Persecuting People in Pain

[xbuzzerx]

What crimes did they commit? You can be sure that the democrat department of justice looked for crimes to charge them with. Not everything bad has been criminalized.

No actually the only people in banking who ever get punished are people like Bernie Madoff who rob the 1%.

Robbing the 99% is perfectly fine.

 

[Benvolio]

No actually the only people in banking who ever get punished are people like Bernie Madoff who rob the 1%.

Robbing the 99% is perfectly fine.

Who robbed the 99% ? Their deposits were protected by FDIC. If you want to blame someone for their mortgage losses, look to the Congress which required low income lending, the FDIC and other regulators which approved the variable interest rate mortgages, the Federal Reserve which raised interest rates, knowing that it would cause interest rates on those mortgage to rise, and the FDIC which panicked.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Who robbed the 99% ? Their deposits were protected by FDIC. If you want to blame someone for their mortgage losses, look to the Congress which required low income lending, the FDIC and other regulators which approved the variable interest rate mortgages, the Federal Reserve which raised interest rates, knowing that it would cause interest rates on those mortgage to rise, and the FDIC which panicked.

None of the companies that made massive subprime loans were being "required" to do so by regulation. They were eagerly doing it for signing fees and requiring no income verification of any kind. And quickly turning around and handing the loan to the taxpayer.

I worked in accounting, so I know exactly what happened since I dealt with clients working with lenders like CountryWide, and the very least thing these companies were doing was reluctantly giving loans they knew were bad because evil libruls forced them to. They would call 16 times a day until they got whatever they needed to hurry and finalize the loan. They were making big money on it and knew they wouldn't have to hold the paper.

 

[Kulindahr]

I didn' finish me thought...

Further thought in bold.

They can even arrest you for drug activity, seize your property, and if the charges are dismissed you still can't get your property back.

Because of this, we no longer have private property at all; the government can take anything they want whenever they want merely by alleging an anonymous call saying you're a drug dealer, arrest you, take all you own, release you, and you're homeless and broke.

 

[jbrown329]

They can even arrest you for drug activity, seize your property, and if the charges are dismissed you still can't get your property back.

Because of this, we no longer have private property at all; the government can take anything they want whenever they want merely by alleging an anonymous call saying you're a drug dealer, arrest you, take all you own, release you, and you're homeless and broke.

The house next door to my friend was a well known drug house. Cops were called numerous times. Nothing done. House was not seized/boarded up.

 

[Kulindahr]

The house next door to my friend was a well known drug house. Cops were called numerous times. Nothing done. House was not seized/boarded up.

They probably didn't consider it worth taking, or maybe it was rented.

It isn't hard at all to find case after case where cops have arrested someone on drug charges and immediately seized, boats, RVs, horse trailers, houses, businesses, etc., and then the person was found not guilty or the charges were dropped, but they never got their property back.

 

[Kabluey]

Who robbed the 99% ? Their deposits were protected by FDIC. If you want to blame someone for their mortgage losses, look to the Congress which required low income lending, the FDIC and other regulators which approved the variable interest rate mortgages, the Federal Reserve which raised interest rates, knowing that it would cause interest rates on those mortgage to rise, and the FDIC which panicked.

Allowing savings banks to gamble with deposits, using mortgages as security, that's something else altogether.

The crisis was caused by fraudulent lending and basic gambling with artificial investment instruments.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Trump is for legal pot and i think he will get rid of the evil prison industrial complex and create jobs... wake the fuck up people!!

Your priorities are on point I see.

 

[Kulindahr]

Allowing savings banks to gamble with deposits, using mortgages as security, that's something else altogether.

The crisis was caused by fraudulent lending and basic gambling with artificial investment instruments.

Don't you just love the way ben lies about the situation by referencing FDIC-insured deposits, which have absolutely nothing at all to do with the situation? Now, if the FDIC insured mortgages, he might have had a point!

 

[Benvolio]

Don't you just love the way ben lies about the situation by referencing FDIC-insured deposits, which have absolutely nothing at all to do with the situation? Now, if the FDIC insured mortgages, he might have had a point!

Look again. Buzzer suggested that the 99% had been robbed, without explaination. I asked how and pointed out that their deposits were insured. You! Not I are lying. Your eagerness to be rude is pathetic.

