http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

harry wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

We've had two revolutions; we won one and lost the other.

HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

We've had two revolutions; we won one and lost the other.


Learn more...
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&so...skey+rebellion

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

Hey Harry, what do you think about this one?

http://dotsub.com/view/6474921d-8943...8-de62aa3b3e54

In article
,
harry wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

The Civil War was a bit more than a barroom brawl.
Somewhere around 620,000 died.

On 9/4/2011 3:50 AM, harry wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

Is a quick settlement with the major actors better than suing them into
oblivion?

harry wrote in news:f2e18df6-01cc-4586-990e-
:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if & when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

With no expertise, that's the way I see it. Not far off I bet.

harry wrote in news:f2e18df6-01cc-4586-990e-
:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

The banks don't screw the poor. They create the poor from those who were
stable...and stupid enough to put blinders on to the "what if's" out of
greed.

In article ,
Red Green wrote:

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if & when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

Some, but this is also a function of the human psyche. This
particular meltdown was, in practice, no different from every other
bubble from the Tulips forward. There is a certain flaw in the way most
of us think that thinks trees grow to the sky. That the good times are
so firmly established that they will ALWAYS continue, ignoring
everything from Daedelus forward. People actually KNEW that it did not
make any difference if somebody could afford a house because they KNEW
that if they did, they could foreclose on the house and sell it again
(and again and again) at ever escalating prices. How did the KNOW...
well (selective) experience. That was the way things were... until they
weren't.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sep 4, 10:21*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*Red Green wrote:

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if & when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

* * *Some, but this is also a function of the human psyche. This
particular meltdown was, in practice, no different from every other
bubble from the Tulips forward. There is a certain flaw in the way most
of us think that thinks trees grow to the sky. That the good times are
so firmly established that they will ALWAYS continue, ignoring
everything from Daedelus forward. People actually KNEW that it did not
make any difference if somebody could afford a house because they KNEW
that if they did, they could foreclose on the house and sell it again
(and again and again) at ever escalating prices. How did the KNOW...
well (selective) experience. That was the way things were... until they
weren't.


Exactly. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Everyone from individuals who bought homes they
knew they either could just barely afford, or could
not afford them at all. They chose to make small
or no down payments. Govt encouraged housing
through tax subsidies. They encouraged banks to
make loans to people who were not qualified.
Govt had direct supervision of the two mortgage
agencies which went bust. Financial companies
profited and looked the other way.

The one player in all this that almost never gets
blamed is the Federal Reserve. They are in
charge of monitoring banks and if anyone should
have seen what was happening, they sure would
be at the top of the list. They ketp interest rates
very low and certainly should have know that
that money was being used for speculation in
housing. Greenspan, during his watch warned
of excessive exuberance during the stock market
madness, but he too did nothing to try to alter
that bubble.

On 9/4/2011 10:33 AM, wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:21 am, Kurt wrote:
In ,
Red wrote:

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if& when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

Some, but this is also a function of the human psyche. This
particular meltdown was, in practice, no different from every other
bubble from the Tulips forward. There is a certain flaw in the way most
of us think that thinks trees grow to the sky. That the good times are
so firmly established that they will ALWAYS continue, ignoring
everything from Daedelus forward. People actually KNEW that it did not
make any difference if somebody could afford a house because they KNEW
that if they did, they could foreclose on the house and sell it again
(and again and again) at ever escalating prices. How did the KNOW...
well (selective) experience. That was the way things were... until they
weren't.


Exactly. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Everyone from individuals who bought homes they
knew they either could just barely afford, or could
not afford them at all. They chose to make small
or no down payments. Govt encouraged housing
through tax subsidies. They encouraged banks to
make loans to people who were not qualified.
Govt had direct supervision of the two mortgage
agencies which went bust. Financial companies
profited and looked the other way.

The one player in all this that almost never gets
blamed is the Federal Reserve. They are in
charge of monitoring banks and if anyone should
have seen what was happening, they sure would
be at the top of the list. They ketp interest rates
very low and certainly should have know that
that money was being used for speculation in
housing. Greenspan, during his watch warned
of excessive exuberance during the stock market
madness, but he too did nothing to try to alter
that bubble.

You can't have it both ways. You are very adamant about what Limbagh
tells you that we must have "free markets" and no "government
interference".

We have known about greed since man has been on the Earth and why we
need a sensible amount of rules to limit it.

From anything I can find there were minimal to no regulations on the
folks who were securitizing mortgages. So that meant you had a leverage
effect because anyone who could fog a mirror could get a mortgage
because the pirates who were securitizing mortgages would handle the
paper. If that wasn't so the originators wouldn't be able to write those
mortgages because there would be no buyers for those mortgages who would
accept the risk.

In article , George
wrote:




You can't have it both ways. You are very adamant about what Limbagh
tells you that we must have "free markets" and no "government
interference".

