So at what point are big banks ever going to be held accountable? (legal, Sanders)

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Goldman Sachs sold securities backed by loans that they knew were going to fail and then bet against them all while assuring people that they were solid bets.

Goldman Sachs sold securities backed by loans they knew were going to fail but were SECURED BY THE CREDIT OF THE US GOVERNMENT.

Are you telling me the credit of the US Government isnt a solid bet? I disagree.

[BentBow]

So at what point are big banks ever going to be held accountable?

As soon as Ron Paul is elected to office in November, it will begin.... As the Federal Reserve is reigned in, with the gold standard reimplemented.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by pknopp

On the other hand, the government doesn't care. They continue to allow this to happen even though we have laws on the books to address this.

Why do the banks continue to act this way? I'll answer. Because they know the government will do absolutely nothing about it.

What law made it illegal to loan money out to people, regardless of their ability to pay it back, knowing that government guarantees will insure it?

The dumb person attacks the person who loaned money out while the smart one asks why there was a dam guarantee to begin with.

You want banks to fail that make bad loans, GET RID OF THE DAM GOVERNENTAL GUARANTEES.. but liberals wont do that, will they?

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Goldman Sachs sold securities backed by loans they knew were going to fail but were SECURED BY THE CREDIT OF THE US GOVERNMENT.

Are you telling me the credit of the US Government isnt a solid bet? I disagree.

Doesn't matter who is backing them, subprimes should never be marketed as AAA investments.
The SEC and rating agencies are at fault for that.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by pghquest

What law made it illegal to loan money out to people, regardless of their ability to pay it back, knowing that government guarantees will insure it?

The dumb person attacks the person who loaned money out while the smart one asks why there was a dam guarantee to begin with.

You want banks to fail that make bad loans, GET RID OF THE DAM GOVERNENTAL GUARANTEES.. but liberals wont do that, will they?

The funny thing is that they were "implicit" guarantees. The government had to take them over.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Goldman Sachs sold securities backed by loans they knew were going to fail but were SECURED BY THE CREDIT OF THE US GOVERNMENT.

Are you telling me the credit of the US Government isnt a solid bet? I disagree.

Yes. Did people lose their asses on these securities? Goldman Sachs knew they were going to fail or they wouldn't have bet against them. It's all well documented.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Doesn't matter who is backing them, subprimes should never be marketed as AAA investments.
The SEC and rating agencies are at fault for that.

It greatly matters who's backing them. If I loan a bum on the street $1,000,000 and Warren Buffet tells me that if the bum doesnt pay it back, he will.. then Warren Buffets credit is what is used.

Havent you ever cosigned someone elses loan?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by pghquest

What law made it illegal to loan money out to people, regardless of their ability to pay it back, knowing that government guarantees will insure it?

Many laws were broken, but you know that. Loans were made with what were known bogus and unverifiable incomes.

The dumb person attacks the person who loaned money out while the smart one asks why there was a dam guarantee to begin with.

You want banks to fail that make bad loans, GET RID OF THE DAM GOVERNENTAL GUARANTEES.. but liberals wont do that, will they?

No they won't. Which is why I said right off that the problem falls on both sides of the fence.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by pknopp

If you want to remain viable it's called ethics. If your argument is that banks have absolutely no obligation to act ethical, you can own that arguement. It's not a very good one.

Banks do not have a legal obligation to act ethically, nor should they. If a bank acts unethically, we the people have every right to stop using that bank and let it fail.

I am not sure why government needs to have a role in that process.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

The funny thing is that they were "implicit" guarantees. The government had to take them over.

Correct, the government took them over because the government was obligated. Furthermore, it was sold to the public that this would be a profitable investment, and that only the government had the security and collateral to hold them long enough to recover the losses.

And thats exactly what happened, and took place.

Originally Posted by pknopp

Yes. Did people lose their asses on these securities? Goldman Sachs knew they were going to fail or they wouldn't have bet against them. It's all well documented.

not quite.. they only lost their asses on them because they couldnt afford to hold onto them long enough until the asset recovered in value and they unloaded them to the govt in exchange for payments.

Those guarantees, are something Democrats wanted, and those guarantees are what made the buyers buy them. Do you think people would buy worthless assets without some sort of guarantee?