corperation 9 times out of 10. And with the government making this mandatory, and profitable by backing the bad loans with our tax dollars, where is the incentive to do the right thing?

Sorry, that is total bullshit.  Do you practice law?  Do you know anything about the legal system?

Discrimination cases are usually tried in federal court.  A federal court judge is much more likely to rule for the defendant at the summary judgment level than a state court judge.  And you have to show specific discriminatory intent or systematic discrimination in terms of the end results of policies the companies have.

And juries in federal court are typically more conservative than in state court.  They draw people from the outlying suburbs during jury selection more readily than in state court, which tends to get more people from the inner cities.  Federal court juries are typically more skeptical of these type of claims than your average juror.

So, no, judges do not just rubber stamp discrimination claims.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

ironman on 18 April 2009

Well actually, the problem was too much regulation, the government got involved, told banks how to run their business, and now we have this nice little mess, thats why this Republic was formed giving the government as little power as possible without creating Anarchy. But as with all things, the natural process is to degrade.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

ironman on 18 April 2009
akuma587 said:
ironman said:

unfortunately that is not the way it works my friend. The court will rule in favor of the less fortunate over a large corperation 9 times out of 10. And with the government making this mandatory, and profitable by backing the bad loans with our tax dollars, where is the incentive to do the right thing?

Sorry, that is total bullshit.  Do you practice law?  Do you know anything about the legal system?

Discrimination cases are usually tried in federal court.  A federal court judge is much more likely to rule for the defendant at the summary judgment level than a state court judge.  And you have to show specific discriminatory intent or systematic discrimination in terms of the end results of policies the companies have.

And juries in federal court are typically more conservative than in state court.  They draw people from the outlying suburbs during jury selection more readily than in state court, which tends to get more people from the inner cities.  Federal court juries are typically more skeptical of these type of claims than your average juror.

So, no, judges do not just rubber stamp discrimination claims.

 

Sorry about the double post, but this was just too good to pass up, I have a good friend who is a lawyer, which I realize isn't as prestigiouse as being a student of the law, but it is as close as I ever want to get to that profession. 

Reguardless of where a case is tried, in the case of a large corperation vs. a single person the court is more leniant with the lone person given the fact that they cannot afford the caliber of legal representation that a corpration can. I never said that a judge just rubber stamps these cases, but they hare more understanding of the individule and that is a fact.  Also, with the law on their side (TARP, PROP8 and HUD) there is no question that the prosecution will win most cases. 

 



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!