So now it's ok to make dog eater jokes?

[Monker]

The housing crisis came about because of loans being given to people who could not afford them in the first place.

That's only partially true...and very simplistic.

Why would a lender lend to somebody who could not pay back the loan? How are they going to make money from it? By offloading the risk to somebody else.

Say you are broke, have no job, pennyless, no assets to speak of...and you ask to borrow $100 from me. I say OK! I charge you %10 interest, blah, blah blah. Then I turn to Andrew and tell him I will pay him $10 to take the risk of this loan. So, if you default, HE owes ME the balance.

Now, let's say everybody on the forum does the same thing with me. So, I bundle up $10,000 worth of these loans and I tell Andrew I'll pay him $1000 to take on the risk of these loans....and he'll owe me if any of these loans go bad. And, he does it.

Alrighty then! I'm sitting pretty with $10,000 worth of loans + interest....and ANDREW is taking on the risk, not me! Awesome!

Well, the loans start going bad. I start demanding my money from Andrew. He can't pay so he declares bankruptcy. Suddenly that $10,000 becomes $0...and I have nothing either...I have bills to pay so I declare bankruptcy as well...which in turn affects any business I have credit with.

In a nutshell THAT is what happened. The system had a back door where it SEEMED they could offload the risk of these loans. But, all it did was inject the system with a huge amount of high risk. And, it was risk that did not have to be reported to ANYBODY because of how lax regulations are.

So, the housing crisis came about because of a system that any risk was acceptable because it could be offloaded. That was possible because of lax regulations. This allowed practically anybody to be able to get a mortgage loan...regardless if they could pay it back or now.

Simplistic yes, but the truth in a nutshell. Not everyone should be guaranteed to buy a home, especially if they cannot afford it. There is no shame in rent. I did it as a single mom. Again, it was like a ponzi scheme.

No, it s not the FULL truth in a nutshell.

Answer this question: Why would anybody lend money to anybody when they KNEW that person could not pay it back?

To say that the housing crisis was because "everyone was guaranteed to buy a home" is not even HALF the story. The other half is banks were willing to loan to anybody even if they knew the person could not pay it back. Then to top it off, that bad credit was spread to every major financial institution in the world. THAT is what led to the housing crisis.

[artist4perry]

The housing crisis came about because of loans being given to people who could not afford them in the first place.

That's only partially true...and very simplistic.

Why would a lender lend to somebody who could not pay back the loan? How are they going to make money from it? By offloading the risk to somebody else.

Say you are broke, have no job, pennyless, no assets to speak of...and you ask to borrow $100 from me. I say OK! I charge you %10 interest, blah, blah blah. Then I turn to Andrew and tell him I will pay him $10 to take the risk of this loan. So, if you default, HE owes ME the balance.

Now, let's say everybody on the forum does the same thing with me. So, I bundle up $10,000 worth of these loans and I tell Andrew I'll pay him $1000 to take on the risk of these loans....and he'll owe me if any of these loans go bad. And, he does it.

Alrighty then! I'm sitting pretty with $10,000 worth of loans + interest....and ANDREW is taking on the risk, not me! Awesome!

Well, the loans start going bad. I start demanding my money from Andrew. He can't pay so he declares bankruptcy. Suddenly that $10,000 becomes $0...and I have nothing either...I have bills to pay so I declare bankruptcy as well...which in turn affects any business I have credit with.

In a nutshell THAT is what happened. The system had a back door where it SEEMED they could offload the risk of these loans. But, all it did was inject the system with a huge amount of high risk. And, it was risk that did not have to be reported to ANYBODY because of how lax regulations are.

So, the housing crisis came about because of a system that any risk was acceptable because it could be offloaded. That was possible because of lax regulations. This allowed practically anybody to be able to get a mortgage loan...regardless if they could pay it back or now.

Simplistic yes, but the truth in a nutshell. Not everyone should be guaranteed to buy a home, especially if they cannot afford it. There is no shame in rent. I did it as a single mom. Again, it was like a ponzi scheme.

No, it s not the FULL truth in a nutshell.

Answer this question: Why would anybody lend money to anybody when they KNEW that person could not pay it back?

To say that the housing crisis was because "everyone was guaranteed to buy a home" is not even HALF the story. The other half is banks were willing to loan to anybody even if they knew the person could not pay it back. Then to top it off, that bad credit was spread to every major financial institution in the world. THAT is what led to the housing crisis.

You guys truly are nit pickers... Yes what you said was how they did it. Not a disagreement there. If you look up at my response to my buddy B there you would see I said you were right about what you said. But still they gave a loan to someone who could not pay. Regardless of how they planned to have someone else cover the debt. If the bad debt to the first party had never been made, the second party could not have taken the loan and defaulted on it now could they? It was bad business from the start.

[Monker]

The housing crisis came about because of loans being given to people who could not afford them in the first place.

That's only partially true...and very simplistic.

Why would a lender lend to somebody who could not pay back the loan? How are they going to make money from it? By offloading the risk to somebody else.

Say you are broke, have no job, pennyless, no assets to speak of...and you ask to borrow $100 from me. I say OK! I charge you %10 interest, blah, blah blah. Then I turn to Andrew and tell him I will pay him $10 to take the risk of this loan. So, if you default, HE owes ME the balance.

Now, let's say everybody on the forum does the same thing with me. So, I bundle up $10,000 worth of these loans and I tell Andrew I'll pay him $1000 to take on the risk of these loans....and he'll owe me if any of these loans go bad. And, he does it.

Alrighty then! I'm sitting pretty with $10,000 worth of loans + interest....and ANDREW is taking on the risk, not me! Awesome!

