Unions that protect working less, for more money, unite in solidarity with young self-described intellectuals who also do (and know) very little, to protest essentially nothing they can put their finger on. (because that would require work of course)
I can understand protesting Washington to regulate the finance industry. But all this "solidarity" and "you stole the american dream", and entitlement nonsense is just absurd. While you're crying, that Vietnemese girl who was raised in a refugee camp and slept for years on a cot, just did better than you on the SAT. Wake up, you're being passed up and you don't even know it.
What a ****ing joke. What are they resisting, working for a living? What are they promoting, according to them, intolerance? Too funny.
Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution
Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.
I've seen no significant evidence that corruption had ANYTHING to do with the economic collapse. And greed is moot, everyone including the workers and the union, all want a buck. How foolish can you get.
Blacks were literally enslaved and discriminated against, some arab nations have brutal authoritarian regimes with terrible individual rights and even worse economies. But the hip kids in the U.S. whose poverty level surpasses half of the worlds middle-class, they are FIGHTING THE POWAH!
Last edited by Mach; 10-06-11 at 02:16 PM.
The CRA was the basis for initial pressures on these banks in the poorer communities. Cuomo and HUD based their lawsuits on discrimination, which just happened to parallel higher-risk loans, as blacks were on average poorer, and in more depressed communities. Regardless, the "solution" was government expanding FF to fix everything, especially the infux of sub-prime buyers.CRA - the response to the banking industry's tactic of red lining areas in which it would not make loans - required lenders to make loans in the same communities from which they realized deposits
now, would a reasonable person expect the loans in those formerly red lined areas to be as sound as those in more affluent areas? but simply because the community is less affluent does not automatically mean that members of that community are not sound credit risks
CRA did then cause more loans to become available. but NOTHING required lenders to make un-creditworthy loans. at least nothing you have been able to cite thus far
The shrub and everyone else did not do enough. Surely you have seen slobbering Barney and do-nothing Dodd saying FF was fine. "What me worry" ?look at the date of this report: http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/747/FNMSPECIALEXAM.pdfit it is may 2006. AFTER it was learned that fannie mae was cooking the books. and still the shrub did nothing. because profits were still flowing. it wasn't until the meltdown that the taxpayers picked up the ongoing tab for the now massive losses
Yes, because they anticipate getting out in time. Some are more savvy than others. And some are downright stupid. Business 101.does anyone knowingly buy during a bubble, when they know to expect losses [rhetorical question]
Which is exactly as I have been saying. Once the bubble got going, it was a feeding frenzy on easy money. FF backed close to 50% of the market in the end. How could anyone lose if government had so much of everyone's ass covered ? That was a big part of it all going to crazy: Government.lenders were making liar loans because they were making money on them
as soon as they made the loans AND realized their fees they flipped the mortgage paper to the voracious market, which wanted higher yields than it could realize on more conventional paper
the lenders were not holding these loans but were instead selling the risk to an ignorant marketplace
Agreed, but it took a perfect storm regardless. The huge growth of FF, combined with larger numbers of sub-primes, and the repeal.many of us in the banking industry knew when glass-steagle was repealed that we were in for a financial rollercoaster with the taxpayer ultimately paying for the ride. this repeal assured that profits would be privatized while any losses would be socialized
And one component of that risk was exactly as you have stated. Government was going to take that risk off your hands. And the Fed kept interest rates low.interest rates are determined by degree of risk ... banking 101
lenders not complying with CRA were hammered. usually by acorn when said lender was involved in a prospective merger. its non-compliance was a hurdle which had to be surmounted if it wanted to participate in the merger/acquisition
so, the lenders made loans they would not keep but would lay off to unwitting investors. they did this rather than looking for good credits within the formerly red lined communities. and since the lender was not intending to to hold onto the mortgage paper it was writing, it realized enhanced loan yields/fees and CRA compliance
Then track down the original speech. I have watched the entire thing before. You wil see the same presentation by Cuomo, and the same answers to the questions. As I have said folks, if you want to know, go the the video, and if in a hurry, jump to the 2:15 mark. Or just watch the entire first 4 minutes or so. All Cuomo, in his own words. It should make you sick.problem is, you don't know what the duck you are talking about
not hiding whatsoever
that was the assertion, that lenders were being required by the government to make un-creditworthy loans
i even promised to make a public apology if you could offer any cite to show the government actually required lenders to make un-creditworthy loans. and thus far, neither of you have been able to proffer such a cite
all they had to do was comply with the CRA, and make loans to creditworthy applicants from formerly red lined communities
nothing compelled them to write non-creditworthy loans
i wasted my time watching that heavily edited faux news propaganda piece against Obama. it told us nothing ... at least those of us who understand lending
Last edited by Eighty Deuce; 10-06-11 at 02:16 PM.
The Tea Party did not rally in DC until what...like a year after they started? You keep comparing Tea Party 1year plus to a movement thats been around a week. The Tea Party started as rallies...just like this one.Sure, some of them did. But not even a large minority went in for the whole costume thing.
When the rallies started the target was government. From the very beginning, the TPers wanted government to change. So they held protests at government buildings, rallied in D.C., went after their senators and representatives. This group is sitting in a square in NYC screaming about how unjust life is because of Wall St. If they wanted to bring about change they'd go after the root of the problem.
That's probably true and the disappointment is that there aren't enough Conservatives in the government. Still too many RINOS and Libbos.Last time I checked, buyers remorse has set in pretty strongly among those ever-critical independents.
Really? Constant Wall Street deregulations due to pressure from the Financial Industry? Fannie and Freddie basically buying Congress on both sides of the aisle? Heavy lobbying to neuter the Dodd financial regulation bill? The fact from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury department is a revolving door with Wall Street?I've seen no significant evidence that corruption had ANYTHING to do with the economic collapse.