• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

73% Think Most Bailout Money Went To Those Who Caused Economic Crisis

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[h=2]73% Think Most Bailout Money Went To Those Who Caused Economic Crisis[/h]Americans believe more strongly than ever that most of the government bailout money for the financial industry went to those who caused the economic meltdown and that the government hasn’t tried hard enough to bring Wall Street criminals to justice.

73% that number has gone way up....finally the blame is falling where it belongs

73% Think Most Bailout Money Went To Those Who Caused Economic Crisis - Rasmussen Reports™
 
Hard enough? How about not at all?

How do you prosecute what you encouraged?
 
I still don't get why how accepting the bailouts = criminal. Wall Street may be criminal for other reasons, but, if the bailout was criminal, it seems like the Democrat held Congress and Senate of that time would be the ones to blame. We don't call welfare recipients criminal because they take government handouts legally (yes, I'd like to change the laws, but the recipients aren't criminal).

Fannie/Freddie got: $183 Billion - $32 Billion paid back. All government enterprise. Where are the criminals? What about Chrysler and GM - where are the demonstrations and picket lines for them?

What about Student loan holders? Are they criminal if their loans are forgiven? Wait! The Wallstreet bailouts WERE loans. Does that make students criminals for having the federally backed loans to begin with?

Not including Fannie/Freddie, $594 Billion was paid out and about $279 Billion has been returned. It's being returned with interest. These weren't thefts, they were loans. I don't think they should have been made, but you can't blame the one who asks for the loan, you blame the person who loaned out the money - especially when it was your money.
 
let's not forget that Hank Paulson forced many of the banks to take bailout money... whether they needed it or not.

kinda sh*tty to hold them to blame when they were forced into it.
 
I still don't get why how accepting the bailouts = criminal. Wall Street may be criminal for other reasons, but, if the bailout was criminal, it seems like the Democrat held Congress and Senate of that time would be the ones to blame. We don't call welfare recipients criminal because they take government handouts legally (yes, I'd like to change the laws, but the recipients aren't criminal).

Fannie/Freddie got: $183 Billion - $32 Billion paid back. All government enterprise. Where are the criminals? What about Chrysler and GM - where are the demonstrations and picket lines for them?

What about Student loan holders? Are they criminal if their loans are forgiven? Wait! The Wallstreet bailouts WERE loans. Does that make students criminals for having the federally backed loans to begin with?

Not including Fannie/Freddie, $594 Billion was paid out and about $279 Billion has been returned. It's being returned with interest. These weren't thefts, they were loans. I don't think they should have been made, but you can't blame the one who asks for the loan, you blame the person who loaned out the money - especially when it was your money.


The crisis was created by phony paperwork as relates to the value of mortgages. The bankers knew that many of the mortgages were bogus and yet allowed them to be packaged as investment instruments to get out from under long term liability. Had the banks, then and now, been forced to carry these mortgages at "mark to market" valuations, this would not have happened. Even now, we, the US public are holders of these worthless bundles to the tune of about $2 trillion. There is another $2 trillion still in the banks portfolios. There exists a large confidence balloon, that is nothing but confidence, perhaps false confidence, that supports the money industry. I think we should let them fail and adjust accordingly and I know the potential damage worldwide. The bankers and investment funds have put the screws to us and need prosecution.
 
I still don't get why how accepting the bailouts = criminal. Wall Street may be criminal for other reasons, but, if the bailout was criminal, it seems like the Democrat held Congress and Senate of that time would be the ones to blame. We don't call welfare recipients criminal because they take government handouts legally (yes, I'd like to change the laws, but the recipients aren't criminal).

I will try to explain. I'm a little tired at the time though.

Taking the bail outs were not criminal. They were wrong to give out but not criminal.

I'll just note a couple things that were criminal.

The popular No Income Verification Loan (NIV) also known as Stated Income - requires No W2's, No Pay stubs, and No Tax returns. The loan program is available to W-2 wage earners, 1099, Self-Employed, and retired people.

Now I'll argue that this is criminal on the part of the government because they allowed it to happen. Can we charge any of them with a crime? Likely not but we should throw each and every one of them out that allowed it to happen.