 

[TX-Beau]

Look again. Buzzer suggested that the 99% had been robbed, without explaination. I asked how and pointed out that their deposits were insured. You! Not I are lying. Your eagerness to be rude is pathetic.

(emphasis mine)



TWICE the hypocrisy for the price of one today!

 

[Kulindahr]

Look again. Buzzer suggested that the 99% had been robbed, without explaination. I asked how and pointed out that their deposits were insured. You! Not I are lying. Your eagerness to be rude is pathetic.

Bringing up deposits was changing the subject.

When you're lying -- and you were -- pointing it out is not "rude", it's a service in objectivity for other readers.

 

[Benvolio]

Bringing up deposits was changing the subject.

When you're lying -- and you were -- pointing it out is not "rude", it's a service in objectivity for other readers.

No, since he did not explain how the 99 % were robbed it was not changing the subject to point out that their deposits were insured if that is what he meant. And, yes, the deposits were insured. You lie in calling me a liar.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, since he did not explain how the 99 % were robbed it was not changing the subject to point out that their deposits were insured if that is what he meant. And, yes, the deposits were insured. You lie in calling me a liar.

If his post had come out the the thin air and not been part of a thread, you'd have a point. But intelligent people realize that posts are part of threads and thus have a context. The context had nothing to do with deposit accounts.

So again, the only options are that you are deliberately misrepresenting, purposely lying, or failing in reading comprehension.

 

[jbrown329]

If his post had come out the the thin air and not been part of a thread, you'd have a point. But intelligent people realize that posts are part of threads and thus have a context. The context had nothing to do with deposit accounts.

So again, the only options are that you are deliberately misrepresenting, purposely lying, or failing in reading comprehension.

 

[Benvolio]

If his post had come out the the thin air and not been part of a thread, you'd have a point. But intelligent people realize that posts are part of threads and thus have a context. The context had nothing to do with deposit accounts.

So again, the only options are that you are deliberately misrepresenting, purposely lying, or failing in reading comprehension.

Oh! What a tangled web YOU weave, when first YOU practise to deceive.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh! What a tangled web YOU weave, when first YOU practise to deceive.

We have officially achieved the third grade!

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, since he did not explain how the 99 % were robbed it was not changing the subject to point out that their deposits were insured if that is what he meant. And, yes, the deposits were insured. You lie in calling me a liar.

Because the American taxpayer was forced to hold and cover the debt on bad loans that private banks knowingly made. They were not forced to do so. The attempt to demonize regulations which incentivize loans for first time home buyers is a complete distraction attempt by the right wing. First time home buyers who intend to purchase their first home and stay there long-term are notoriously conservative. They don't attempt to finance a house that costs 3x more per month than they can possibly justify earning, nor would any bank give such a loan. The people who stood to gain the most (and were taking advantage) of the subprime market were people who were speculating on the housing value boom bubble, already had a primary residence, and were purchasing 2nd (or even in some cases 3rd or 4th) properties that their numbers on paper could not POSSIBLY justify financing long-term. They had no intention of holding these properties long term. They had the intention of picking it up, holding it for 3 months, and selling it when values had risen another 60 or 90k on the house. And many people made money doing this, and NONE of them were first-time urban black couples attempting to buy their very first residential home. They were largely middle and upper middle class white families.

Someone who utterly cannot afford a house they want to live in permanently gains absolutely nothing by going to a subprime lender and "tricking" them into giving them a loan that they then default on 1 month later--- unless you count having your home repossessed and having your credit absolutely obliterated for 7 years as some kind of economic advance that "evil librul policies" encourage low income couples to do. The people who benefitted from this were people who were very very far away from the urban or low income first time homebuyers that you are attempting to pin the problem on.

Banks were bailed out, and the taxpayer held the paper on the bad loans knowingly made by those same banks that got bailed out.

They robbed the 99%. We socialized their profits and their continued survival.

 

[Benvolio]

Who said anything about first time home buyers? Not I. I never have.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Who said anything about first time home buyers? Not I. I never have.

You've made repeated vague reference (dovetailing with the Republican talking points ever since the collapse) to regulations that "forced" banks to make these loans.

It's total horsepockey.