Quote from: kramarat on August 17, 2012, 05:42:11 AM
It's yet another case of government not knowing when to stop.
Originally, they stepped in and told lending institutions that they couldn't discriminate against people because of skin color or ethnicity. That was an example of government doing the right thing. People that hold down jobs, have a good credit rating, and have the money for a down payment, tend to be responsible citizens, and shouldn't be kept out of certain neighborhoods based on anything else. It was happening, and it shouldn't have.

Then the government went on, to say that people couldn't be discriminated against because of economic status, and that everyone had a right to own a home. Hello no DOC loans. The lending institutions were forced to loan people money, with no proof of income, no job history, regardless of credit score, etc.

It wasn't just the disadvantaged that took advantage of these new fast and loose rules. It was also speculators that were grabbing up these loans, and buying up properties all over the place. Again, no documentation was needed to secure these loans. I know a guy that used them to buy investment property.

This created a building and real estate bonanza that was going on from coast to coast. It was a feeding frenzy. It artificially drove up the price of land, houses, condos...............as well as the price building materials, labor, and everything else associated with it.

The problem was, that from the beginning, there was never any real money to back any of this up. The banks knew it, and that's when these things started getting bundled and sold off. Eventually, everyone knew they were worthless, and they could no longer be sold. Hello economic collapse.

It's the reason that things are still a mess today. And the entire thing can be laid directly at the feet of our well intentioned government.

Which is why the founders knew that their power must be limited.

More here............don't believe the lies, fish.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html

I would also like to point out, as an addition to kramarats post, the reason minorities were being excluded from certain neighbourhoods was not the banks fault.  Realtors were trying to keep values high in certain neighborhoods, so as an example, if a Mexican family moved into a neighbourhood by renting from someone or purchasing via direct sale, then Realtors would start bringing only Mexicans in to see those neighbourhoods.  It was wrong, the government warned them and threatened them with huge fines if they were caught doing it.  The practice largely quit. 

That wasn't good enough, so the government went after the lending institutions, telling the to make loans for not only people who couldn't afford it, but to lend to people an amount greater than the value of the property (for improvement and consolidation of debt).  The government patted themselves on the back, everyone could now get a home, pay off debt, and live happily ever after, right?  Wrong, people still couldn't afford their homes, but now you have a home with a value beyond what it is appraised for, so the government stepped in yet again, loosen appraisal standards, appraise homes for higher so these poor people can sell. Appraisal values went up everywhere, adding to the market bubble.  Now you have a real problem, all those 3 to 5 year ARM loans that bankers had to do to qualify people who wouldn't't qualify for anything else, start to default.  Bankruptcy rates start to increase, foreclosure rates started to increase, right along with the unemployment rate.

Moral of the story, government saw a problem with the real estate industry, they corrected it, but did not wait to see if it fixed the problem or not, they dug in further.

Just my $.01 can't give you more, I don't have two to rub together.  I was a Realtor for about two years at the beginning of the bust.  Not a great time to be in Real Estate.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 16, 2012, 03:22:40 PM


Maybe no reason, but he's still taking them


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286



Goldman Sachs   $636,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co   $502,874
Morgan Stanley   $476,300
Bank of America   $465,850
Credit Suisse Group   $421,310
Citigroup Inc   $345,265
Barclays   $322,400
Kirkland & Ellis   $295,042
Wells Fargo   $276,700
Deloitte LLP   $250,510
PricewaterhouseCoopers   $246,700
UBS AG   $240,000
HIG Capital   $219,495
Blackstone Group   $213,800
Bain Capital   $164,000
Elliott Management   $162,825
General Electric   $150,000
Marriott International   $137,827
Bain & Co   $137,300
Ernst & Young   $134,425




I think there's even some up there that we bailed out.. So, based on that, I guess we're now having to bail Romney out too, even though he's "rich"

Did the company contribute the money, or is this just a summary of the individual contributions.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 16, 2012, 03:22:40 PM


Maybe no reason, but he's still taking them


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286



Goldman Sachs   $636,080                                                                     
JPMorgan Chase & Co   $502,874
Morgan Stanley   $476,300
Bank of America   $465,850
Credit Suisse Group   $421,310
Citigroup Inc   $345,265
Barclays   $322,400
Kirkland & Ellis   $295,042
Wells Fargo   $276,700
Deloitte LLP   $250,510
PricewaterhouseCoopers   $246,700
UBS AG   $240,000
HIG Capital   $219,495
Blackstone Group   $213,800
Bain Capital   $164,000
Elliott Management   $162,825
General Electric   $150,000
Marriott International   $137,827
Bain & Co   $137,300
Ernst & Young   $134,425




I think there's even some up there that we bailed out.. So, based on that, I guess we're now having to bail Romney out too, even though he's "rich"

And now lets look at your candidate.