Well, the loans start going bad. I start demanding my money from Andrew. He can't pay so he declares bankruptcy. Suddenly that $10,000 becomes $0...and I have nothing either...I have bills to pay so I declare bankruptcy as well...which in turn affects any business I have credit with.

In a nutshell THAT is what happened. The system had a back door where it SEEMED they could offload the risk of these loans. But, all it did was inject the system with a huge amount of high risk. And, it was risk that did not have to be reported to ANYBODY because of how lax regulations are.

So, the housing crisis came about because of a system that any risk was acceptable because it could be offloaded. That was possible because of lax regulations. This allowed practically anybody to be able to get a mortgage loan...regardless if they could pay it back or now.

Simplistic yes, but the truth in a nutshell. Not everyone should be guaranteed to buy a home, especially if they cannot afford it. There is no shame in rent. I did it as a single mom. Again, it was like a ponzi scheme.

No, it s not the FULL truth in a nutshell.

Answer this question: Why would anybody lend money to anybody when they KNEW that person could not pay it back?

To say that the housing crisis was because "everyone was guaranteed to buy a home" is not even HALF the story. The other half is banks were willing to loan to anybody even if they knew the person could not pay it back. Then to top it off, that bad credit was spread to every major financial institution in the world. THAT is what led to the housing crisis.

You guys truly are nit pickers... Yes what you said was how they did it. Not a disagreement there. If you look up at my response to my buddy B there you would see I said you were right about what you said. But still they gave a loan to someone who could not pay. Regardless of how they planned to have someone else cover the debt. If the bad debt to the first party had never been made, the second party could not have taken the loan and defaulted on it now could they? It was bad business from the start.

You still don't get it.

Yeah, they made a bunch of bad loans. But, that alone is not going to cause the crisis. The problem was caused by so many people dealing in credit swaps and not feeling any risk of what they were dealing in. Why can you not see that? When there is risk involved, things are bit more scrutinized. When no risk is involved, they will loan to a dead person, or a fetus...same thing really, because there is no risk. Offloading all of that risk and coming up with their own version of a commodity trade is what caused the crisis....The risk did not stay with one institution, it was traded around like a stock...spreading the problem EVERYWHERE.

It's like getting a cold and sneezing on somebody. Then that person sneezes on somebody, and then that person sneezes on somebody...etc. You are basically blaming the sneezing crisis on the first person who sneezed....as that is where it started. The root cause of the problem is nobody is covering their damn mouth because nobody thinks they are putting anybody at risk....until everybody dies of the bird flu and then it's all, "oops, I guess the risk was greater then I thought..."

[Behshad]

The housing crisis came about because of loans being given to people who could not afford them in the first place.

That's only partially true...and very simplistic.

Why would a lender lend to somebody who could not pay back the loan? How are they going to make money from it? By offloading the risk to somebody else.

Say you are broke, have no job, pennyless, no assets to speak of...and you ask to borrow $100 from me. I say OK! I charge you %10 interest, blah, blah blah. Then I turn to Andrew and tell him I will pay him $10 to take the risk of this loan. So, if you default, HE owes ME the balance.

Now, let's say everybody on the forum does the same thing with me. So, I bundle up $10,000 worth of these loans and I tell Andrew I'll pay him $1000 to take on the risk of these loans....and he'll owe me if any of these loans go bad. And, he does it.

Alrighty then! I'm sitting pretty with $10,000 worth of loans + interest....and ANDREW is taking on the risk, not me! Awesome!

Well, the loans start going bad. I start demanding my money from Andrew. He can't pay so he declares bankruptcy. Suddenly that $10,000 becomes $0...and I have nothing either...I have bills to pay so I declare bankruptcy as well...which in turn affects any business I have credit with.

In a nutshell THAT is what happened. The system had a back door where it SEEMED they could offload the risk of these loans. But, all it did was inject the system with a huge amount of high risk. And, it was risk that did not have to be reported to ANYBODY because of how lax regulations are.

So, the housing crisis came about because of a system that any risk was acceptable because it could be offloaded. That was possible because of lax regulations. This allowed practically anybody to be able to get a mortgage loan...regardless if they could pay it back or now.

Simplistic yes, but the truth in a nutshell. Not everyone should be guaranteed to buy a home, especially if they cannot afford it. There is no shame in rent. I did it as a single mom. Again, it was like a ponzi scheme.

Monker tried to explain it to you , in such a simple way that even YOU should understand, yet you failed to get the point he was trying to make .

Blow it out your Butt B. It still falls down to people giving loans to folks that cannot afford it. I got what he is saying. Even if someone else could "offload the loan" it doesn't mean they will honor it. I am not as stupid as you think. But if the "risky" loans were never made in the first place we would not be in this mess, and that is my point. Regardless of how well they played the game borrow from Peter to pay Paul. I am not saying what he said was wrong. I happen to agree with him on that. So take that stick it in your tail pipe and and blow Dixie for me... I always said you were a musical fool! What got a burr up your backside grouchy?

Part of the problems we have in our country is people like you teaching our kids ! idiot !

[slucero]

Actually Monker is correct..

JP Morgan invented CDS (Credit Default Swaps)... and what was done was the separation of the "risk" of a given loan going bad, from the loan itself. The result was a vehicle that insures the loan against default. These were then bundled as a new form of security.. and then resold in a totally private, unregulated (and never before regulated) market - the derivatives market... Essentially risk" was not eliminated.. it was simply moved around... and eventually would find another home...

Ironically the derivatives market has been around for a long time.. farmers mostly use it to hedge against fluctuating crop prices..