Give me a break. THE dumbest statement in political conversation
today is "Limbaugh" or "Carville" or whoever tells you. It is really
just a nice way to dismiss things that invoke cognitive dissonance since
one can just dismiss the person without having to actually LISTEN to
what he or she has to say. This tendency to dismiss people's thoughts
out of hand is even more corrosive to political debate than the
partisanship.


We have known about greed since man has been on the Earth and why we
need a sensible amount of rules to limit it.
And how well has that worked over even a little bit of time.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sep 4, 1:35*pm, "Charlie" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

Hey Harry, what do you think about this one?

http://dotsub.com/view/6474921d-8943...8-de62aa3b3e54

Seen that one before. Pat Condell is well known over here. He should
be made prime minister.
Here's more of his stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...t+condell&aq=0

Pat Condell has plenty to say about the USA too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f01IBDoZGg

On Sep 4, 1:35*pm, "Charlie" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

Hey Harry, what do you think about this one?

http://dotsub.com/view/6474921d-8943...8-de62aa3b3e54

Another one.There's lots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ga9u...eature=related

On Sep 4, 2:39*pm, Red Green wrote:
harry wrote in news:f2e18df6-01cc-4586-990e-
:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if & when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

With no expertise, that's the way I see it. Not far off I bet.

For a non-expert you are remarkable I say :-)

On Sep 4, 3:33*pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 4, 10:21*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In article ,
*Red Green wrote:

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if & when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

* * *Some, but this is also a function of the human psyche. This
particular meltdown was, in practice, no different from every other
bubble from the Tulips forward. There is a certain flaw in the way most
of us think that thinks trees grow to the sky. That the good times are
so firmly established that they will ALWAYS continue, ignoring
everything from Daedelus forward. People actually KNEW that it did not
make any difference if somebody could afford a house because they KNEW
that if they did, they could foreclose on the house and sell it again
(and again and again) at ever escalating prices. How did the KNOW...
well (selective) experience. That was the way things were... until they
weren't.

Exactly. *There is plenty of blame to go around.
Everyone from individuals who bought homes they
knew they either could just barely afford, or could
not afford them at all. *They chose to make small
or no down payments. * Govt encouraged housing
through tax subsidies. *They encouraged banks to
make loans to people who were not qualified.
Govt had direct supervision of the two mortgage
agencies which went bust. *Financial companies
profited and looked the other way.

The one player in all this that almost never gets
blamed is the Federal Reserve. *They are in
charge of monitoring banks and if anyone should
have seen what was happening, they sure would
be at the top of the list. *They ketp interest rates
very low and certainly should have know that
that money was being used for speculation in
housing. * Greenspan, during his watch warned
of excessive exuberance during the stock market
madness, but he too did nothing to try to alter
that bubble.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good one there.
It was on RTTV that no-one knows how much gold the federal reserve has
or what they have done with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXkY7...eature=related

On 9/4/2011 3:50 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

There were less Africans and Indians back then.

--
@~@ You have the right to remain silent.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

LouB wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
harry wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20086862.shtml

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

We've had two revolutions; we won one and lost the other.


Learn more...
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&so...skey+rebellion

Well, the Whiskey Rebellion was more of a, um, "rebellion" than a
revolution. I was referring to the recent unplesantness we southerners call
the "Second War of Independence."

harry wrote in
:

On Sep 4, 2:39*pm, Red Green wrote:
harry wrote in news:f2e18df6-01cc-4586-990e-
:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...n20086862.shtm
l

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements,
aka payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the
bottom li
ne
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if & when the **** hit the
fan
,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone
elses problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses
problem, the "someone else" just claims they were not there then. It
was someone else.

With no expertise, that's the way I see it. Not far off I bet.

For a non-expert you are remarkable I say :-)

"Too Big to Fail" was a good movie on the subject. How much was accurate
and how much Hollywood I don't know. Good movie though.

On 9/4/2011 1:29 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:




You can't have it both ways. You are very adamant about what Limbagh
tells you that we must have "free markets" and no "government
interference".

Give me a break. THE dumbest statement in political conversation
today is "Limbaugh" or "Carville" or whoever tells you. It is really
just a nice way to dismiss things that invoke cognitive dissonance since
one can just dismiss the person without having to actually LISTEN to
what he or she has to say. This tendency to dismiss people's thoughts
out of hand is even more corrosive to political debate than the
partisanship.


Maybe you haven't noticed but they might as well turn the lights out at
the RNC. Limbagh is the spokesman for the Republican party. I have
listened and am not interested in hearing "we need free trade and no
regulation" (because it is obvious how well that works) and then in the
next breath what the person I replied to parroted "the government should
have done something"



We have known about greed since man has been on the Earth and why we
need a sensible amount of rules to limit it.
And how well has that worked over even a little bit of time.