Stated Income Loans & No Income Verification Mortgage Loans

We've been told that charges are perhaps coming towards Goldman Sachs but I'm not holding my breath. What they were doing would not be that hard to prove criminal in a court of law and if the government can prove Martha Stewart committed perjury surely going after Blankfein for perjury would be a legitimate venture.

News Headlines

After Enron the government passed Sarbanes/Oxley that was supposed to hold CEO's criminally responsible for misleading/fraudulent financial statements. Countrywide was nothing but a huge fraudulent financial statement. There were plenty of other firms the government could get under Sarbanes/Oxley also but they seem to have absolutely no interest.

Fannie/Freddie got: $183 Billion - $32 Billion paid back. All government enterprise. Where are the criminals? What about Chrysler and GM - where are the demonstrations and picket lines for them?

You are now going off topic. You aren't asking where is the criminality you are asking why isn't the OWS picketing these other entities. There are may threads on that.

What about Student loan holders? Are they criminal if their loans are forgiven? Wait! The Wallstreet bailouts WERE loans. Does that make students criminals for having the federally backed loans to begin with?

Not including Fannie/Freddie, $594 Billion was paid out and about $279 Billion has been returned. It's being returned with interest. These weren't thefts, they were loans. I don't think they should have been made, but you can't blame the one who asks for the loan, you blame the person who loaned out the money - especially when it was your money.

You are under the assumption that they are not one and the same. I do blame those who "loaned" out the money. The Fed paid out more in interest than they charged but I've covered that before. It also pisses me off though that the government would go after a Martha Stewart for something minor and then drag their feet over fraud that crashed the economy.

As I said though, it's hard when you were encouraging the fraud.
 
let's not forget that Hank Paulson forced many of the banks to take bailout money... whether they needed it or not.

kinda sh*tty to hold them to blame when they were forced into it.

Not that the few that could have came out the other end weren't as guilty as the others for the massive fraud committed upon us.
 
The crisis was created by phony paperwork as relates to the value of mortgages. The bankers knew that many of the mortgages were bogus and yet allowed them to be packaged as investment instruments to get out from under long term liability. Had the banks, then and now, been forced to carry these mortgages at "mark to market" valuations, this would not have happened. Even now, we, the US public are holders of these worthless bundles to the tune of about $2 trillion. There is another $2 trillion still in the banks portfolios. There exists a large confidence balloon, that is nothing but confidence, perhaps false confidence, that supports the money industry. I think we should let them fail and adjust accordingly and I know the potential damage worldwide. The bankers and investment funds have put the screws to us and need prosecution.

If the government makes a law, and you abide by that law, how can it be illegal? This wasn't phony paperwork - that's not the allegation. The allegation is that the bankers should have known better. I claim that that the bankers didn't need to know anything - they filled out the paperwork the government asked for and the borrower got the loan. The borrower may have provided fraudulent info (criminal), and the government may been unwise in the program (for sure), but that doesn't mean "the bank" (as if that's even possible) was required to do more due diligence than the government asked for.

By the way, I'd be happy to let them fail, too. But, demonizing the banks is mis-placed anger. The government is the source of the problem. Otherwise, the banks would've been lending their own money.

Taking the bail outs were not criminal. They were wrong to give out but not criminal.

I'll just note a couple things that were criminal.

The popular No Income Verification Loan (NIV) also known as Stated Income - requires No W2's, No Pay stubs, and No Tax returns. The loan program is available to W-2 wage earners, 1099, Self-Employed, and retired people.

Now I'll argue that this is criminal on the part of the government because they allowed it to happen. Can we charge any of them with a crime? Likely not but we should throw each and every one of them out that allowed it to happen.

So, not criminal on the part of the banks, just bad government. We agree.

Stated Income Loans & No Income Verification Mortgage Loans

We've been told that charges are perhaps coming towards Goldman Sachs but I'm not holding my breath. What they were doing would not be that hard to prove criminal in a court of law and if the government can prove Martha Stewart committed perjury surely going after Blankfein for perjury would be a legitimate venture.

News Headlines

No different than the no income verification loan. If the government said it's ok, they can't come back later and say it wasn't ok. Bad government, not criminal bank.


After Enron the government passed Sarbanes/Oxley that was supposed to hold CEO's criminally responsible for misleading/fraudulent financial statements. Countrywide was nothing but a huge fraudulent financial statement. There were plenty of other firms the government could get under Sarbanes/Oxley also but they seem to have absolutely no interest.