Sheila Bair, former Sec of the FDIC saw the derivatives market and tried to get Congress to regulate it... she was essentially blackballed by then Treasury Sec Robert Rubin (former Chairman of Goldman Sachs) , and many members of Congress..

The Banks, having achieved deregulation with the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999, were now free to trade on the market via their own, previously banned (via Glass-Steagal) trading desks... participated as sellers and buyers... and got in way over their heads... hence the need for bailouts..



A small part of the fault lies with people getting loans they should not have... (the financial industry wants us to believe this is the cause)

The majority of the fault lies squarely with those who wouldn't regulate the market when told of the risk it posed. Specifically, then Treasury Sec Robert Rubin (former Chairman of Goldman Sachs) and Congress.

[artist4perry]

The housing crisis came about because of loans being given to people who could not afford them in the first place.

That's only partially true...and very simplistic.

Why would a lender lend to somebody who could not pay back the loan? How are they going to make money from it? By offloading the risk to somebody else.

Say you are broke, have no job, pennyless, no assets to speak of...and you ask to borrow $100 from me. I say OK! I charge you %10 interest, blah, blah blah. Then I turn to Andrew and tell him I will pay him $10 to take the risk of this loan. So, if you default, HE owes ME the balance.

Now, let's say everybody on the forum does the same thing with me. So, I bundle up $10,000 worth of these loans and I tell Andrew I'll pay him $1000 to take on the risk of these loans....and he'll owe me if any of these loans go bad. And, he does it.

Alrighty then! I'm sitting pretty with $10,000 worth of loans + interest....and ANDREW is taking on the risk, not me! Awesome!

Well, the loans start going bad. I start demanding my money from Andrew. He can't pay so he declares bankruptcy. Suddenly that $10,000 becomes $0...and I have nothing either...I have bills to pay so I declare bankruptcy as well...which in turn affects any business I have credit with.

In a nutshell THAT is what happened. The system had a back door where it SEEMED they could offload the risk of these loans. But, all it did was inject the system with a huge amount of high risk. And, it was risk that did not have to be reported to ANYBODY because of how lax regulations are.

So, the housing crisis came about because of a system that any risk was acceptable because it could be offloaded. That was possible because of lax regulations. This allowed practically anybody to be able to get a mortgage loan...regardless if they could pay it back or now.

Simplistic yes, but the truth in a nutshell. Not everyone should be guaranteed to buy a home, especially if they cannot afford it. There is no shame in rent. I did it as a single mom. Again, it was like a ponzi scheme.

Monker tried to explain it to you , in such a simple way that even YOU should understand, yet you failed to get the point he was trying to make .

Blow it out your Butt B. It still falls down to people giving loans to folks that cannot afford it. I got what he is saying. Even if someone else could "offload the loan" it doesn't mean they will honor it. I am not as stupid as you think. But if the "risky" loans were never made in the first place we would not be in this mess, and that is my point. Regardless of how well they played the game borrow from Peter to pay Paul. I am not saying what he said was wrong. I happen to agree with him on that. So take that stick it in your tail pipe and and blow Dixie for me... I always said you were a musical fool! What got a burr up your backside grouchy?

Part of the problems we have in our country is people like you teaching our kids ! idiot !

LOOK you two Lib tree hugging troglodytes! I purely get it. It took a stupid move to create a more stupid move that lead to a colossal cluster screw. My point is the first stupid move could have been avoided. Thus the greedy and unscrupulous would not go on a stupid fest creating the whole implosion! BANKS SHOULD NOT GIVE LOANS TO ANYONE WHO CANNOT SUPPORT THEM. Basic math. Then the whole mess could have been avoided. The first mistake by itself might not have created such a problem, but the aftermath of idiots who would play games with bad loans would have not had the fodder to fertilize their whole destruction of the financial institutions.

Call me dumb? You think that the first loans were not a problem. Dumb is thinking one can play footsy with bad loans and come out smelling like roses. I think the whole thing stinks.

Be glad I am teaching kids B. A lot of people could care less about them. Many are in it as an "easy" job. If you do your job right it is never easy. And the rewards don't come in big paychecks, they come in what good you pass on. It matters to them that someone cares about them.

Gotta love ya ya big Bozo.

AND AGAIN TO ANYONE WHO CANNOT READ...I DID NOT SAY MONKER WAS WRONG. HE IS VERY CORRECT. I JUST POINT OUT THAT IF ONE DOES NOT LOAN TO THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD THEM, THE MORONS WHO SCREWED UP THIS WHOLE THING WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE LOANS TO MAKE A BIGGER MESS OUT OF.

Thank you...goodnight. B...hug the kids and wife for me will ya?

[artist4perry]

The housing crisis came about because of loans being given to people who could not afford them in the first place.

That's only partially true...and very simplistic.

Why would a lender lend to somebody who could not pay back the loan? How are they going to make money from it? By offloading the risk to somebody else.

Say you are broke, have no job, pennyless, no assets to speak of...and you ask to borrow $100 from me. I say OK! I charge you %10 interest, blah, blah blah. Then I turn to Andrew and tell him I will pay him $10 to take the risk of this loan. So, if you default, HE owes ME the balance.

Now, let's say everybody on the forum does the same thing with me. So, I bundle up $10,000 worth of these loans and I tell Andrew I'll pay him $1000 to take on the risk of these loans....and he'll owe me if any of these loans go bad. And, he does it.

Alrighty then! I'm sitting pretty with $10,000 worth of loans + interest....and ANDREW is taking on the risk, not me! Awesome!

