[tomder55]

I can always pay cash . There is no inherent right to get things on credit ;just like there is no inherent right to OWN a home.

[paraclete]

I can always pay cash . there is no inherent right to get things on credit ;just like there is no inherent right to OWN a home.

There is no inherent right for something important like owning a home and yet there is an inherent right for something unimportant like owning a gun. It seems that priorities ahould be reordered so that protection is placed in the right place protecting the people from the thieves in the banking industry. Once the charge is enshrined in legislation it can be upped and it will become like a tax

[tomder55]

OK then the right is the same... dependent on your ability to purchase.

protecting the people from the thieves in the banking industry

There are no doubt thieves in that industry like all industries The difference ;and the one I would end
Is that the government bails out the thieves and encourages them to continue .
The fact remains it was the government trying to manage the housing market that created the financial crisis in the 1st place ;under the premise of a good intention ;that everyone should own a home. Some of the worse abuses of the nanny state are created by good intentions.

[speechlesstx]

There is no inherent right for something important like owning a home and yet there is an inherent right for something unimportant like owning a gun. It seems that priorities ahould be reordered so that protection is placed in the right place protecting the people from the thieves in the banking industry. Once the charge is enshrined in legislation it can be upped and it will become like a tax

There is no inherent right to be furnished either. I believe those we allegedly evolved from lived in caves and such.

[paraclete]

Then speech you can go back to living in caves where you will have no need of credit cards

[tomder55]

Since when is a credit card a "need" . I consider it a convenience... but like all conveniences ,I shop around ,get the best deal I can ,and yes ,read the fine print.

[speechlesstx]

Then speech you can go back to living in caves where you will have no need of credit cards

I bought and paid for my house, dude. Every last penny.

[talaniman]

There are no doubt thieves in that industry like all industries Strongly agree

The difference ;and the one I would end is that the government bails out the thieves and encourages them to continue.Dodd/Frank is a wind down process that doesn't tank the economy, but we still need a sheriff with a jail

The fact remains it was the government trying to manage the housing market that created the financial crisis in the 1st place ;under the premise of a good intention ;that everyone should own a home. Some of the worse abuses of the nanny state are created by good intentions. I Disagree somewhat here Tom, because the banks took advantage of the good intentions of the policy. That doesn't excuse the gullibility of government to not have stricter oversights though, but history tells us they had long done away with the rules to prevent this robbery from happening.

[speechlesstx]

It doesn't excuse Congress for failing to heed Bush's 17 warnings.

[talaniman]

You've only scratched the surface Steve bacause it started wayyyyyyyyyyyy before Bush,

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (majority report), Federal Reserve Economists, and several academic researchers have stated that government affordable housing policies were not the major cause of the financial crisis.[90][91] They also state that Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations... Some analysts feels that predatory lending was a more important factor leading to the crisis. The George W. Bush administration was accused of blocking ongoing state investigations into predatory lending practices as the bubble continued to grow.[94]

As noted, in December 2011 the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, accusing them of misleading investors about risks of subprime-mortgage loans.[95] According to one analyst, "The SEC's facts paint a picture in which it wasn't high-minded government mandates that did the GSEs wrong, but rather the monomaniacal focus of top management on marketshare. With marketshare came bonuses and with bonuses came risk-taking, understood or not."[96]

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause."[97][98] GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.[99]

In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, some analysts estimate that Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.[100]

By some estimates, more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006 and the share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[101] Despite conservative criticism for government lending programs as the main cause of the crisis,[102][103][104][105] much of the crisis was independent of government home loan programs.

That doesn't mean I let the government off the hook at all. Nor do I forgive them from not be aggressive in rounding the real thieves up and getting our loot back.

[tomder55]

Dodd/Frank is a wind down process that doesn't tank the economy, but we still need a sheriff with a jail

no it isn't it codifies a permanent policy of bailout for those the ruling class deem 'too big to fail'. Eric Holder has been AG for 4 years... where are the indictments ?

[tomder55]

Re The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission : In voting on the adoption of the final report the Commission was split evenly along partisan lines, with Angelides, Born, Georgiou, Graham, Murren, and Thompson (appointed by Pelosi and Reid) all voting in favor and Thomas, Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Wallison (appointed by Bonehead and McConnell) all dissenting.
There were 2 minority reports . The best of them penned by Wallison .
http://www.aei.org/files/2011/01/26/Wallisondissent.pdf

[talaniman]

Two entirely different issues, since the first takes a rather long time process by knowledgeable people, and the second takes specific evidence against individuals who have taken great care to cover their tracks.

The common thing between the two is the big money and lawyers tying the hands on anybody who wants facts and justice. I don't think this is over.

[paraclete]

Time to move on, the facts are known, the money has been spent, and the outcome is known

[talaniman]

I doubt any of that is true Clete, and we can move forward because the goal to form a more perfect union is a never ending job. There will always be challenges to progress.

What you thought we would just quit because times are tough? We had gone as far as we could go? I don't think so.

[paraclete]

I

What you thought we would just quit because times are tough? We had gone as far as we could go? I don't think so.

Tom don't be ridiculous, but the events of four years ago were four years ago and you have different challenges today, You are no longer deciding whether to subsidise and bail out industries, but you are deciding how to go forward in a post GFC era, how to stimulate employment without adding to debt, how to reallocate resources and deal with big issues like immigration, guns and the continuing threat of Al Qaeda

You know that better regulation is needed you knew that four years ago

[Tuttyd]

no it isn't it codifies a permanent policy of bailout for those the ruling class deem 'too big to fail'. Eric Holder has been AG for 4 years ... where are the indictments ?

Of course it does.

Tom, "ruling elites" don't just rule. In any hierarchical system who rules is decided by allegiances formed and dissolved. This has always been the case with any feudal type system. In this day and age the role of brokering is one role of government. We vote to change the brokers.

[speechlesstx]

OK all you constitution lovers and Bush haters, when are you going to get your panties in a wad over Obama's drone policies?

"If George Bush had done this, it would have been stopped." That's how MSNBC host Joe Scarborough characterized a Justice Department memo obtained by NBC News that outlines the Obama administration's legal rationale for killing American citizens suspected of helping al Qaeda prepare a terrorist attack on the United States. Critics say the 16-page document gives President Obama essentially unlimited powers to target U.S. citizens without trial, raising a host of ethical and constitutional questions about the administration's heavy reliance on drone missile attacks to enfeeble the terrorist network.

What criteria does the government need to meet to justify an attack on an American member of al Qaeda? According to the memo, an "informed, high-level official" within the government must determine that: 1) the individual in question poses "an imminent threat of violence attack against the United States"; 2) capture of the individual is "infeasible"; and 3) the attack is "conducted in a manner consistent with" the laws of war.

Upon even a cursory examination, however, these constraints are virtually meaningless. The government is not required to "have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future." Furthermore, the feasibility of capture can be determined by several factors, including if it would simply be too risky for U.S. personnel to conduct a capture operation, or if a capture operation would imperil a "relevant window of opportunity." There are miles of space to maneuver within the so-called constraints.

And who is partly behind this policy? The same guy that wanted Bush hung for his terrorist policies...

In 2010, Harold Koh — then the legal adviser of the State Department, and a fierce critic of the Bush administration's terrorist policies — was the first Obama official to publicly lay out the broad legal justifications for drone strikes. Attorney General Eric Holder last year said the Constitution's guarantee of due process does not necessarily entail a "judicial process" in situations in which national security is at stake

He must have had a change of heart...

[excon]

Hello Steve:

I don't know if I posted about it or not, but I'm not into extra Constitutional activities.

excon

[paraclete]

What can we say, the empire strikes back?