Separate topic.

You are now going off topic. You aren't asking where is the criminality you are asking why isn't the OWS picketing these other entities. There are may threads on that.
Perhaps I’m not directly on topic, but the angst is the same. The question I posed was: I don't get why bailout = criminal. Obviously, OWS thinks the banks were criminal. Or, are you saying OWS is just mad that "the banks" contributed to the bad economy? I think they're saying criminal, but I'm not adamant about it.

You are under the assumption that they are not one and the same. I do blame those who "loaned" out the money. The Fed paid out more in interest than they charged but I've covered that before. It also pisses me off though that the government would go after a Martha Stewart for something minor and then drag their feet over fraud that crashed the economy.

As I said though, it's hard when you were encouraging the fraud.

We agree there. But, the fraud that was perpetrated was by the Federal Government not by the banks. The banks, for the most part, when it comes to the loans and packaging thereof, operated within the rules they were given. The securities should have been strong because they were supposed to be backed by the USA - also a fraud perpetrated by the Federal Government.
 
We agree there. But, the fraud that was perpetrated was by the Federal Government not by the banks. The banks, for the most part, when it comes to the loans and packaging thereof, operated within the rules they were given. The securities should have been strong because they were supposed to be backed by the USA - also a fraud perpetrated by the Federal Government.

No. Goldman Sachs put together a package of loans they knew were going to collapse and fail. They sold these to their customers as good investments and then bet against them because they knew they were going to fail.

I have no doubt that a trial would prove this. It's a classic textbook case of fraud. Blankfein lied about this fraud in sworn testimoney. That is perjury. I have no doubt if the government pursued that charge they would get a conviction.

Goldman Sachs' 'Fraud' Explained: How They Pulled Off The Alleged Scheme

Countrywide was presenting fraudulent financial statements

By intercepting the documents before they were sliced by the shredder, the investigators were able to uncover what they believed was evidence that branch employees had used scissors, tape and Wite-Out to create fake bank statements, inflated property appraisals and other phony paperwork. Inside the heaps of paper, for example, they found mock-ups that indicated to investigators that workers had, as a matter of routine, literally cut and pasted the address for one home onto an appraisal for a completely different piece of property.

Countrywide protected fraudsters by silencing whistleblowers, say former employees | iWatch News

Under Sarbanes/Oxley this is not simply a civil matter. It's also a criminal matter. Do you think these charges would really be that difficult to prove? If not, why isn't Mozilo spending every penny he has on high priced lawyers fighting the charges in court right now?
 
I still don't get why how accepting the bailouts = criminal. Wall Street may be criminal for other reasons, but, if the bailout was criminal, it seems like the Democrat held Congress and Senate of that time would be the ones to blame. We don't call welfare recipients criminal because they take government handouts legally (yes, I'd like to change the laws, but the recipients aren't criminal).

Fannie/Freddie got: $183 Billion - $32 Billion paid back. All government enterprise. Where are the criminals? What about Chrysler and GM - where are the demonstrations and picket lines for them?

What about Student loan holders? Are they criminal if their loans are forgiven? Wait! The Wallstreet bailouts WERE loans. Does that make students criminals for having the federally backed loans to begin with?

Not including Fannie/Freddie, $594 Billion was paid out and about $279 Billion has been returned. It's being returned with interest. These weren't thefts, they were loans. I don't think they should have been made, but you can't blame the one who asks for the loan, you blame the person who loaned out the money - especially when it was your money.

Accepting the bailouts arent criminal...thats not the prosecutions they are talking about...or the arrests...its HOW THEY GO TO THE POINT OF needing the bailouts that was criminal...
 
Ok. Learning. Goldman Sachs = potential criminal. Fraud and coverup.

[h=2]....that the government hasn’t tried hard enough to bring Wall Street criminals to justice.
The quote refers to Goldman Sachs? Or refers to Wall Street in general? And, the idea is that $1 billion loss to investors and $1 billion gain to Goldman Sachs caused the financial meltdown? I still don't think either statement holds water.

Blame is thrown at all of Wall Street and not all who took bailouts. Blame is thown at Wall Street instead of Congress. Blame for entire economy thrown at 1 criminal corporation instead of Congress.

Or, is the allegation that all of Wall Street was doing what Sachs was doing?

