another meaningful win for Dems last night

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.

Zim, to help you understand Jim's thought process here's a brief tutorial.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it. Also, if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program. If it were only those people who took those loans affected by it, there would not have been a program. When it causes the entire housing market to collapse and greatly impacts the ability of ALL businesses to borrow money, then it is within the function of the government to step in. At least in the opinion of most economists, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration.

"You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it." No, I was not.

"if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program"

That's a good argument for it. My rebuttal would be, if you don't let crooks/idiots fail, they never learn their lesson, so they have no incentive not to do it again. We cannot know what would have happened had they been allowed to fail.

So because I was individually stupid, instead of collectively stupid, I have to pay for my own mistake, as well as pay for the mistakes that others made that I did not make. Does that sound fair to you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Zim, to help you understand Jim's thought process here's a brief tutorial.

I'm not a sheep like you Spence, I actually think things through, which is why I agree with both sides on different, major issues. I'd like to know a major component of the liberal platform that you disagree with. All ears.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's a good argument for it. My rebuttal would be, if you don't let crooks/idiots fail, they never learn their lesson, so they have no incentive not to do it again. We cannot know what would have happened had they been allowed to fail.

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by spence

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

Or rewriting?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not a sheep like you Spence, I actually think things through, which is why I agree with both sides on different, major issues. I'd like to know a major component of the liberal platform that you disagree with. All ears.

Sheep. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHA

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

[Slipknot]

"I am not sure where you are getting that"

Originally Posted by zimmy

Federally backed loans make enormous amount of money for the government to begin with,

I got it from you.


the bailing out buddies part is the political hacks taking care of bankers but screwing people. The recession is on it's way yet the guy in charge of the rate keeps it low fending off the inevitable. I am talking in general terms not specific to harp or whatever you are fixated on.

Good for regulations, I'm glad they work to prevent mistakes, now keep the corrupt people away and things will go well. I guess time will tell

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

Who "had to follow"? You're talking about the people who bought 3x the house they should have? The "had to follow"?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

"I am not sure where you are getting that"



I got it from you.


the bailing out buddies part is the political hacks taking care of bankers but screwing people. The recession is on it's way yet the guy in charge of the rate keeps it low fending off the inevitable. I am talking in general terms not specific to harp or whatever you are fixated on.

Good for regulations, I'm glad they work to prevent mistakes, now keep the corrupt people away and things will go well. I guess time will tell

Not fixated on anything. There were two different programs discussed here, though limped together by some. I agree completely about political hacks taking care of the bankers. There is no way to keep corrupt people out of banking since money corrupts and attracts corrupt people to banking. Only defense is regulation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not a sheep like you Spence, I actually think things through, which is why I agree with both sides on different, major issues. I'd like to know a major component of the liberal platform that you disagree with. All ears.

You certainly pat yourself on the back alot. Good Christian value, vanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You certainly pat yourself on the back alot. Good Christian value, vanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I find great delight observing conservatives who wave the flag of Christianity and yet completely lack any understanding of the teachings of Jesus. I’m not pointing my finger at anyone here, just at my observations in life in general.

There’s a lot of people on this planet that need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not fixated on anything. There were two different programs discussed here, though limped together by some. I agree completely about political hacks taking care of the bankers. There is no way to keep corrupt people out of banking since money corrupts and attracts corrupt people to banking. Only defense is regulation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks. It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble that is now experiencing a correction which is not finished and may get worse and create a new financial "crisis." And that will lead to more regulation to save the ability of government to borrow money by saving the big banks.

And so will continue the growth of that symbiotic relation between our expanding government and the banking system. The real defense against that is a free market in which poor or corrupt banking policies actually lead to failure instead of government protection and greater wealth for the bankers.

If our government regulations protected a free market rather than supporting its cash cow, that would be, as you put it, the "only defense."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks. It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble...

And so will continue the growth of that symbiotic relation between our expanding government and the banking system.