Well, the loans start going bad. I start demanding my money from Andrew. He can't pay so he declares bankruptcy. Suddenly that $10,000 becomes $0...and I have nothing either...I have bills to pay so I declare bankruptcy as well...which in turn affects any business I have credit with.

In a nutshell THAT is what happened. The system had a back door where it SEEMED they could offload the risk of these loans. But, all it did was inject the system with a huge amount of high risk. And, it was risk that did not have to be reported to ANYBODY because of how lax regulations are.

So, the housing crisis came about because of a system that any risk was acceptable because it could be offloaded. That was possible because of lax regulations. This allowed practically anybody to be able to get a mortgage loan...regardless if they could pay it back or now.

Simplistic yes, but the truth in a nutshell. Not everyone should be guaranteed to buy a home, especially if they cannot afford it. There is no shame in rent. I did it as a single mom. Again, it was like a ponzi scheme.

No, it s not the FULL truth in a nutshell.

Answer this question: Why would anybody lend money to anybody when they KNEW that person could not pay it back?

To say that the housing crisis was because "everyone was guaranteed to buy a home" is not even HALF the story. The other half is banks were willing to loan to anybody even if they knew the person could not pay it back. Then to top it off, that bad credit was spread to every major financial institution in the world. THAT is what led to the housing crisis.

You guys truly are nit pickers... Yes what you said was how they did it. Not a disagreement there. If you look up at my response to my buddy B there you would see I said you were right about what you said. But still they gave a loan to someone who could not pay. Regardless of how they planned to have someone else cover the debt. If the bad debt to the first party had never been made, the second party could not have taken the loan and defaulted on it now could they? It was bad business from the start.

You still don't get it.

Yeah, they made a bunch of bad loans. But, that alone is not going to cause the crisis. The problem was caused by so many people dealing in credit swaps and not feeling any risk of what they were dealing in. Why can you not see that? When there is risk involved, things are bit more scrutinized. When no risk is involved, they will loan to a dead person, or a fetus...same thing really, because there is no risk. Offloading all of that risk and coming up with their own version of a commodity trade is what caused the crisis....The risk did not stay with one institution, it was traded around like a stock...spreading the problem EVERYWHERE.

It's like getting a cold and sneezing on somebody. Then that person sneezes on somebody, and then that person sneezes on somebody...etc. You are basically blaming the sneezing crisis on the first person who sneezed....as that is where it started. The root cause of the problem is nobody is covering their damn mouth because nobody thinks they are putting anybody at risk....until everybody dies of the bird flu and then it's all, "oops, I guess the risk was greater then I thought..."

No Monker I am not blaming the first person who sneezed. But geez if they would use a tissue to prevent spreading the problem would the bird flu not have affected so many? If banks followed proper loan procedures and not given out any risky loans then there would have not been a crisis. Offloading is greed taking the risky loans and making them even more dangerous. It is like taking a rotten fruit with e-coli and placing it in a vat with good fruit. The whole thing gets contaminated. The bad fruit should have been discarded to start.
The way you look at it it is O.K. to place the bad fruit with the bigger vat. It was when they took it on the truck and distributed it to stores all over the world and placing it with all the fruit on the market that was the problem. I say it should have never been added to the good fruit to start.

I am sure the unscrupulous would have found any place to start their schemes. I am just saying it would have closed that door to start.

[slucero]

The housing crisis came about because of loans being given to people who could not afford them in the first place.

That's only partially true...and very simplistic.

Why would a lender lend to somebody who could not pay back the loan? How are they going to make money from it? By offloading the risk to somebody else.

Say you are broke, have no job, pennyless, no assets to speak of...and you ask to borrow $100 from me. I say OK! I charge you %10 interest, blah, blah blah. Then I turn to Andrew and tell him I will pay him $10 to take the risk of this loan. So, if you default, HE owes ME the balance.

Now, let's say everybody on the forum does the same thing with me. So, I bundle up $10,000 worth of these loans and I tell Andrew I'll pay him $1000 to take on the risk of these loans....and he'll owe me if any of these loans go bad. And, he does it.

Alrighty then! I'm sitting pretty with $10,000 worth of loans + interest....and ANDREW is taking on the risk, not me! Awesome!

Well, the loans start going bad. I start demanding my money from Andrew. He can't pay so he declares bankruptcy. Suddenly that $10,000 becomes $0...and I have nothing either...I have bills to pay so I declare bankruptcy as well...which in turn affects any business I have credit with.

In a nutshell THAT is what happened. The system had a back door where it SEEMED they could offload the risk of these loans. But, all it did was inject the system with a huge amount of high risk. And, it was risk that did not have to be reported to ANYBODY because of how lax regulations are.

So, the housing crisis came about because of a system that any risk was acceptable because it could be offloaded. That was possible because of lax regulations. This allowed practically anybody to be able to get a mortgage loan...regardless if they could pay it back or now.

Simplistic yes, but the truth in a nutshell. Not everyone should be guaranteed to buy a home, especially if they cannot afford it. There is no shame in rent. I did it as a single mom. Again, it was like a ponzi scheme.

No, it s not the FULL truth in a nutshell.

Answer this question: Why would anybody lend money to anybody when they KNEW that person could not pay it back?

To say that the housing crisis was because "everyone was guaranteed to buy a home" is not even HALF the story. The other half is banks were willing to loan to anybody even if they knew the person could not pay it back. Then to top it off, that bad credit was spread to every major financial institution in the world. THAT is what led to the housing crisis.

You guys truly are nit pickers... Yes what you said was how they did it. Not a disagreement there. If you look up at my response to my buddy B there you would see I said you were right about what you said. But still they gave a loan to someone who could not pay. Regardless of how they planned to have someone else cover the debt. If the bad debt to the first party had never been made, the second party could not have taken the loan and defaulted on it now could they? It was bad business from the start.

