8 Years ago....

[Mntneer]

Eight years ago this week, Bear Sterns collapsed – the first domino in a series of dominoes leading to the $700 billion bailout of the Street. Hillary Clinton frequently reminds us that the banks paid back “every penny” they owed, but the crisis also cost the U.S. economy $22 trillion, and took away the homes, savings, and jobs of millions of Americans. The poor were especially hurt. Blacks and Latinos were as 3 times as likely to lose their homes as whites.

Most Americans who lost out didn’t get bailed out, and they didn’t benefit from the subsequent stock market boom, fueled by Ben Bernanke’s “quantitative easing.” In fact, most families are still worse off than they were before Bear Sterns collapsed. And still no major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted.

American’s can’t afford another too-big-to-fail crisis. That’s why it’s so important to bust up the big banks and resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act. Wall Street doesn’t want these measures, of course. But they’re essential firewalls against a repeat of what occurred 8 years ago.

What do you think?

 

[bamaEER]

I never liked GLB from the beginning.

 

[Airport]

Eight years ago this week, Bear Sterns collapsed – the first domino in a series of dominoes leading to the $700 billion bailout of the Street. Hillary Clinton frequently reminds us that the banks paid back “every penny” they owed, but the crisis also cost the U.S. economy $22 trillion, and took away the homes, savings, and jobs of millions of Americans. The poor were especially hurt. Blacks and Latinos were as 3 times as likely to lose their homes as whites.

Most Americans who lost out didn’t get bailed out, and they didn’t benefit from the subsequent stock market boom, fueled by Ben Bernanke’s “quantitative easing.” In fact, most families are still worse off than they were before Bear Sterns collapsed. And still no major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted.

American’s can’t afford another too-big-to-fail crisis. That’s why it’s so important to bust up the big banks and resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act. Wall Street doesn’t want these measures, of course. But they’re essential firewalls against a repeat of what occurred 8 years ago.

What do you think?

The banks did what the elected members of congress wanted them too. Give money to anybody and everybody who wanted a house but couldn't afford to pay for it. No doc loans, intrest only, etc. Congress should have been jailed more than the bank execs. The slow walk of bankrupting and eviction actually keeps the recovery from proceeding.

 

[Airport]

Eight years ago this week, Bear Sterns collapsed – the first domino in a series of dominoes leading to the $700 billion bailout of the Street. Hillary Clinton frequently reminds us that the banks paid back “every penny” they owed, but the crisis also cost the U.S. economy $22 trillion, and took away the homes, savings, and jobs of millions of Americans. The poor were especially hurt. Blacks and Latinos were as 3 times as likely to lose their homes as whites.

Most Americans who lost out didn’t get bailed out, and they didn’t benefit from the subsequent stock market boom, fueled by Ben Bernanke’s “quantitative easing.” In fact, most families are still worse off than they were before Bear Sterns collapsed. And still no major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted.

American’s can’t afford another too-big-to-fail crisis. That’s why it’s so important to bust up the big banks and resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act. Wall Street doesn’t want these measures, of course. But they’re essential firewalls against a repeat of what occurred 8 years ago.

What do you think?

Not everybody should own a home. You need the ability to pay it off and I would bet the ones living closest to the edge, income, were the ones who lost their home first.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Not everybody should own a home. You need the ability to pay it off and I would bet the ones living closest to the edge, income, were the ones who lost their home first.

Just wait, it won't be long before those of us with houses above X sq ft will be demonized because there are people who can't afford to. And if you own two or more homes? God help you!

 

[Airport]

Just wait, it won't be long before those of us with houses above X sq ft will be demonized because there are people who can't afford to. And if you own two or more homes? God help you!

Liberals know what's best for us, central plainning. Where have we heard that before? My wife has 3 and we have two together. We will be burned at the stake.

 

[ThatNehlenFeelin]

Liberals know what's best for us, central plainning. Where have we heard that before? My wife has 3 and we have two together. We will be burned at the stake.