1 more question: did Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac underwrite the loans that were packaged or not? If they did, why did the investors in the package deal take such a hit?
 
People need to start getting angry. Until enough people do that, absolutely nothing is going to change.

Our government is no longer accountable to the people, and it doesn't matter who you vote for, it's not going to change the outcome.

We need reform through people power.
 
Ok. Learning. Goldman Sachs = potential criminal. Fraud and coverup.

The quote refers to Goldman Sachs? Or refers to Wall Street in general? And, the idea is that $1 billion loss to investors and $1 billion gain to Goldman Sachs caused the financial meltdown? I still don't think either statement holds water.

Caused? Of course not. No one thing caused it. It was a part of it.

Blame is thrown at all of Wall Street and not all who took bailouts. Blame is thown at Wall Street instead of Congress. Blame for entire economy thrown at 1 criminal corporation instead of Congress.

Or, is the allegation that all of Wall Street was doing what Sachs was doing?

1 more question: did Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac underwrite the loans that were packaged or not? If they did, why did the investors in the package deal take such a hit?

The way I understand it they were selling these loans to F&F as quickly as they reasonably could. It's sort of like the guy trying to tunnel out of prison. You look for as many places as possible to hide the dirt.

As far as nobody blaming Congress, that isn't true. Just because the Tea Party isn't front page at the moment doesn't mean they aren't still there. Watch, they will become very active again when the elections get closer.
 
If the government makes a law, and you abide by that law, how can it be illegal? This wasn't phony paperwork - that's not the allegation. The allegation is that the bankers should have known better. I claim that that the bankers didn't need to know anything - they filled out the paperwork the government asked for and the borrower got the loan. The borrower may have provided fraudulent info (criminal), and the government may been unwise in the program (for sure), but that doesn't mean "the bank" (as if that's even possible) was required to do more due diligence than the government asked for.

By the way, I'd be happy to let them fail, too. But, demonizing the banks is mis-placed anger. The government is the source of the problem. Otherwise, the banks would've been lending their own money.



So, not criminal on the part of the banks, just bad government. We agree.



No different than the no income verification loan. If the government said it's ok, they can't come back later and say it wasn't ok. Bad government, not criminal bank.




Separate topic.


Perhaps I’m not directly on topic, but the angst is the same. The question I posed was: I don't get why bailout = criminal. Obviously, OWS thinks the banks were criminal. Or, are you saying OWS is just mad that "the banks" contributed to the bad economy? I think they're saying criminal, but I'm not adamant about it.



We agree there. But, the fraud that was perpetrated was by the Federal Government not by the banks. The banks, for the most part, when it comes to the loans and packaging thereof, operated within the rules they were given. The securities should have been strong because they were supposed to be backed by the USA - also a fraud perpetrated by the Federal Government.



"The bankers knew that many of the mortgages were bogus and yet allowed them to be packaged as investment instruments to get out from under long term liability. " This is the key sentence. The banks repackaged the paper they felt was not worth its stated value and sold it to their own customers with the implication that it was worth its stated value. Fraud, pure and simple. This overlaps to the fact that these people make money by moving paper, not labor. It's sort of like Enron and all its creative paperwork. Just because everybody is doing it doesn't make it legal, right, ethical, or moral.
 
given that most of it seems to have gone to government, they would be correct.
 
[h=2]73% Think Most Bailout Money Went To Those Who Caused Economic Crisis[/h]Americans believe more strongly than ever that most of the government bailout money for the financial industry went to those who caused the economic meltdown and that the government hasn’t tried hard enough to bring Wall Street criminals to justice.

73% that number has gone way up....finally the blame is falling where it belongs

73% Think Most Bailout Money Went To Those Who Caused Economic Crisis - Rasmussen Reports™
The other 27% need a beating if they think differently lol. In all honesty, the recession we have been dealing with is more than just financial instituitions being fast and loose. That is as big of a cause of this as any of course, but remember who was spurring them to loan the way they did, and then who has been taking over control of them...

As for the wall street crooks, while there has been some dirty moves going on for sure, ultimately what willstop all the madness is when people wise up and take their money out and let these guys know that it isn't going back in till they straighten their act. Same goes for the big banks. We the people still have the power to make these people work for us. We need to remember that.
 
Back
Top Bottom