You still don't get it.

Yeah, they made a bunch of bad loans. But, that alone is not going to cause the crisis. The problem was caused by so many people dealing in credit swaps and not feeling any risk of what they were dealing in. Why can you not see that? When there is risk involved, things are bit more scrutinized. When no risk is involved, they will loan to a dead person, or a fetus...same thing really, because there is no risk. Offloading all of that risk and coming up with their own version of a commodity trade is what caused the crisis....The risk did not stay with one institution, it was traded around like a stock...spreading the problem EVERYWHERE.

It's like getting a cold and sneezing on somebody. Then that person sneezes on somebody, and then that person sneezes on somebody...etc. You are basically blaming the sneezing crisis on the first person who sneezed....as that is where it started. The root cause of the problem is nobody is covering their damn mouth because nobody thinks they are putting anybody at risk....until everybody dies of the bird flu and then it's all, "oops, I guess the risk was greater then I thought..."

No Monker I am not blaming the first person who sneezed. But geez if they would use a tissue to prevent spreading the problem would the bird flu not have affected so many? If banks followed proper loan procedures and not given out any risky loans then there would have not been a crisis. Offloading is greed taking the risky loans and making them even more dangerous. It is like taking a rotten fruit with e-coli and placing it in a vat with good fruit. The whole thing gets contaminated. The bad fruit should have been discarded to start.
The way you look at it it is O.K. to place the bad fruit with the bigger vat. It was when they took it on the truck and distributed it to stores all over the world and placing it with all the fruit on the market that was the problem. I say it should have never been added to the good fruit to start.

I am sure the unscrupulous would have found any place to start their schemes. I am just saying it would have closed that door to start.

That's just the point...

The banks DID follow proper loan procedures... the very ones they in fact CHANGED... by colluding with rating agencies, so previously unworthy borrowers would be accepted. It was intentional and legal.

The banks KNEW what they were doing.. that's why they went from "carrying their paper (loans)" to instead selling them on the secondary market as fast as they could.

They simply became loan originators, pocketing the origination fees.. because they KNEW they were playing with fire... but everyone was doing it.. and it was legal.

[artist4perry]

I am not disagreeing, legal or not they should not have allowed risky loans to those who could not afford them. I was merely stating that they should have been standing on the sound procedures that existed before they started to change them to allow their risky deals.

I think we all can agree it was a disastrous mess.

Have a great day guys. I think in a way we are agreeing for the most part.

[Monker]

I am not disagreeing, legal or not they should not have allowed risky loans to those who could not afford them. I was merely stating that they should have been standing on the sound procedures that existed before they started to change them to allow their risky deals.

I think we all can agree it was a disastrous mess.

Have a great day guys. I think in a way we are agreeing for the most part.

You are still not seeing it.

Your original point was that making mortgage loans to those who could not afford them caused the mortgage crisis.

That in itself is NOT TRUE. If that were all that happened, then a few local or regional banks would fail, and that would be it.

The CRISIS happened because that risk and eventual failure was spread to every financial institution in the world. THAT is what caused the crisis.

You said above in reference to my sneeze crisis that if everybody would have just covered their mouth.... Well, that is exactly the point. Everybody ignored the risk of spreading the germs...and they infected an entire group of people. Then when people start dying, they find the true amount of risk that they were spreading. That is exactly what happened...everybody ignored the risk of those loans and that risk spread to every financial institution...and nobody realized what they had done until Bear Stearns, Lehman Brouthers, and AIG failed.

[slucero]

What most people don't understand is that the crisis still exists...

Very little of those "bad loans" have been written down... most have simply been moved off the balance sheets of the banks to the balance sheets of Freddie and Fannie... in 2008 2% of the home loans in this country were Freddie and Fannie loans... now it's 98%... Many of those loans were bought by Freddie and Fannie at "par" value...

The taxpayers now own that debt...

Further, the "market to market" accounting rule was suspended in 2009. Mark to market pricing is the practice of requiring banks to value their assets based on their current market value. Not what banks paid for those assets yesterday. Not what they could get for them in, say, a year or two when the financial industry has settled down. So as an example, a house they own (or foreclosed on) that they originally valued at $500K.. now only worth $250K is still represented at $500K on their balance sheet.. and they do not have to take the loss, If they DID, given the huge losses they have incurred on the housing market... Most US banks would be INSOLVENT..

[artist4perry]

I am not disagreeing, legal or not they should not have allowed risky loans to those who could not afford them. I was merely stating that they should have been standing on the sound procedures that existed before they started to change them to allow their risky deals.

I think we all can agree it was a disastrous mess.

Have a great day guys. I think in a way we are agreeing for the most part.

You are still not seeing it.

Your original point was that making mortgage loans to those who could not afford them caused the mortgage crisis.

That in itself is NOT TRUE. If that were all that happened, then a few local or regional banks would fail, and that would be it.

The CRISIS happened because that risk and eventual failure was spread to every financial institution in the world. THAT is what caused the crisis.

You said above in reference to my sneeze crisis that if everybody would have just covered their mouth.... Well, that is exactly the point. Everybody ignored the risk of spreading the germs...and they infected an entire group of people. Then when people start dying, they find the true amount of risk that they were spreading. That is exactly what happened...everybody ignored the risk of those loans and that risk spread to every financial institution...and nobody realized what they had done until Bear Stearns, Lehman Brouthers, and AIG failed.