If our government regulations protected a free market rather than supporting its cash cow, that would be, as you put it, the "only defense."

this can't be correct...democrat politicians would never work in conjunction with evil businesses to rig the system in their favor...they are only concerned for the "little guy" and therefore all of the regulation that they propose and support and pass must naturally fix all that is wrong with the world....can't possibly be the reason for or contribute to any such failures...more government=freedom and fairness for all...ideally...we move to one, government run banking system(after healthcare gets done)...then there will be no more greed and pillaging and profit by those running things

[Pete F.]

Perhaps the road to serfdom is paved with good intentions?
How will the end of work play into that?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks.

And decentralization can lead to localized corruption as well. See it all the time in communities.

It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble that is now experiencing a correction which is not finished and may get worse and create a new financial "crisis."

Pretty much exactly the opposite. The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans, further exacerbated by additional lack of regulation that encouraged corrupt banking practices to obfuscate the risk.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And decentralization can lead to localized corruption as well. See it all the time in communities.


Pretty much exactly the opposite. The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans, further exacerbated by additional lack of regulation that encouraged corrupt banking practices to obfuscate the risk.

"The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans,"

You are correct there. But I wonder what would have happened, if the Bush administration had put a stop to that. if the feds passed laws saying banks had to follow more traditional mortgage underwriting, then people would have said Bush was trying to keep poor people from buying houses. But I think you nailed the causes. The Clinton administration, with the GOP congress I think, removed the regulations which prevented traditional banks from getting too involved in these fishy investments.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And decentralization can lead to localized corruption as well. See it all the time in communities.

Government, by definition, is a centralization of power.

Neither decentralization nor its opposite lead to corruption. That's why you "see it all the time in communities." We already have a progressively over-centralized federal system and that does not diminish corruption at local levels. Corruption is inherent in the human condition.

The individual is a central unit of self-government. Corruption and abuse of power at that level of government has the least impact on the entire nation. And the individual has, inherently, total control of his/her morality.

Families are centralized mini-governments. Corruption in a family unit does not affect the entire nation. And the family has near total control of its morality.

Local government is centralized, more or less depending on its structure of checks and balances. The corruption at that level does not affect the entire nation. And the local citizens have more influence in stopping or prosecuting corruption in their community than they have over corruption in the national government. And the numerous localities can show different ways to govern, regulate, and prevent malfeasance or allow growth and good citizenship which can be copied or rejected by other localities or by higher levels of government. And it is easier to change things in response to public demand at the local level. Power is more closely held by the people at the local level than at the national level.

The national government is centralized (it is also referred to as the Central Government), but it is limited in power by a constitutional structure, and its power is further disbursed by its system of checks and balances.

Any corruption or abuse of power at the federal level affects the entire nation. And the possibility of centralized conglomerates of commerce, including banks, having commercial power over the whole country is far more possible, easier, when they become quasi governmental in tandem with federal regulation which favors them. The people have very limited to no control over national power.

The type of centralization of power that is the most to be feared, by those who believe in limited government, is the steady centralization of all government into the hands of the national government--the incorporation of all the powers and rights, from the individual, the family, the local and state, into the power and right of the Central Government.

Corruption, abuse of power, fascism, have their greatest opportunities to thrive under that unitary consolidation of government. That unitary power has limited to no opportunity to observe and compare various policies in action since it is the sole actor. It usually will just repeat its errors with even more force and funding into a downward spiral of economic collapse. And the entire nation will be under its thumb.

Pretty much exactly the opposite. The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans, further exacerbated by additional lack of regulation that encouraged corrupt banking practices to obfuscate the risk.

It was government regulation that encouraged and coerced the cheap and reckless loans.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans,"

The Clinton administration, with the GOP congress I think, removed the regulations which prevented traditional banks from getting too involved in these fishy investments.

The traditional banks were directed and encouraged by a regulation that substantially led to these fishy investments--The Community Reinvestment Act.

[Pete F.]

While you say Traditional Banks, traditional banks no longer exist. The bank that i used to be able to call and say i need this, they would say, for what and put the money in my account, I would stop and sign the paper has been bought and sold 3 times in the past 20 years.
All we have now is corporations funding other corporations, there are no banks that care about the community or their clients.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It was government regulation that encouraged and coerced the cheap and reckless loans.