QuoteUniversity of California    $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs    $1,013,091
Harvard University    $878,164
Microsoft Corp    $852,167
Google Inc    $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co    $808,799
Citigroup Inc    $736,771
Time Warner    $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP    $600,298
Stanford University    $595,716
National Amusements Inc    $563,798
WilmerHale LLP    $550,668
Columbia University    $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al    $543,539
UBS AG    $532,674
IBM Corp    $532,372
General Electric    $529,855
US Government    $513,308
Morgan Stanley    $512,232
Latham & Watkins    $503,295

I don't know what your point was though.
It proves nothing other than people contribute to campaigns.

Quote from: Solar on August 17, 2012, 09:38:11 AM
I don't know what your point was though.
It proves nothing other than people contribute to campaigns.

He wants to leave the impression that "Big Banks" are contributing to Romney. Anyone familiar with the Open Secrets site , knows they simply summarize individual contributions. Typical leftist, trying to distort.

Quote from: Solar on August 17, 2012, 09:38:11 AM
And now lets look at your candidate.

I don't know what your point was though.
It proves nothing other than people contribute to campaigns.

Can someone explain to me how the US Government could make a contribution to one candidate? That could only be tax money, right?

Quote from: Solar on August 17, 2012, 09:38:11 AM
And now lets look at your candidate.

I don't know what your point was though.
It proves nothing other than people contribute to campaigns.

Interesting
On b o side you have.........

University of California   

Harvard University   

Stanford University

Columbia University   

US Government   

Quote from: JustKari on August 17, 2012, 09:45:01 AM
Can someone explain to me how the US Government could make a contribution to one candidate? That could only be tax money, right?

They're Dims, corruption is their middle name.
It couldn't be Federal matching funds, that would mean a set limit on Hussein himself, so who knows what it is.
But we know one thing for certain, it was our tax dollars.

Quote from: Solar on August 17, 2012, 10:21:50 AM
They're Dims, corruption is their middle name.
It couldn't be Federal matching funds, that would mean a set limit on Hussein himself, so who knows what it is.
But we know one thing for certain, it was our tax dollars.

From the link:

The organizations themselves did not donate

My guess would be that these are contributions from US government employees. You know, the ones that want to see their role in our lives, continue to expand.................................even if it destroys the country.

Quote from: Solar on August 17, 2012, 09:38:11 AM
And now lets look at your candidate.

Not my candidate. But im glad you brought up their corporate owned equality.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 17, 2012, 11:41:03 PM
Not my candidate. But im glad you brought up their corporate owned equality.

Do you honestly believe that a Utopian world exists out there, where one party doesn't try and divide the country through racism, rich vs poor, or stealing from one person to enrich another?
Wake up son, there is a reason money plays a part in elections, corporate or otherwise.

So in the 2008 election when Obozo raised twice as much money as McCsin - a whole hell of a lot of it from questionable sources - it wasn't a problem. But now that Romney has out raised Obozo, you Libtards are back to bitching about money again?  And if Obozo pulls ahead in fund raising I'll bet you STFU about money again. What is it Oblamo has held a fund raiser on average every 60 hours. http://michaelcostello.blogspot.com/2012/08/obama-holds-fundraiser-every-60-hours.html

Quote from: mdgiles on August 18, 2012, 08:03:22 AM
So in the 2008 election when Obozo raised twice as much money as McCsin - a whole hell of a lot of it from questionable sources - it wasn't a problem. But now that Romney has out raised Obozo, you Libtards are back to bitching about money again?  And if Obozo pulls ahead in fund raising I'll bet you STFU about money again. What is it Oblamo has held a fund raiser on average every 60 hours. http://michaelcostello.blogspot.com/2012/08/obama-holds-fundraiser-every-60-hours.html

I think Obama wants to lose. He has managed to turn America on itself.....................next stop, United Nations. He is bored. He wants to run the planet.

Quote from: kramarat on August 18, 2012, 11:46:44 AM
I think Obama wants to lose. He has managed to turn America on itself.....................next stop, United Nations. He is bored. He wants to ruin the planet.

FIFY.

Quote from: Solar on August 18, 2012, 05:34:17 AM
Do you honestly believe that a Utopian world exists out there, where one party doesn't try and divide the country through racism, rich vs poor, or stealing from one person to enrich another?

No. But I didn't say it did. I said that both sides are equally corrupted and then thanked you for further elaborating my point with a link.