I get what all of you were saying. But the whole loaning to people who could not afford it was not just a few regional banks. And you have to add in that the loans were for more than the homes were worth. I am not disagreeing that it was that combined with the unscrupulous people who added risky loans on top of that. It started small...and ballooned. I am saying if the loans were not made in the first place, there is a good chance the bad risky loans that compounded on top of that might not have even came about. It took these terrible loans to start the investors scheming. It was the crumbling foundation that all the other risky loans were founded on. A bad foundation is doomed to fail.

I am sure if they had not invested in them then maybe the housing crash would not have happened. But they did.

I totally get what you guys are saying ... yes it was all the risky investments of big investors that made it crash, but think for a second, what if they never had the bad housing loans to invest in?

Maybe I am not saying this right or something...truly it doesn't matter that much to me. My main point above everything was Government was bad about destroying almost anything it touches. I did not mean to get into a big brew ha ha over the housing thing at all. I was basically stating my disdain for the banks changing their rules on their guidelines.

Originate-to-Distribute Model

In the old days, banks used to make mortgages in house and keep them on their books. Because they held onto the loans they made, stringent guidelines were put in place to ensure quality loans were written. After all, if something went wrong with the loans, they’d be accountable. And they’d lose lots of money. (My main point...this should have never changed.)

Recently, a new phenomenon came along where banks and mortgage lenders would originate home loans and quickly resell them to investors in the form of securities on the secondary market (Wall Street). This method, known as the “originate to distribute model,” allowed banks and lenders to pass the risk onto investors, and thereby loosen guidelines. The result was casual underwriting, less oversight, and more aggressive financing, which ultimately led to a lot of bad loans being made.

[slucero]

I am not disagreeing, legal or not they should not have allowed risky loans to those who could not afford them. I was merely stating that they should have been standing on the sound procedures that existed before they started to change them to allow their risky deals.

I think we all can agree it was a disastrous mess.

Have a great day guys. I think in a way we are agreeing for the most part.

You are still not seeing it.

Your original point was that making mortgage loans to those who could not afford them caused the mortgage crisis.

That in itself is NOT TRUE. If that were all that happened, then a few local or regional banks would fail, and that would be it.

The CRISIS happened because that risk and eventual failure was spread to every financial institution in the world. THAT is what caused the crisis.

You said above in reference to my sneeze crisis that if everybody would have just covered their mouth.... Well, that is exactly the point. Everybody ignored the risk of spreading the germs...and they infected an entire group of people. Then when people start dying, they find the true amount of risk that they were spreading. That is exactly what happened...everybody ignored the risk of those loans and that risk spread to every financial institution...and nobody realized what they had done until Bear Stearns, Lehman Brouthers, and AIG failed.

I get what all of you were saying. But the whole loaning to people who could not afford it was not just a few regional banks. And you have to add in that the loans were for more than the homes were worth. I am not disagreeing that it was that combined with the unscrupulous people who added risky loans on top of that. It started small...and ballooned. I am saying if the loans were not made in the first place, there is a good chance the bad risky loans that compounded on top of that might not have even came about. It took these terrible loans to start the investors scheming. It was the crumbling foundation that all the other risky loans were founded on. A bad foundation is doomed to fail.

I am sure if they had not invested in them then maybe the housing crash would not have happened. But they did.

I totally get what you guys are saying ... yes it was all the risky investments of big investors that made it crash, but think for a second, what if they never had the bad housing loans to invest in?

Maybe I am not saying this right or something...truly it doesn't matter that much to me. My main point above everything was Government was bad about destroying almost anything it touches. I did not mean to get into a big brew ha ha over the housing thing at all. I was basically stating my disdain for the banks changing their rules on their guidelines.

Originate-to-Distribute Model

In the old days, banks used to make mortgages in house and keep them on their books. Because they held onto the loans they made, stringent guidelines were put in place to ensure quality loans were written. After all, if something went wrong with the loans, they’d be accountable. And they’d lose lots of money. (My main point...this should have never changed.)

Recently, a new phenomenon came along where banks and mortgage lenders would originate home loans and quickly resell them to investors in the form of securities on the secondary market (Wall Street). This method, known as the “originate to distribute model,” allowed banks and lenders to pass the risk onto investors, and thereby loosen guidelines. The result was casual underwriting, less oversight, and more aggressive financing, which ultimately led to a lot of bad loans being made.

The amount of people who got loans they could not afford.. is statistically insignificant. Blaming the housing crisis on folks who got bad loans is like blaming Moses for the Great Flood...

It did not cause the meltdown.. I repeat - IT DID NOT CAUSE THE MELTDOWN...

It was the lack of transparency regarding WHICH parts of the bundled securities being SOLD to INVESTORS were toxic vs. junk. A given CDS would have hundreds of loans, with no real rating per loan because the rating agencies were LYING.

When the investors (READ: BANKS) realized they could NOT accurately ascertain this.. it means they could no longer ascertain their RISK... so they stopped lending to shore up their reserves... and when credit STOPS... so does the economy.

THAT is when the credit crisis started..

The housing crisis was caused by:

1. a low Fed lending rate.. which translated into artificially low mortgage rates
2. banks and rating agencies colluding on lending standards
3. people believing that houses were "investments" that would only go UP in value...

These things fueled the buying frenzy... and the dramatic home price rise... BUT.. the rise in home prices was NOT sustainable.. when credit standards were re-tightened after 2008, and the economy failed... the foreclosures ALONG with and already oversupply of home forced prices in the only direction it COULD go - DOWN.

And where we are today is the result. Even the Fed economists think the housing market has another 20% left to correct... prices are TOO HIGH.

