"Long viewed as a bureaucratic backwater, the F.D.I.C. has had a tumultuous five years while being transformed under Bair’s stewardship. Not long after she took charge in June 2006, Bair began sounding the alarm about the dangers posed by the explosive growth of subprime mortgages, which she feared would not only ravage neighborhoods when homeowners began to default — as they inevitably did — but also wreak havoc on the banking system. The F.D.I.C. was the only bank regulator in Washington to do so." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/magazine/sheila-bairs-exit-interview.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&adxnnlx=1310241708-E3TJuKB9mhTh1Nl5Po%20lHg |
Bernie Sanders, definitely. (Please don't tell me something bad about one of the few politicians for whom I have any regard.) |
It's the first time i have felt angry enough to protest in 25 years. I support the 99%. And I'm a upper middle class lawyer. |
Thank you for your "let them eat cake" post. Wall Streeters should have their heads handed to them. |
Hmm, do you think the American people can hire some lobbyists to get them heard in Congress?! |
I was going to occupy my local BofA branch for the afternoon, but apparently the bank will impose a fee for that, too! |
When people get really angry, they don't stop at protests, so yes, I think that Sachs and Morgan will eventuall take it seriously. |
There is a lot of that going around. Part of the new civility, I suppose.
The net worth of Roseanne about 60 million. Maybe she'll join the protesters out in NY City... |
and then what? Call their minions in Albany and have the National Guard unleashed on the crowds? |
Yes, Sheila Bair rocked. Too bad she stepped down. And so do Brooksley Borne and Elizabeth Warren. Is it only the women who have any balls when it comes to regulating the financial industry? |
The financial crisis in the US was sparked by too many people taking mortgages that they shouldn't have. They blame the banks for lending them the money. Note, they also complain when the banks don't lend money.
CDO, derivatives, blah blah blah....that stuff was all predicated on too many dumbasses taking out mortgages without understanding what they were signing up for. Yes, there was mortgage fraud, brokers, etc. Where is the responsibility for all these people that made dumb mistakes with their mortgages? |
No, you are wrong. People taking mortgages they couldn't afford was half of the problem. But the reason they could get money was because the people issuing and then securitizing these loans were lying to the investment community about their quality. And often they were actively betting against them in the form of derivatives. The consumer was a fool and occasionally a fraudster. The financial players were really committing serious fraud. |
It wasn't the mortgages failures that caused the problem-- we had massive mortgage failures before and it cost a lot of money to clean up (remember the S&Ls?) but didn't threaten the entire economy. What caused the financial crisis was the greedy idiots promising everyone that no one would ever default on a mortgage ever, and then other greedy idiots effectively issuing insurance based the same stupid idea when there was no way they could afford to pay out on the insurance (they wanted to collect the premiums and figured they'd never have to pay anything-- who da thought that's not a good idea). |
No one denies that. But what does that have to do with Goldman insuring their own products as they expected failure. What does that have to do with the banks not telling these folks, no loan. That is thier job. There have always been high risk applicants, in the past they were told that they would not get a loan. |
There are a few more than that, actually. There are probably 2 Republicans who aren't enabling pieces of shit. There are probably about 20-30 Democrats who aren't. The main difference is that the Democrats are cowards. Whereas enabling the plutocrats to rape our country is pretty much an essential part of the Republican philosophy. |