It's good for the State.. Where have I heard that before

 

[Airport]

It's good for the State.. Where have I heard that before

The next thing you know, we will be sending college students to jail for tearing down a Hilliary for President poster.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

In fact, most families are still worse off than they were before Bear Sterns collapsed.

How did you come up with that?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

How did you come up with that?

Didn't the median family income go down over the last 8 years? Haven't looked it up so I'm not sure.

 

[Mntneer]

How did you come up with that?

Sorry, I forgot the quotes. That was a passage from Robert Reich I saw in my Facebook feed. Thought it was an interesting take on things.

 

[Airport]

Didn't the median family income go down over the last 8 years? Haven't looked it up so I'm not sure.

The, we can't let the banks forclose all at once crowd, have extended the non recovery. Only one way to start the recovery and that was to get it over with.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Didn't the median family income go down over the last 8 years? Haven't looked it up so I'm not sure.

Even if true, that doesn't by itself make families "worse off".

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Even if true, that doesn't by itself make families "worse off".

I don't know if it is. And sure, I guess you could say they are more spiritually fulfilled and whole as families.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I don't know if it is. And sure, I guess you could say they are more spiritually fulfilled and whole as families.

I meant financially. Now that I know it was Robert Reich that said it, it makes sense.

 

[Airport]

Even if true, that doesn't by itself make families "worse off".

I guess one would have to know the parameters that would be used to measure better or worse off. The median income is down about 10%, job opportunites are down too. College debt is up and income for jobs after college is down. We have access to health ins for our kids up to 26, are they really children after 21, years old but the uninsured are still the same. Not sure how it would be better.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Eight years ago this week, Bear Sterns collapsed – the first domino in a series of dominoes leading to the $700 billion bailout of the Street. Hillary Clinton frequently reminds us that the banks paid back “every penny” they owed, but the crisis also cost the U.S. economy $22 trillion, and took away the homes, savings, and jobs of millions of Americans. The poor were especially hurt. Blacks and Latinos were as 3 times as likely to lose their homes as whites.

Most Americans who lost out didn’t get bailed out, and they didn’t benefit from the subsequent stock market boom, fueled by Ben Bernanke’s “quantitative easing.” In fact, most families are still worse off than they were before Bear Sterns collapsed. And still no major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted.

American’s can’t afford another too-big-to-fail crisis. That’s why it’s so important to bust up the big banks and resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act. Wall Street doesn’t want these measures, of course. But they’re essential firewalls against a repeat of what occurred 8 years ago.

What do you think?

It's OK to take the taxes from everybody to bail out the billionaires. But it's wrong to tax the billionaires to help the people that bailed them out.

Unless you think both were wrong and we should have just let them collapse instead of bailing them out. It was a mess and it was easy to predict. Everybody responsible was asleep at the wheel.

Around 2003-2004 I was talking to my neighbor. He was talking about moving closer to DC and getting a bigger house, but he said "I'll just wait about 5 years until all of these people default and get it cheaper". Me, an engineer, and my neighbor, a truck driver for Sysco, could see the collapse coming, but those in charge of the country couldn't?

(none of this was directed at you Mntneer just my opinions on the whole thing)

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

It's OK to take the taxes from everybody to bail out the billionaires. But it's wrong to tax the billionaires to help the people that bailed them out.

Unless you think both were wrong and we should have just let them collapse instead of bailing them out. It was a mess and it was easy to predict. Everybody responsible was asleep at the wheel.

Around 2003-2004 I was talking to my neighbor. He was talking about moving closer to DC and getting a bigger house, but he said "I'll just wait about 5 years until all of these people default and get it cheaper". Me, an engineer, and my neighbor, a truck driver for Sysco, could see the collapse coming, but those in charge of the country couldn't?

(none of this was directed at you Mntneer just my opinions on the whole thing)

I for one was in favor of the collapse.

 

[mneilmont]

I guess one would have to know the parameters that would be used to measure better or worse off. The median income is down about 10%, job opportunites are down too. College debt is up and income for jobs after college is down. We have access to health ins for our kids up to 26, are they really children after 21, years old but the uninsured are still the same. Not sure how it would be better.