[artist4perry]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

[Behshad]

Ginger shut the fuck up already. We get it, all you know about politics and economy is "the bad loans" . you probably heard about it once in the teacher's breakroom and thats all youre repeating like fucking parrot. You dont see the big picture. You dont even understand how it all works.
What youre pointing out as a huge problem is a very small part of why our economy went downhill.
Im against bailouts and helping out those who fail due to greed or lack of knowledge. However, if I had to choose my tax money go towards helping OUR people, the people of our country, vs. helping out other countries by trying to bring them freedom with our wars and our tax money , I choose helping our own people any given day. What crippled our economy was the mistakes made in the whitehouse over and over again when Bush would not only ignore our problems but would add to them.
Those who expected Obama to turn things around within couple years, simply dont fathom how big of a mess we were in when he took over. He is trying, but people choose anything negative in their daily lives and blame him and the government for it.
Now why dont you stick to something you know more about, like drawing Andrew kissing a kangaroo or a baboon !

[Michigan Girl]

Ginger shut the fuck up already. We get it, all you know about politics and economy is "the bad loans" . you probably heard about it once in the teacher's breakroom and thats all youre repeating like fucking parrot. You dont see the big picture. You dont even understand how it all works.
What youre pointing out as a huge problem is a very small part of why our economy went downhill.
Im against bailouts and helping out those who fail due to greed or lack of knowledge. However, if I had to choose my tax money go towards helping OUR people, the people of our country, vs. helping out other countries by trying to bring them freedom with our wars and our tax money , I choose helping our own people any given day. What crippled our economy was the mistakes made in the whitehouse over and over again when Bush would not only ignore our problems but would add to them. Those who expected Obama to turn things around within couple years, simply dont fathom how big of a mess we were in when he took over. He is trying, but people choose anything negative in their daily lives and blame him and the government for it.
Now why dont you stick to something you know more about, like drawing Andrew kissing a kangaroo or a baboon !

^^^in red!! Good post ...and I will agree that Bush added to the problem rather
than create the problem, as the ill~informed/blind would like to believe.

[slucero]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

Um.. no...

a bad bank loan is not a "good thing"... I never said that.. how you construe that from what I wrote is beyond me..

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

Apologizing because you weren't clear enough is simply disingenuous. You've been crystal clear in your opinion that bad bank loans for houses is the cause of the crisis... you repeat it in literally every post. No one was "tangenting".. All 3 of us were pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about... and supporting it with FACTS...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if that opinion is not supportable factually.. then that opinion is simply a guess...

The simple truth is that you do not know what you are talking about, yet you want to, and are entitled to have an opinion...


THAT is even scarier than the crisis were are currently in.

[slucero]

Ginger shut the fuck up already. We get it, all you know about politics and economy is "the bad loans" . you probably heard about it once in the teacher's breakroom and thats all youre repeating like fucking parrot. You dont see the big picture. You dont even understand how it all works.
What youre pointing out as a huge problem is a very small part of why our economy went downhill.
Im against bailouts and helping out those who fail due to greed or lack of knowledge. However, if I had to choose my tax money go towards helping OUR people, the people of our country, vs. helping out other countries by trying to bring them freedom with our wars and our tax money , I choose helping our own people any given day. What crippled our economy was the mistakes made in the whitehouse over and over again when Bush would not only ignore our problems but would add to them. Those who expected Obama to turn things around within couple years, simply dont fathom how big of a mess we were in when he took over. He is trying, but people choose anything negative in their daily lives and blame him and the government for it.
Now why dont you stick to something you know more about, like drawing Andrew kissing a kangaroo or a baboon !

^^^in red!! Good post ...and I will agree that Bush added to the problem rather
than create the problem, as the ill~informed/blind would like to believe.

The last 50 years, Presidents and Congresses included, is the problem.... We have a culture that has lived beyond its means for a long, long time.. no one president or congress is responsible for that.

[Behshad]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

Um.. no...

a bad bank loan is not a "good thing"... I never said that.. how you construe that from what I wrote is beyond me..

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

Apologizing because you weren't clear enough is simply disingenuous. You've been crystal clear in your opinion that bad bank loans for houses is the cause of the crisis... you repeat it in literally every post. No one was "tangenting".. All 3 of us were pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about... and supporting it with FACTS...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if that opinion is not supportable factually.. then that opinion is simply a guess...

The simple truth is that you do not know what you are talking about, yet you want to, and are entitled to have an opinion...


THAT is even scarier than the crisis were are currently in.

[DrFU]

Ginger shut the fuck up already. We get it, all you know about politics and economy is "the bad loans" . you probably heard about it once in the teacher's breakroom and thats all youre repeating like fucking parrot. You dont see the big picture. You dont even understand how it all works.
What youre pointing out as a huge problem is a very small part of why our economy went downhill.
Im against bailouts and helping out those who fail due to greed or lack of knowledge. However, if I had to choose my tax money go towards helping OUR people, the people of our country, vs. helping out other countries by trying to bring them freedom with our wars and our tax money , I choose helping our own people any given day. What crippled our economy was the mistakes made in the whitehouse over and over again when Bush would not only ignore our problems but would add to them. Those who expected Obama to turn things around within couple years, simply dont fathom how big of a mess we were in when he took over. He is trying, but people choose anything negative in their daily lives and blame him and the government for it.
Now why dont you stick to something you know more about, like drawing Andrew kissing a kangaroo or a baboon !

^^^in red!! Good post ...and I will agree that Bush added to the problem rather
than create the problem, as the ill~informed/blind would like to believe.

Yes, good point, but the gratuitous teacher ridicule in which the point is embedded pisses me off ...