On 9/4/2011 10:02 PM, Red Green wrote:
wrote in
:

On Sep 4, 2:39 pm, Red wrote:
wrote in news:f2e18df6-01cc-4586-990e-
:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...n20086862.shtm
l

Land of the free?

America has never had a revolution.
Now is the time I think after reading this.

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements,
aka payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the
bottom li
ne
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if& when the **** hit the
fan
,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone
elses problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses
problem, the "someone else" just claims they were not there then. It
was someone else.

With no expertise, that's the way I see it. Not far off I bet.

For a non-expert you are remarkable I say :-)

"Too Big to Fail" was a good movie on the subject. How much was accurate
and how much Hollywood I don't know. Good movie though.

I got the impression it was produced by the same folks who engineered
the "too big to fail" plan itself. You have to give them credit. I think
it was one of the best con jobs ever pulled on the American people.

On Sep 4, 12:25*pm, George wrote:
On 9/4/2011 10:33 AM, wrote:





On Sep 4, 10:21 am, Kurt *wrote:
In ,
* Red *wrote:

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if& *when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

* * * Some, but this is also a function of the human psyche. This
particular meltdown was, in practice, no different from every other
bubble from the Tulips forward. There is a certain flaw in the way most
of us think that thinks trees grow to the sky. That the good times are
so firmly established that they will ALWAYS continue, ignoring
everything from Daedelus forward. People actually KNEW that it did not
make any difference if somebody could afford a house because they KNEW
that if they did, they could foreclose on the house and sell it again
(and again and again) at ever escalating prices. How did the KNOW...
well (selective) experience. That was the way things were... until they
weren't.

Exactly. *There is plenty of blame to go around.
Everyone from individuals who bought homes they
knew they either could just barely afford, or could
not afford them at all. *They chose to make small
or no down payments. * Govt encouraged housing
through tax subsidies. *They encouraged banks to
make loans to people who were not qualified.
Govt had direct supervision of the two mortgage
agencies which went bust. *Financial companies
profited and looked the other way.

The one player in all this that almost never gets
blamed is the Federal Reserve. *They are in
charge of monitoring banks and if anyone should
have seen what was happening, they sure would
be at the top of the list. *They ketp interest rates
very low and certainly should have know that
that money was being used for speculation in
housing. * Greenspan, during his watch warned
of excessive exuberance during the stock market
madness, but he too did nothing to try to alter
that bubble.

You can't have it both ways. You are very adamant about what Limbagh
tells you that we must have "free markets" and no "government
interference".

We have known about greed since man has been on the Earth and why we
need a sensible amount of rules to limit it.

*From anything I can find there were minimal to no regulations on the
folks who were securitizing mortgages. So that meant you had a leverage
effect because anyone who could fog a mirror could get a mortgage
because the pirates who were securitizing mortgages would handle the
paper. If that wasn't so the originators wouldn't be able to write those
mortgages because there would be no buyers for those mortgages who would
accept the risk.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, I agree with Kurt. Limbaugh doesn't tell me
anything. I rarely even listen to him.

As for their being minimal to no regulations on the
folks issuing mortgages, apparently you never heard
of the Community Reinvestment Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act


"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12
U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the
Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-
income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory
agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the
statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for
CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when
approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or
acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]"

In other words, this regulation forced the banks to make
loans to "anyone who could fog a mirror".

Capiche?

I never said I believe in zero govt regulation. Just that as
little as possible is the best practice. For evidence as to
why, I submit the above, plus the fact that what regulation
we did have, eg everything from Congressional oversight
of FNMA, Freddie, to the Federal Reserve didn't work.
These boom bust cycles have occured in free markets
throughout history. From the tulip mania in Holland in the
1600's, to the south seas bubble in the UK, in the 1700's,
to the internet bubble of the 90's.

In article , George
wrote:


I got the impression it was produced by the same folks who engineered
the "too big to fail" plan itself. You have to give them credit. I think
it was one of the best con jobs ever pulled on the American people.

TBTF is a concept that got traction following the time that they let
banks fail which helped bring about the Great Depression. The trick that
has eluded generations of politicians, economists, and thinkers is how
to make sure once and for all, those TBTF, don't F.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 9/5/2011 8:32 AM, wrote:
On Sep 4, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On 9/4/2011 10:33 AM, wrote:





On Sep 4, 10:21 am, Kurt wrote:
In ,
Red wrote:

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if& when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

Some, but this is also a function of the human psyche. This
particular meltdown was, in practice, no different from every other
bubble from the Tulips forward. There is a certain flaw in the way most
of us think that thinks trees grow to the sky. That the good times are
so firmly established that they will ALWAYS continue, ignoring
everything from Daedelus forward. People actually KNEW that it did not
make any difference if somebody could afford a house because they KNEW
that if they did, they could foreclose on the house and sell it again
(and again and again) at ever escalating prices. How did the KNOW...
well (selective) experience. That was the way things were... until they
weren't.