I would certainly be in agreement. Of course there are exceptions, but for the average middle class, I would think it would be applicable. Income has decreased and the cost of living has increased. That would nearly be the definition applied to the average family. The direction of the numbers on welfare may also support the discussion unless you see welfare participation as a route to success.

How can the trend over the past 8 years indicate anything but failure for the average family? Would be interesting to look at it from a different perspective.

 

[mule_eer]

The banks did what the elected members of congress wanted them too. Give money to anybody and everybody who wanted a house but couldn't afford to pay for it. No doc loans, intrest only, etc. Congress should have been jailed more than the bank execs. The slow walk of bankrupting and eviction actually keeps the recovery from proceeding.

Yet they charged rates that implied those loans were higher risk for those folks - somehow the commodities generated as stakes in these loans were not rated as high risk though. I'm sure that was a minor oversight on the part of the people selling the shares. The insurance companies were either foolish or given bad data, because they charged for insurance on those investments as if the investments were fairly safe. And the government didn't dictate that the banks not check documentation for the loans - they just loosened regulations about documentation. Regulations are bad, and we can trust corporations to do the right thing and act in their own best interests, right?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Yet they charged rates that implied those loans were higher risk for those folks - somehow the commodities generated as stakes in these loans were not rated as high risk though. I'm sure that was a minor oversight on the part of the people selling the shares. The insurance companies were either foolish or given bad data, because they charged for insurance on those investments as if the investments were fairly safe. And the government didn't dictate that the banks not check documentation for the loans - they just loosened regulations about documentation. Regulations are bad, and we can trust corporations to do the right thing and act in their own best interests, right?

Trust bankers? Pffffft

I'm not sure who I trust less, bankers, lawyers, or insurance people.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Regulations are bad, and we can trust corporations to do the right thing and act in their own best interests, right?

Of course we can ... when has that ever not been the case? [cheers]

 

[Airport]

Yet they charged rates that implied those loans were higher risk for those folks - somehow the commodities generated as stakes in these loans were not rated as high risk though. I'm sure that was a minor oversight on the part of the people selling the shares. The insurance companies were either foolish or given bad data, because they charged for insurance on those investments as if the investments were fairly safe. And the government didn't dictate that the banks not check documentation for the loans - they just loosened regulations about documentation. Regulations are bad, and we can trust corporations to do the right thing and act in their own best interests, right?

If Congress gets out of mandating and then won't bailout the offenders, you would see loans, 80/20, that will be paid back, for the most part. Congress initiated the problem by it's laws and regulations encouraging the banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford it. Put the blame where it belongs, on Congress.

 

[mule_eer]

If Congress gets out of mandating and then won't bailout the offenders, you would see loans, 80/20, that will be paid back, for the most part. Congress initiated the problem by it's laws and regulations encouraging the banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford it. Put the blame where it belongs, on Congress.

The banks took a bunch of high risk loans, packaged them as an investment, and labelled them as low risk. Make that make sense to you. No regulation forced them to do that. That was done out of greed. Banks chose not to check documentation on every loan - a cost savings move on their part. No regulation forced them to check a random sample. That's on the banks - and the mortgage brokers to some degree - but the banks are ultimately responsible for loans they choose to give. Also, they did a horrible job of tracking who owned what loans. People were reporting that they were getting foreclosure notices from one bank when they were making payments to another, and both banks thought they owned the loans. If the banks can't keep their own books, we have a problem - and that problem has nothing to do with regulations imposed by Congress.

 

[Airport]

The banks took a bunch of high risk loans, packaged them as an investment, and labelled them as low risk. Make that make sense to you. No regulation forced them to do that. That was done out of greed. Banks chose not to check documentation on every loan - a cost savings move on their part. No regulation forced them to check a random sample. That's on the banks - and the mortgage brokers to some degree - but the banks are ultimately responsible for loans they choose to give. Also, they did a horrible job of tracking who owned what loans. People were reporting that they were getting foreclosure notices from one bank when they were making payments to another, and both banks thought they owned the loans. If the banks can't keep their own books, we have a problem - and that problem has nothing to do with regulations imposed by Congress.

