Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love loaded questions. That's like asking "Do you still smoke pot?" or "Do you still beat your wife?" Being opposed to a "version" of finance reform is not the same as being against finance reform. The way the question is asked suggests that if you do not agree with the way the Democrat's proposal, you are obviously against finance reform all together. Loaded questions are fun aren't they?
Fannie and Freddie...where does one even start listing the malfeasance of those two entities (and of course the politicians behind them). The American people also need to take a long look at themselves as well. Why are you buying homes you cannot actually afford?
Good post! +1 for you! Just because we don't like the Democrats bill, doesn't mean we are against financial reform. Why not start by denying loans to people who have no clear means of paying it back? Let's start by denying bailouts to banks that got themselves into trouble.
The American people also contributed to this recession. Why did you buy a house you could not afford? Because the government told you that you had a right to a house? Sorry, but you don't have a right to a house unless you have the means to pay for it. Why should we be spending money to prevent foreclosures for people who clearly bought a house they couldn't afford to begin with?
Where are the consequences here? The banks get bailed out for making poor business decisions. The American people get bailed out for purchasing a house they couldn't afford.
That's just factually incorrect in 99.995% of cases. You really are not basing your posts on reality because the community lending act literally only effected 0.005% of outstanding loans and those loans had the HIGHEST repayment rate in the industry. Bar none. The crisis had everything to do with mortgaged backed securities which allowed lenders to make loans they 100% KNEW could never be repaid and yet still off load the risk to someone else and make off scot free with their commissions.
Essentially the major problem which effected the entire system was unregulated new financial products designed specifically to evade or get around the sound lending laws we've had in place for 80 years. That's the giant problem which effected huge, and I mean huge, numbers of cases. Virtually every case of bad loans in the lending crisis. Please, stop repeating proven false political talking points and actually read real financial publications.
...great post! I posted a video above saying the same thing. Those stale talking points are getting old.
That's just factually incorrect in 99.995% of cases. You really are not basing your posts on reality because the community lending act literally only effected 0.005% of outstanding loans and those loans had the HIGHEST repayment rate in the industry. Bar none. The crisis had everything to do with mortgaged backed securities which allowed lenders to make loans they 100% KNEW could never be repaid and yet still off load the risk to someone else and make off scot free with their commissions.
Essentially the major problem which effected the entire system was unregulated new financial products designed specifically to evade or get around the sound lending laws we've had in place for 80 years. That's the giant problem which effected huge, and I mean huge, numbers of cases. Virtually every case of bad loans in the lending crisis. Please, stop repeating proven false political talking points and actually read real financial publications.
It was the loan machine that did in the housing market. And we are trying to get it going again
Get it going again? The idea is to regulate it so that total system failure doesn't happen again. How can you miss that most basic reason for financial reform?
Once the worst abuses and practices are removed from the market then sound banking can resume but the fraudsters have to removed first.
But there are serious problems with the Dodd bill. The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That’s something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn’t dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.
Wall St. Bailouts Would Be Invited, Not Prevented, Under Dodd's Bill
Quote:
President Obama castigated Senate Republicans last week for opposing Sen. Chris Dodd's Wall Street "reform bill." Democrats say Republicans' main argument — that the bill won't prevent future bailouts — is false. The bill itself, though, is irrefutable evidence that the Republicans are dead on.
It is NOT a taxpayer funded bailout. The funds would come from the BANKS themselves, not taxpayers.
1) The money would come from banks, but this is a bill for hedge funds and other investment mechanisms. How will they pay? (already the top 5 are excluded from the bill I hear)
2) The banks already pay, its called FDIC insurance
3) What happens to funds like Bernie Madoff, when they get taken over? Who bails them out? (hint, taxpayers)..
4) What happens when the amount needed is more than the fund has? (similar to the recent economy? Who pays? (hint, taxpayers)
5) Why would you not want these hedge funds to go into bankruptcy and the money be lost by those who invested in the failed businesses? The way this is laid out, all businesses put money into a pot to bail out the failed businesses, you dont think that will entice ilreponsible investing?
6) Why wouldnt the investors be the one to pay, rather than the other banks?
7) Where do you think the banks will get the money from? (answer, consumers. Its another hidden tax)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, but you don't have a right to a house unless you have the means to pay for it. Why should we be spending money to prevent foreclosures for people who clearly bought a house they couldn't afford to begin with? 