Exactly. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Everyone from individuals who bought homes they
knew they either could just barely afford, or could
not afford them at all. They chose to make small
or no down payments. Govt encouraged housing
through tax subsidies. They encouraged banks to
make loans to people who were not qualified.
Govt had direct supervision of the two mortgage
agencies which went bust. Financial companies
profited and looked the other way.

The one player in all this that almost never gets
blamed is the Federal Reserve. They are in
charge of monitoring banks and if anyone should
have seen what was happening, they sure would
be at the top of the list. They ketp interest rates
very low and certainly should have know that
that money was being used for speculation in
housing. Greenspan, during his watch warned
of excessive exuberance during the stock market
madness, but he too did nothing to try to alter
that bubble.

You can't have it both ways. You are very adamant about what Limbagh
tells you that we must have "free markets" and no "government
interference".

We have known about greed since man has been on the Earth and why we
need a sensible amount of rules to limit it.

From anything I can find there were minimal to no regulations on the
folks who were securitizing mortgages. So that meant you had a leverage
effect because anyone who could fog a mirror could get a mortgage
because the pirates who were securitizing mortgages would handle the
paper. If that wasn't so the originators wouldn't be able to write those
mortgages because there would be no buyers for those mortgages who would
accept the risk.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, I agree with Kurt. Limbaugh doesn't tell me
anything. I rarely even listen to him.


Honestly could have fooled me.


As for their being minimal to no regulations on the
folks issuing mortgages, apparently you never heard
of the Community Reinvestment Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act


"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12
U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the
Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-
income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory
agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the
statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for
CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when
approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or
acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]"

In other words, this regulation forced the banks to make
loans to "anyone who could fog a mirror".

Capiche?

Read for content. "consistent with safe and sound operation" doesn't
mean they were compelled to write mortgages for "anyone who could fog a
mirror"



I never said I believe in zero govt regulation. Just that as
little as possible is the best practice. For evidence as to
why, I submit the above, plus the fact that what regulation
we did have, eg everything from Congressional oversight
of FNMA, Freddie, to the Federal Reserve didn't work.
These boom bust cycles have occured in free markets
throughout history. From the tulip mania in Holland in the
1600's, to the south seas bubble in the UK, in the 1700's,
to the internet bubble of the 90's.

But you can't have it both ways. You argued with me that it was a good
thing that the Wall St pirates were rewarded and that there was no
reason they should be in handcuffs as I suggested because they didn't
break any laws.

If you want a free market then if the pirates gamble excessively you
don't forcibly pull money out of the taxpayers pockets to reward the
gamblers. You let them fail. Its been two years since the "too big to
fail" marketing campaign was trotted out to save the pirates. How well
has that worked out for the economy?

On 9/5/2011 8:47 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:


I got the impression it was produced by the same folks who engineered
the "too big to fail" plan itself. You have to give them credit. I think
it was one of the best con jobs ever pulled on the American people.

TBTF is a concept that got traction following the time that they let
banks fail which helped bring about the Great Depression. The trick that
has eluded generations of politicians, economists, and thinkers is how
to make sure once and for all, those TBTF, don't F.


One good way would have been to not let them get so big. Another would
have been some sensible amount of regulation because of the well known
phenomena of human greed. I remember thinking nothing good would come
out of letting the banks and brokerages get married.

In article , George
wrote:


If you want a free market then if the pirates gamble excessively you
don't forcibly pull money out of the taxpayers pockets to reward the
gamblers. You let them fail. Its been two years since the "too big to
fail" marketing campaign was trotted out to save the pirates. How well
has that worked out for the economy?

Lot better than the alternative. Last time we rigorously enforced
throwing banks overboard, the Great Depression ensued. Heck, look what
happened when all we did was throw Lehman Brothers overboard. I don't
think you can toss certain big banks to the wolves under current
conditions. The trick multiple generations of politicians, economists,
and others haven't yet come to grips with ways around this that are
actually viable.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article , George
wrote:


One good way would have been to not let them get so big. Another would
have been some sensible amount of regulation because of the well known
phenomena of human greed. I remember thinking nothing good would come
out of letting the banks and brokerages get married.

Rather simplistic and, as I mentioned, multiple generations have not
really been able to come up with a good way to measure "sensible".

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sep 5, 10:15*am, George wrote:
On 9/5/2011 8:32 AM, wrote:





On Sep 4, 12:25 pm, *wrote:
On 9/4/2011 10:33 AM, wrote:

On Sep 4, 10:21 am, Kurt * *wrote:
In ,
* *Red * *wrote:

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if& * *when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

* * * *Some, but this is also a function of the human psyche.. This
particular meltdown was, in practice, no different from every other
bubble from the Tulips forward. There is a certain flaw in the way most
of us think that thinks trees grow to the sky. That the good times are
so firmly established that they will ALWAYS continue, ignoring
everything from Daedelus forward. People actually KNEW that it did not
make any difference if somebody could afford a house because they KNEW
that if they did, they could foreclose on the house and sell it again
(and again and again) at ever escalating prices. How did the KNOW...
well (selective) experience. That was the way things were... until they
weren't.

