Everybody Blames the Big Banks For This Depression, But Didn't The Gov. Put Pressure on Them To Loan Money To People Who Couldn't Afford It ,And Then Say They Would Back Them Up?

by Catch224u Posted 2012/08/18 22:31:01

Related Topics: Depression, Bank, Money, Banks, Loan, Vote

Read More

29 votes
Read all 48 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	True	26 votes	90%
	False	3 votes	10%

This whole situation is nothing more than VOTE BUYING !

Add a comment above

Brian 2012/08/18 23:07:54

True

+6
Thats right and I believe this guy was a prime mover in the loan money to bums effort
>> See Replies

More polls by Catch224u

eyecmore 2012/08/24 23:16:16

True

Public Servants are a dying breed!!!!!

reply
frank 2012/08/19 16:33:02

True

+1
That was good old Barney Frank who pushed for it.

reply
JustTheFacts 2012/08/19 12:09:52

True

+1
Absolutely True, and D's were far more responsible for that statement than D's.

reply
wtw 2012/08/19 04:32:46

True

+2
And that was not Bushes fault!

reply
KingdomNow 2012/08/19 03:36:13

True

+2
The government didn't just pressure banks but they threatened to prevent non-compliant banks from doing business.

reply
RicardoCabeza 2012/08/19 02:52:11

False

+1
Just as in 1929 the Banks are diverting Fed borrowed funds into risky investments as opposed to lending directly to Business and consumer creating a lagging economy due to the limited money supply.

reply
Catch224u to Ricardo... 2012/08/19 22:00:56 (edited)

+1
And you think having Fanny and Freddy back up those risky loans helped?

reply
Ricardo... to Catch224u 2012/08/21 20:38:30

+1
The amount of the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and even the sub prime fiasco was negligible in comparison to the scope of the actual financial credit crisis of 2008 and was not the source of destruction of the banking system because on the one side of lending there is an actual collateralized note backed by funded real estate at the bare minimum, which upon default and conversion of any specified mortgage there is the actual real property which would actually allow for an increase the lender's capacity to allow them to draw upon their their Fed account at a rate of 100 to 1, so... if Fannie and Freddie had conducted themselves with correct banking principles, the exact same defaulted loan and related property plus the potential new mortgage note on a conversion could potentially gain millions from a default after using the note in the ... The problem is that Fannie and Freddie did just as the other banks, Brokerage Houses, and Insurance Companies did (while foolish but completely legal since 1999) and instead used their 100 to 1 Fed leveraged funds to invest directly into the uncollateralized derivatives markets, and if had they picked winners no one would be the wiser, but instead they did not and lost big, depleting their reserve accounts so they could not lend for even the most ...

The amount of the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and even the sub prime fiasco was negligible in comparison to the scope of the actual financial credit crisis of 2008 and was not the source of destruction of the banking system because on the one side of lending there is an actual collateralized note backed by funded real estate at the bare minimum, which upon default and conversion of any specified mortgage there is the actual real property which would actually allow for an increase the lender's capacity to allow them to draw upon their their Fed account at a rate of 100 to 1, so... if Fannie and Freddie had conducted themselves with correct banking principles, the exact same defaulted loan and related property plus the potential new mortgage note on a conversion could potentially gain millions from a default after using the note in the ... The problem is that Fannie and Freddie did just as the other banks, Brokerage Houses, and Insurance Companies did (while foolish but completely legal since 1999) and instead used their 100 to 1 Fed leveraged funds to invest directly into the uncollateralized derivatives markets, and if had they picked winners no one would be the wiser, but instead they did not and lost big, depleting their reserve accounts so they could not lend for even the most basic needs due to their foolish avarice, thus creating the initial fiscal shortfall of 2008 and the continued economic malaise... The Fannie Mae Freddie Mac story is a smoke and mirror phenomena related to a common problem when Banking and Brokerage Houses are allowed to co mingle in anything but margin call lending... The misguided people that blame sub prime lending and Federal backed home loan programs for the creation of the financial problems are confusing simple peripheral symptoms with causal phenomena...
(more)

reply
Catch224u to Ricardo... 2012/08/22 00:11:00

+1
okay, thanks

reply
TheR 2012/08/19 01:41:35 (edited)

False

+1
Wrong! Why? Because the Banks were putting pressure on the Government to end The Glass Stengall Act , which gave banks the right to use depositors money for Stock Market Derivatives.