That's complete nonsense, it was deregulation that allowed lending and securities to become one in the same.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That's complete nonsense, it was deregulation that allowed lending and securities to become one in the same.

It was government regulation that led to people who could not afford to pay for a home loan to get one. That led to bad mortgage notes which were bundled in with good ones and then sold to unknowing suckers. Without the plethora of bad notes, that corrupt bundling would not have occurred or been far less destructive.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It was government regulation that led to people who could not afford to pay for a home loan to get one. That led to bad mortgage notes which were bundled in with good ones and then sold to unknowing suckers. Without the plethora of bad notes, the corrupt bundling would not have occurred.

Your position isn't supported by the facts. CRA loans actually have had a much lower default rate historically. I think this was discussed years ago on this very site.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

While you say Traditional Banks, traditional banks no longer exist. The bank that i used to be able to call and say i need this, they would say, for what and put the money in my account, I would stop and sign the paper has been bought and sold 3 times in the past 20 years.
All we have now is corporations funding other corporations, there are no banks that care about the community or their clients.

The smaller banks were not bailed out. Banking became, as did many other corporations, more centralized into fewer large ones. Many small "traditional" small, single owner businesses, like neighborhood corner drug stores, have become scarce or no longer exist. They have been replaced by franchises which are under the umbrella of large, centralized corporations. The regulatory state promotes corporatism over smaller business entities. The big business/big government complex grows.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Your position isn't supported by the facts. CRA loans actually have had a much lower default rate historically. I think this was discussed years ago on this very site.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-c...s-guide-2009-6

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-c...s-guide-2009-6

I see your reference is a financial gossip blogger who was fired from businessinsider shortly after the piece was authored.

Touche indeed

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see your reference is a financial gossip blogger who was fired from businessinsider shortly after the piece was authored.

Touche indeed

I see you didn't refute a thing he said. There are plenty of other sources that say the same things. I chose Business Insider because it is a left leaning publication. Maybe that's why they fired him.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I see you didn't refute a thing he said. There are plenty of other sources that say the same things. I chose Business Insider because it is a left leaning publication. Maybe that's why they fired him.

BI isn't left leaning as much as just catering to a younger demographic. Don't need to refute anything he's said, it's all in the archives in this forum.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

BI isn't left leaning as much as just catering to a younger demographic. Don't need to refute anything he's said, it's all in the archives in this forum.

Oh . . . in the archives . . .al-l-l-righty then! I like your debate style. And, yeah, Business insider is left leaning. It's in the google archives.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not fixated on anything. There were two different programs discussed here, though limped together by some. I agree completely about political hacks taking care of the bankers. There is no way to keep corrupt people out of banking since money corrupts and attracts corrupt people to banking. Only defense is regulation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks. It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble that is now experiencing a correction which is not finished and may get worse and create a new financial "crisis." And that will lead to more regulation to save the ability of government to borrow money by saving the big banks.

And so will continue the growth of that symbiotic relation between our expanding government and the banking system. The real defense against that is a free market in which poor or corrupt banking policies actually lead to failure instead of government protection and greater wealth for the bankers.

If our government regulations protected a free market rather than supporting its cash cow, that would be, as you put it, the "only defense."

Originally Posted by scottw

this can't be correct...democrat politicians would never work in conjunction with evil businesses to rig the system in their favor...they are only concerned for the "little guy" and therefore all of the regulation that they propose and support and pass must naturally fix all that is wrong with the world....can't possibly be the reason for or contribute to any such failures...more government=freedom and fairness for all...ideally...we move to one, government run banking system(after healthcare gets done)...then there will be no more greed and pillaging and profit by those running things

Originally Posted by detbuch

It was government regulation that led to people who could not afford to pay for a home loan to get one. That led to bad mortgage notes which were bundled in with good ones and then sold to unknowing suckers. Without the plethora of bad notes, that corrupt bundling would not have occurred or been far less destructive.

more reason to not vote for Democrats and their liberal policy, and more reason to vote for more liberties and freedoms and free market