Exactly. *There is plenty of blame to go around.
Everyone from individuals who bought homes they
knew they either could just barely afford, or could
not afford them at all. *They chose to make small
or no down payments. * Govt encouraged housing
through tax subsidies. *They encouraged banks to
make loans to people who were not qualified.
Govt had direct supervision of the two mortgage
agencies which went bust. *Financial companies
profited and looked the other way.

The one player in all this that almost never gets
blamed is the Federal Reserve. *They are in
charge of monitoring banks and if anyone should
have seen what was happening, they sure would
be at the top of the list. *They ketp interest rates
very low and certainly should have know that
that money was being used for speculation in
housing. * Greenspan, during his watch warned
of excessive exuberance during the stock market
madness, but he too did nothing to try to alter
that bubble.

You can't have it both ways. You are very adamant about what Limbagh
tells you that we must have "free markets" and no "government
interference".

We have known about greed since man has been on the Earth and why we
need a sensible amount of rules to limit it.

* From anything I can find there were minimal to no regulations on the
folks who were securitizing mortgages. So that meant you had a leverage
effect because anyone who could fog a mirror could get a mortgage
because the pirates who were securitizing mortgages would handle the
paper. If that wasn't so the originators wouldn't be able to write those
mortgages because there would be no buyers for those mortgages who would
accept the risk.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, I agree with Kurt. *Limbaugh doesn't tell me
anything. *I rarely even listen to him.

Honestly could have fooled me.







As for their being minimal to no regulations on the
folks issuing mortgages, apparently you never heard
of the Community Reinvestment Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12
U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the
Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-
income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory
agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the
statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for
CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when
approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or
acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]"

In other words, this regulation forced the banks to make
loans to "anyone who could fog a mirror".

Capiche?

Read for content. "consistent with safe and sound operation" doesn't
mean they were compelled to write mortgages for "anyone who could fog a
mirror"



The problem with that is you have govt bureaucrats
who's job it is to make sure those banks are making
loans. They had targeted levels of loans. If you're a
bank and you didn't make enough loans to minorities,
the bureacrats screwed you. So, of course lending
standards were relaxed to make sure they made
enough loans so as not to raise the attention of the
regulators who were checking how many minority
loans they made. What's so hard to understand?





I never said I believe in zero govt regulation. *Just that as
little as possible is the best practice. * For evidence as to
why, I submit the above, plus the fact that what regulation
we did have, eg everything from Congressional oversight
of FNMA, Freddie, to the Federal Reserve didn't work.
These boom bust cycles have occured in free markets
throughout history. *From the tulip mania in Holland in the
1600's, to the south seas bubble in the UK, in the 1700's,
to the internet bubble of the 90's.

But you can't have it both ways. You argued with me that it was a good
thing that the Wall St pirates were rewarded and that there was no
reason they should be in handcuffs as I suggested because they didn't
break any laws.

If you want a free market then if the pirates gamble excessively you
don't forcibly pull money out of the taxpayers pockets to reward the
gamblers. You let them fail. Its been two years since the "too big to
fail" marketing campaign was trotted out to save the pirates. How well
has that worked out for the economy?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 9/5/2011 12:01 PM, wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:15 am, wrote:
On 9/5/2011 8:32 AM, wrote:





On Sep 4, 12:25 pm, wrote:
On 9/4/2011 10:33 AM, wrote:

On Sep 4, 10:21 am, Kurt wrote:
In ,
Red wrote:

Remarkable. But do you think there were no political involvements, aka
payoffs, throughout all this? During this real estate boom, the bottom line
is no one, financial or political, wanted to throw a wrench into the
thermal runaway money making. They figured if& when the **** hit the fan,
they would be gone and have their fat cut and it would be someone elses
problem. And as things go, when it became someone elses problem, the
"someone else" just claims they were not there then. It was someone else.

Some, but this is also a function of the human psyche. This
particular meltdown was, in practice, no different from every other
bubble from the Tulips forward. There is a certain flaw in the way most
of us think that thinks trees grow to the sky. That the good times are
so firmly established that they will ALWAYS continue, ignoring
everything from Daedelus forward. People actually KNEW that it did not
make any difference if somebody could afford a house because they KNEW
that if they did, they could foreclose on the house and sell it again
(and again and again) at ever escalating prices. How did the KNOW...
well (selective) experience. That was the way things were... until they
weren't.

Exactly. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Everyone from individuals who bought homes they
knew they either could just barely afford, or could
not afford them at all. They chose to make small
or no down payments. Govt encouraged housing
through tax subsidies. They encouraged banks to
make loans to people who were not qualified.
Govt had direct supervision of the two mortgage
agencies which went bust. Financial companies
profited and looked the other way.