The more loans Banks get, they can package and use as trade securities to sell to other banks. So banks needed more loans good or bad, to use in the derivatives trades.

Claiming that people who the banks gave loans to were people with bad reputations, should be viewed that as not true. It is the activity that is hazardous. Selling and trading on the Stock Market is nothing more than gambling.

You want to claim that as your job, and means to pay on your mortgage; to see that the Stock Market is the most risky job on the planet, and is the problem with the American Financial System.

You can not create real wealth from the Stock Market. That is the Fraud. And yet all the Politicians, and Banks, the people with Prestigious Degrees base all their decisions on a gamble.

If you want real wealth, you need to stop using the Stock Market. Value is found by supply and demand, the cost of labor, and having jobs that support their local communities.

People who live in the US should have to pay $100 a year for debt reduction. It is not a tax, but National Debt Reduction Fare.

Politicians would have to pay the remainder from their salaries. I would say each Politician would pay $10,000, per year.

reply
Catch224u to TheR 2012/08/19 22:18:30

+2
I see your point, but I still think it was more of a vote getter.
I've been around Banking for 30 years and I know that during that time it became more difficult for a bank to turn a loan down. There was more government forms and red tape for a loan turned down than for one accepted. Many of the smaller banks got in the mortgage business,putting together several then selling to a larger firm. And then making a commission. What did they care? The Federal Government was backing it up.

reply
santa6642 2012/08/19 01:21:31

True

+2
I believe in 1993 Clinton pushed for and got Fanny may & freddie Max pushed thrugh Congress and also fought for NFTA.

reply
Broddy 2012/08/19 01:14:31

True

+2
Our Government is so good at running things no need to worry about healthcare.

" To provide competition for the newly private Fannie Mae and to further increase the availability of funds to finance mortgages and home ownership, Congress then established the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) as a private corporation through the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970. The charter of Freddie Mac was essentially the same as Fannie Mae's newly private charter: to expand the secondary market for mortgages and mortgage backed securities by buying mortgages made by savings and loan associations and other depository institutions.

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA") revised and standardized the regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Prior to this act, Freddie Mac was owned by the Federal Home Loan Bank System and governed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which was reorganized into the Office of Thrift Supervision by the Act. The Act severed Freddie Mac's ties to the Federal Home Loan Bank System, created an 18-member board of directors, and subjected it to oversight by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

In 1995, Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime s...

Our Government is so good at running things no need to worry about healthcare.

" To provide competition for the newly private Fannie Mae and to further increase the availability of funds to finance mortgages and home ownership, Congress then established the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) as a private corporation through the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970. The charter of Freddie Mac was essentially the same as Fannie Mae's newly private charter: to expand the secondary market for mortgages and mortgage backed securities by buying mortgages made by savings and loan associations and other depository institutions.

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA") revised and standardized the regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Prior to this act, Freddie Mac was owned by the Federal Home Loan Bank System and governed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which was reorganized into the Office of Thrift Supervision by the Act. The Act severed Freddie Mac's ties to the Federal Home Loan Bank System, created an 18-member board of directors, and subjected it to oversight by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

In 1995, Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities, and by 2004, HUD suggested the company was lagging behind and should "do more."

Freddie Mac was put under a conservatorship of the U.S. Federal government on Sunday, September 7, 2008."

1989 it went to hell under Clinton and just got worse under Bush.
(more)

reply
Laissez Faire Husker 2012/08/19 01:12:52

True

+2
Mortgage loans were only the safest things banks could do for over two centuries. Now it's not. Government regulations made banks lower standards and now we think they need even lower standards. Sad.

reply
Welshtaff 2012/08/19 00:23:23

True

+1
Bubba Clinton Started that, Obama continued it.

reply
jdemme 2012/08/19 00:16:43

True

+1
Yes, BUSH and the GOP went in there and said "Big Business, lie and steal from poor people and create a bubble so everyone thinks everything's good!" Then it happened, the government bailed out the banks to attempt to prevent a global financial meltdown (which didn't work b/c the businesses just sat on the money for security) and then nothing changed. Dodd Frank was never implemented, No new banking regulations were put in place, Glass-Steagall was not reinstated, nothing. And now here we are.