Congress encouraged banks to make loans to non qualifying people. Make sense to you? Now you have people in congress who want to do the same thing with Hispanic households sinse they have many people living in them other than just family members. Make sense to you? Banks trying to make money is wrong? How they did it was wrong but Congress got involved and screwed up the housing industry. Tell me how Congress getting involved always works out? We can argue about what the banks did in selling the morgages to other entities but if Congress hadn't gotten involved, we wouldn't have this problem.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Congress encouraged banks to make loans to non qualifying people. Make sense to you?

Congress didn't encourage the development of the derivative trading associated with those loans.

 

[mule_eer]

Congress encouraged banks to make loans to non qualifying people. Make sense to you? Now you have people in congress who want to do the same thing with Hispanic households sinse they have many people living in them other than just family members. Make sense to you? Banks trying to make money is wrong? How they did it was wrong but Congress got involved and screwed up the housing industry. Tell me how Congress getting involved always works out? We can argue about what the banks did in selling the morgages to other entities but if Congress hadn't gotten involved, we wouldn't have this problem.

They encouraged it. If you are going to offer loans to people who you believe may have problems making the payments, wouldn't you apply more scrutiny to the paperwork, not less? That scrutiny applied to loan documents was not on Congress. That was a decision made by banks to save money in the moment while risking the long term financial picture.

I have no problem with banks trying to make money. I have a problem with banks making high risk investments, lying about the risk of the investment in order to make the insurance cheaper, then crying foul when the whole mess blows up in their faces. They weren't investing. They were gambling. It would be like making an investment choice with a dart, then investing your rent money in it. It was short-sighted, and that had nothing to do with anything Congress put on them.

 

[Airport]

Trust bankers? Pffffft

I'm not sure who I trust less, bankers, lawyers, or insurance people.

When was the last time an Insurance company sa

They encouraged it. If you are going to offer loans to people who you believe may have problems making the payments, wouldn't you apply more scrutiny to the paperwork, not less? That scrutiny applied to loan documents was not on Congress. That was a decision made by banks to save money in the moment while risking the long term financial picture.

I have no problem with banks trying to make money. I have a problem with banks making high risk investments, lying about the risk of the investment in order to make the insurance cheaper, then crying foul when the whole mess blows up in their faces. They weren't investing. They were gambling. It would be like making an investment choice with a dart, then investing your rent money in it. It was short-sighted, and that had nothing to do with anything Congress put on them.

You are wrong about congress. if congress had stayed out of it, we wouldn't have had the explosion in housing or the bust. I will say that I wasn't in favor of any of the bailouts.

 

[Airport]

Congress didn't encourage the development of the derivative trading associated with those loans.

Congress encouraged the loans. Imagine Congress getting involved in something that doesn't work out. happens all the time.

 

[mule_eer]

When was the last time an Insurance company sa


You are wrong about congress. if congress had stayed out of it, we wouldn't have had the explosion in housing or the bust. I will say that I wasn't in favor of any of the bailouts.

If the banks had done due diligence in checking the documentation given to them by loan applicants, they wouldn't have issued all the loans they did either.

Also, if you could point me to the legislation that dictated products like interest-only loans, practices like letting people borrow more than 100% of the current value of their home, etc, that would be awesome.

 

[Airport]

If the banks had done due diligence in checking the documentation given to them by loan applicants, they wouldn't have issued all the loans they did either.

Also, if you could point me to the legislation that dictated products like interest-only loans, practices like letting people borrow more than 100% of the current value of their home, etc, that would be awesome.

The Community Reinvestment act and HUD's Government sponsored entities had a lot to do with the problem. Govt thinking that everyone was entitled to own a home was a problem.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Congress encouraged the loans. Imagine Congress getting involved in something that doesn't work out. happens all the time.

The derivative training exacerbated the problem as much or more than just the loans did.

I think Glass-Steagal worked out pretty well .... until they started stripping parts out of it.