The one player in all this that almost never gets
blamed is the Federal Reserve. They are in
charge of monitoring banks and if anyone should
have seen what was happening, they sure would
be at the top of the list. They ketp interest rates
very low and certainly should have know that
that money was being used for speculation in
housing. Greenspan, during his watch warned
of excessive exuberance during the stock market
madness, but he too did nothing to try to alter
that bubble.

You can't have it both ways. You are very adamant about what Limbagh
tells you that we must have "free markets" and no "government
interference".

We have known about greed since man has been on the Earth and why we
need a sensible amount of rules to limit it.

From anything I can find there were minimal to no regulations on the
folks who were securitizing mortgages. So that meant you had a leverage
effect because anyone who could fog a mirror could get a mortgage
because the pirates who were securitizing mortgages would handle the
paper. If that wasn't so the originators wouldn't be able to write those
mortgages because there would be no buyers for those mortgages who would
accept the risk.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, I agree with Kurt. Limbaugh doesn't tell me
anything. I rarely even listen to him.

Honestly could have fooled me.







As for their being minimal to no regulations on the
folks issuing mortgages, apparently you never heard
of the Community Reinvestment Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12
U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the
Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-
income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory
agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the
statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for
CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when
approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or
acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]"

In other words, this regulation forced the banks to make
loans to "anyone who could fog a mirror".

Capiche?

Read for content. "consistent with safe and sound operation" doesn't
mean they were compelled to write mortgages for "anyone who could fog a
mirror"



The problem with that is you have govt bureaucrats
who's job it is to make sure those banks are making
loans. They had targeted levels of loans. If you're a
bank and you didn't make enough loans to minorities,
the bureacrats screwed you. So, of course lending
standards were relaxed to make sure they made
enough loans so as not to raise the attention of the
regulators who were checking how many minority
loans they made. What's so hard to understand?


Honestly, sounds like I just tuned into Limbagh. Thats the same drum he
beats. It is all the fault of the government YADA, YADA YADA.

What is so hard to understand that none of this would have expanded like
wildfire if it weren't for the souless pirates who provided the market
for total garbage mortgages with their securitization tricks?






I never said I believe in zero govt regulation. Just that as
little as possible is the best practice. For evidence as to
why, I submit the above, plus the fact that what regulation
we did have, eg everything from Congressional oversight
of FNMA, Freddie, to the Federal Reserve didn't work.
These boom bust cycles have occured in free markets
throughout history. From the tulip mania in Holland in the
1600's, to the south seas bubble in the UK, in the 1700's,
to the internet bubble of the 90's.

But you can't have it both ways. You argued with me that it was a good
thing that the Wall St pirates were rewarded and that there was no
reason they should be in handcuffs as I suggested because they didn't
break any laws.

If you want a free market then if the pirates gamble excessively you
don't forcibly pull money out of the taxpayers pockets to reward the
gamblers. You let them fail. Its been two years since the "too big to
fail" marketing campaign was trotted out to save the pirates. How well
has that worked out for the economy?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Honestly, sounds like I just tuned into Limbagh. Thats the same drum he
beats. It is all the fault of the

George wrote:

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12
U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the
Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-
income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory
agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are
chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.)
To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking
institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into
consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or
for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]"

In other words, this regulation forced the banks to make
loans to "anyone who could fog a mirror".

Capiche?

Read for content. "consistent with safe and sound operation" doesn't
mean they were compelled to write mortgages for "anyone who could fog
a mirror"



As a practical matter, yes it does.

Take a drive through the seedier parts of your town. In many places the only
retail businesses you'll find on a given block are crack whores, crack
dealers, and a branch of a national banking chain.

You honestly don't think Bank of American put a store-front office there for
any other reason than they were compelled to "serve the disadvantaged
community", do you?

In article , George
wrote:


Honestly, sounds like I just tuned into Limbagh. Thats the same drum he
beats. It is all the fault of the

You know cognitive dissonance is rarely fatal. Maybe if you listened to
people instead of just assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you
hopelessly brainwashed... Never mind, probably wouldn't make any
difference anyway.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

DARN BANKERS...GIMME GIMME GIMME...WHAT ABOUT THE AVERAGE FINANCIALLY
CHALLENGED JOE?
HERE'S A CREDIT CARD = YOUR ASS IS OURS, SPEND IT AT A 7.2% APR. (???)
BOOWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
SAY THANKS MISTER ESÉ...
BOOWAHAHAHA

PATECUM
TGITM

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
DARN BANKERS...GIMME GIMME GIMME...WHAT ABOUT THE AVERAGE FINANCIALLY
CHALLENGED JOE?
HERE'S A CREDIT CARD = YOUR ASS IS OURS, SPEND IT AT A 7.2% APR. (???)
BOOWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
SAY THANKS MISTER ESÉ...
BOOWAHAHAHA


Heh! Tell me where I can get a credit card at 7.2% APR.