reply
Catch224u to jdemme 2012/08/19 22:22:16

+1
Who controled the Congress then ?

reply
jdemme to Catch224u 2012/08/20 19:59:23

Bush and the GOP did up until 2006. Only Republican passed bills were in effect. the entire housing crisis was bush's idea. Do you really need me to post the youtube link?

reply
Catch224u to jdemme 2012/08/21 01:07:22

+1
Then Barney frank didn't have anything to do with it?

reply
jdemme to Catch224u 2012/08/22 00:20:01

+1
Maybe, it was a fairly outlandish and unattainable liberal idea that would be great if we solves some other problems, like healthcare.

reply
Odinsown 2012/08/19 00:01:01

True

It is what happened, and is something that can only happen in a corporatist state.

reply
Catch224u to Odinsown 2012/08/19 22:35:10

+1
And now do we should do away with all corporations ? A poor man never gave me a job.
Maybe it was the corrupt and greedy politicians.

reply
Odinsown to Catch224u 2012/08/19 23:56:10

A corporstist state is one where corporations and government enjoy a relation that benefits the large banks, and mega corporations over the consumers. Business isn't bad, politics and business together is bad.

reply
Catch224u to Odinsown 2012/08/20 00:45:12

+2
Thanks for the definition, I tried to look it up, but couldn't find it.

reply
Gordon 2012/08/18 23:56:26

True

+1
Our corrupt government messes up so much stuff.

reply
Cat 2012/08/18 23:33:58

True

+4
I think it was Senator Frank who led that charge. He also said that Fannie Mae was in good shape too. And he was on the banking committee which oversees banking and Fannie Mae.

reply
Arel 2012/08/18 23:22:29

True

+1
A certain percentage of their portfolios had to be those types of loans.....

reply
Louisa - Enemy of the State 2012/08/18 23:15:29

True

+2
This is just a thought......why did we give the money to the banks instead of giving it to the homeowner's to pay the bank?
Then the people would have a home and the banks would have their money?

No?

reply
Brian 2012/08/18 23:07:54

True

+6
Thats right and I believe this guy was a prime mover in the loan money to bums effort

reply
Gordon to Brian 2012/08/19 00:02:03

+2
Perhaps Barney Frank got lots of free butt slamming from some of the men who got those loans! But, it sure cost us taxpayers big time.

reply
Brian to Gordon 2012/08/19 00:10:09

+3
Franklin Reins would be my guess, if you will recall it was he who recived something on the order of 90 million dollars in just bounses from Fanny-Mae

reply
Gordon to Brian 2012/08/19 01:40:56

+1
The corruption in the US is revolting. Thousands of people at the top should hope that we don't have a French Revolution type revolt here. Tax payers are angry!

reply
Brian to Gordon 2012/08/19 07:47:40 (edited)

+2
I don't want to see a revolution here, I would prefer to see true constitutionalist be elected to all levels of government and we the people tell these progressives to go pound sand. but that is probably a pipe dream and the real danger we face is a civil war.

reply
Gordon to Brian 2012/08/19 14:40:57

+2
I agree with you that a peaceful, constitutional path back to good government would be the best solution. But, bad people in power seldom allow that to happen. Too bad for those of us who have done no harm.

reply
Brian to Gordon 2012/08/19 23:47:19

+1
We have a chance for that come this November, but even if Romney wins it is going to be a long hard fight to turn the country around in a peacefull way. we'll see. I'm hoping for the best.

reply
Gordon to Brian 2012/08/20 00:05:23

+1
You are so right. The USA has been dug into some deep holes my irresponsible and greedy so-called leaders. It might take 50 to 100 years to dig ourselves out. This excessive over-spending and other forms of bad decisions has been going on for several decades now.

reply
Catch224u to Gordon 2012/08/19 22:38:18

+1
Now you are talking Barney's language, he would understand.

reply
Gordon to Catch224u 2012/08/19 22:52:28

???

reply
Catch224u to Gordon 2012/08/19 22:58:48

+2
Comment on your earlier(butt slamming) post to Brian, it got posted out of sequence.

reply
Gordon to Catch224u 2012/08/19 23:02:42

OK, I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up.

reply