The last offer I got was for 23.9% (from Chase).

On Sep 6, 2:34*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

DARN BANKERS...GIMME GIMME GIMME...WHAT ABOUT THE AVERAGE FINANCIALLY
CHALLENGED JOE?
HERE'S A CREDIT CARD = YOUR ASS IS OURS, SPEND IT AT A 7.2% APR. (???)
BOOWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
SAY THANKS MISTER ESÉ...
BOOWAHAHAHA

Heh! Tell me where I can get a credit card at 7.2% APR.

The last offer I got was for 23.9% (from Chase).

Even that would be cheap over here (UK).

On 9/5/2011 1:25 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:


Honestly, sounds like I just tuned into Limbagh. Thats the same drum he
beats. It is all the fault of the

You know cognitive dissonance is rarely fatal. Maybe if you listened to
people instead of just assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you
hopelessly brainwashed... Never mind, probably wouldn't make any
difference anyway.


And sometimes it is a good idea to recognize there are people who think
and don't just mindlessly proclaim they are "ditto heads".

I listen carefully, read for content and point out inconsistencies. You
should try it sometime instead of being a "ditto head"

In article , George
wrote:



And sometimes it is a good idea to recognize there are people who think
and don't just mindlessly proclaim they are "ditto heads".

I listen carefully, read for content and point out inconsistencies. You
should try it sometime instead of being a "ditto head"

Of course you do. ALthough generally pointing out inconsistencies
entails something other than just saying "ditto head" every time someone
disagrees with you. ALthough I will give you points for not accusing me
of reading Ayn Rand, another refuge of scoundrels of your type. For the
record, Rush is a blow hard who, at the end of the day, is doing more
harm than good and I have never read anything by Ayn Rand, either.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article , George
wrote:


And it wasn't the banks in low income areas that were originating the
bulk of the bad mortgages. Thats just the Rush Limbagh fantasy thing so
we can just only blame the government and not the pirates.

And yet, the Dodd Franks bill was put in place to avoid another time
when the government did "do its job". You were saying something about
inconsistencies?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:17:25 -0400, George
wrote:



And it wasn't the banks in low income areas that were originating the
bulk of the bad mortgages. Thats just the Rush Limbagh fantasy thing so
we can just only blame the government and not the pirates.

No sense arguing with dittoheads.
There are plenty of statistics from government and private sources to
back up what you say.
But common sense always told me the real money is the mortgage market
was never in low income communities.
Anybody knows those houses are often dilapidated and low value on the
market.
Besides, most of us know medium-high income people who took on high
value mortgages or refi's, whether they lost their home or are
underwater.
I see enough $600-800k empty McMansions around here.
Here's some general facts about the subprime "crisis" and housing
bubble. Any percentages used are rough because I'm not about to
memorize this stuff, Anybody can find actual numbers doing a web
search and dispute what I say.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA)
This the law that pushes banks to serve low-income communities.
Gets all the blame from dittoheads for the mortgage crisis
Nobody knows one way or the other if CRA covered mortgages or small
business loans are "profitable."
Banks just don't keep as good records as some people suppose,
especially since they sell off mortgages and loans.
And they don't have to report "proprietary" information.
And the supposed government of "too much regulation" doesn't have a
clue either.
You can't separate banks from government.
Except for a few idealogues with no facts to support them, the
overwhelming opinion from both gov and private experts is that
the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with the "crisis" and bubble.

Fanny and Freddie.
In the 2004-2005 time range their montage portfolio had a high of 48%
and a low of 23% subprime.
They started backing off the subprime in early 2005.
The private mortgage market held the bulk of subprime.
Not to say that Fannie/Freddy aren't corrupt Wall Street
organizations.
It's Wall Street that runs the government.
That's what started the Tea Party.
Now Wall Street has pretty much absorbed them.
Raines pulled $90 million in salary out of Fannie
He was appointed by Clinton.
Pure Wall Street.
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac became publicly traded long ago.
That's when Wall Street went socialist and the government went Wall
Street.

Subprime.
Many subprime loans were sold to folks whose credit qualified them for
conventional loans. I don't know what "many" means and nobody else
does either, but it's significant enough to note it.
Whether those borrowers were suckers or just financially irresponsible
and wanted the quick money and low initial payments of subprime ARMs
I don't know.

Refis.
About 55% of subprime mortgages leading to the "crisis." were refis.
That still leaves 45% conventional.
Here's the kicker.
90% of all refis were "cash out."
There's eight of the nine yards of the problem right there.

We are all to blame.
Bull****.
I had nothing to do with this.
Refinanced my montage 3 times since 1997 and every time
I lowered my debt by reducing the montage balance with cash from
savings.
Not everybody likes debt.

Could I have redone my kitchen with cash out? Yep.
Could I have put in a jacuzzi, or bought a $40k pickup? Yep.

Debt has its place and uses, but my first rule is avoid it.
No, my name ain't Polonius.

--Vic

On Sep 6, 11:23*am, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:17:25 -0400, George
wrote:



And it wasn't the banks in low income areas that were originating the
bulk of the bad mortgages. Thats just the Rush Limbagh fantasy thing so
we can just only blame the government and not the pirates.

No sense arguing with dittoheads.
There are plenty of statistics from government and private sources to
back up what you say. *
But common sense always told me the real money is the mortgage market
was never in low income communities.
Anybody knows those houses are often dilapidated and low value on the
market.

Yes, but once again, the banks were required to make
loans to those communities to stay in the good graces
of the govt regulators.


Besides, most of us know medium-high income people who took on high
value mortgages or refi's, whether they lost their home or are
underwater.

That's certainly true too. I don't think anyone here
denied that those loans were made as well.



I see enough $600-800k empty McMansions around here.
Here's some general facts about the subprime "crisis" and housing
bubble. *Any percentages used are rough because I'm not about to
memorize this stuff, *Anybody can find actual numbers doing a web
search and dispute what I say.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA)
This the law that pushes banks to serve low-income communities.
Gets all the blame from dittoheads for the mortgage crisis
Nobody knows one way or the other if CRA covered mortgages or small
business loans are "profitable."
Banks just don't keep as good records as some people suppose,
especially since they sell off mortgages and loans.

What makes you think the banks don't know if
they are profitable or not? Certainly at this time
that business as a whole is not profitable and
we all know it.



And they don't have to report "proprietary" information.
And the supposed government of "too much regulation" doesn't have a
clue either.

Which just shows that with or without regulation, you
still have problems. Yet, the libs solution to everything
that they think isn't right is more regulation by a govt
that has proven to be incompetent. Congress has
an approval rating of what, 15%? And yet the libs
want them to do more. I want them to do less.



You can't separate banks from government.
Except for a few idealogues with no facts to support them, the
overwhelming opinion from both gov and private experts is that
the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with the "crisis" and bubble.

Fanny and Freddie.
In the 2004-2005 time range their montage portfolio had a high of 48%
and a low of 23% subprime.

Like that is some insignificant percentage? It's huge.


They started backing off the subprime in early 2005.
The private mortgage market held the bulk of subprime.
Not to say that Fannie/Freddy aren't corrupt Wall Street
organizations.

They are though under the direct scrutiny of Congress.
Barney Frank proclaimed them to be in OK shape
a few months before they went under. And you want
more govt?



It's Wall Street that runs the government.
That's what started the Tea Party.

What a total crock that is. The Tea Party is about
as grass roots an organization as you can find
anywhere. And one of their big beefs is Wall
Street, govt bailouts, etc.



Now Wall Street has pretty much absorbed them.
Raines pulled $90 million in salary out of Fannie
He was appointed by Clinton.
Pure Wall Street.
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac became publicly traded long ago.
That's when Wall Street went socialist and the government went Wall
Street.

Sure blame wall street. Where was Barney Frank and
Chris Dodd?




Subprime.
Many subprime loans were sold to folks whose credit qualified them for
conventional loans.

You don't sell loans to folks. You make loans.
And anyone would have to be a moron to take
out a higher interest subprime if they could
qualify for a conventional loan.


*I don't know what "many" means and nobody else
does either, but it's significant enough to note it.
Whether those borrowers were suckers or just financially irresponsible
and wanted the quick money and low initial payments of subprime ARMs
I don't know.

Refis.
About 55% of subprime mortgages leading to the "crisis." were refis.
That still leaves 45% conventional.
Here's the kicker.
90% of all refis were "cash out."
There's eight of the nine yards of the problem right there.

I agree. Now, why do you blame Wall Street
exclusively? Clearly the people taking out those
loans were to blame. As were the banks making
them. And the bank regulators. And Congress.
And the Federal Reserve. In other words, the
whole thing was already highly regulated.



We are all to blame.
Bull****.
I had nothing to do with this.
Refinanced my montage 3 times since 1997 and every time
I lowered my debt by reducing the montage balance with cash from
savings.
Not everybody likes debt.

It may be true that you personally are not to
blame, but collectively there is a huge number
of people out there who are to blame. Everyone
who borrowed excessively to buy everything
from houses to cars, to living expenses.




Could I have redone my kitchen with cash out? *Yep.
Could I have put in a jacuzzi, or bought a $40k pickup? *Yep.

Debt has its place and uses, but my first rule is avoid it.
No, my name ain't Polonius.

--Vic

AND YOUR HOME REPAIR QUESTIOIN IS?
NOTE THE NAME OF THISE NG IS NOT "ot"
LAZY ASS!