[Behshad]

Ginger shut the fuck up already. We get it, all you know about politics and economy is "the bad loans" . you probably heard about it once in the teacher's breakroom and thats all youre repeating like fucking parrot. You dont see the big picture. You dont even understand how it all works.
What youre pointing out as a huge problem is a very small part of why our economy went downhill.
Im against bailouts and helping out those who fail due to greed or lack of knowledge. However, if I had to choose my tax money go towards helping OUR people, the people of our country, vs. helping out other countries by trying to bring them freedom with our wars and our tax money , I choose helping our own people any given day. What crippled our economy was the mistakes made in the whitehouse over and over again when Bush would not only ignore our problems but would add to them. Those who expected Obama to turn things around within couple years, simply dont fathom how big of a mess we were in when he took over. He is trying, but people choose anything negative in their daily lives and blame him and the government for it.
Now why dont you stick to something you know more about, like drawing Andrew kissing a kangaroo or a baboon !

^^^in red!! Good post ...and I will agree that Bush added to the problem rather
than create the problem, as the ill~informed/blind would like to believe.

Yes, good point, but the gratuitous teacher ridicule in which the point is embedded pisses me off ...

Im not ridicuiling teachers. FYI both my parents are retired teachers.
Im ridicuiling Ginger's lack of knowledge in politics. There are plenty of teachers out there who are very knowledgable in politics and other subjects too.
Are you suggesting that ALL teachers are knowledgable in politics?

[DrFU]

Ginger shut the fuck up already. We get it, all you know about politics and economy is "the bad loans" . you probably heard about it once in the teacher's breakroom and thats all youre repeating like fucking parrot. You dont see the big picture. You dont even understand how it all works.
What youre pointing out as a huge problem is a very small part of why our economy went downhill.
Im against bailouts and helping out those who fail due to greed or lack of knowledge. However, if I had to choose my tax money go towards helping OUR people, the people of our country, vs. helping out other countries by trying to bring them freedom with our wars and our tax money , I choose helping our own people any given day. What crippled our economy was the mistakes made in the whitehouse over and over again when Bush would not only ignore our problems but would add to them. Those who expected Obama to turn things around within couple years, simply dont fathom how big of a mess we were in when he took over. He is trying, but people choose anything negative in their daily lives and blame him and the government for it.
Now why dont you stick to something you know more about, like drawing Andrew kissing a kangaroo or a baboon !

^^^in red!! Good post ...and I will agree that Bush added to the problem rather
than create the problem, as the ill~informed/blind would like to believe.

Yes, good point, but the gratuitous teacher ridicule in which the point is embedded pisses me off ...

Im not ridicuiling teachers. FYI both my parents are retired teachers.
Im ridicuiling Ginger's lack of knowledge in politics. There are plenty of teachers out there who are very knowledgable in politics and other subjects too.
Are you suggesting that ALL teachers are knowledgable in politics?

Not biting those hooks.

Just saying "STFU" is fair ... "overheard in the break room," and "stick with what you know," isn't.

[Behshad]

Ginger shut the fuck up already. We get it, all you know about politics and economy is "the bad loans" . you probably heard about it once in the teacher's breakroom and thats all youre repeating like fucking parrot. You dont see the big picture. You dont even understand how it all works.
What youre pointing out as a huge problem is a very small part of why our economy went downhill.
Im against bailouts and helping out those who fail due to greed or lack of knowledge. However, if I had to choose my tax money go towards helping OUR people, the people of our country, vs. helping out other countries by trying to bring them freedom with our wars and our tax money , I choose helping our own people any given day. What crippled our economy was the mistakes made in the whitehouse over and over again when Bush would not only ignore our problems but would add to them. Those who expected Obama to turn things around within couple years, simply dont fathom how big of a mess we were in when he took over. He is trying, but people choose anything negative in their daily lives and blame him and the government for it.
Now why dont you stick to something you know more about, like drawing Andrew kissing a kangaroo or a baboon !

^^^in red!! Good post ...and I will agree that Bush added to the problem rather
than create the problem, as the ill~informed/blind would like to believe.

Yes, good point, but the gratuitous teacher ridicule in which the point is embedded pisses me off ...

Im not ridicuiling teachers. FYI both my parents are retired teachers.
Im ridicuiling Ginger's lack of knowledge in politics. There are plenty of teachers out there who are very knowledgable in politics and other subjects too.
Are you suggesting that ALL teachers are knowledgable in politics?

Not biting those hooks.

Just saying "STFU" is fair ... "overheard in the break room," and "stick with what you know," isn't.

You still dont get it, no hooks.
I didnt put teachers down. I put down her knowledge in politics or lack thereof. Thats why I told her SHE should stick to what she knows, which is art and not politics. Now if you wanna read into it your way, thats your problem. be pissed. I know what I said, I know what I meant, I explained it to you and I still stand by my comment.

[Behshad]

Well look who's back instead of copying and pasting, why not use your own words and respond to my last post to you ? or does it make your head hurt when you have to try to think !?

[Don]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

You don't teach art, do you?

[Behshad]

You make my head hurt. Most libs do that to me and it's not worth the effort. Just remember that I am right and all will be well.

BTW, what was our bet on The Won becoming The LoOser? Was it a case, cause I'm really liking the new 24oz Natty Daddys.

1) You think youre right, cause other sources tell you what you think.
2) Our bet still remains. Wait and see
3) I stand corrected, I would think that THINKING would be the cause of your head hurting, but we all know you cant think for yourself, see #1

[Monker]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

Well, I'm not saying or trying to imply that you are stupid, or whatever. But, it does seem like you are engrained into a political agenda that is just not supported by the facts of what happened. It's too easy to blame the borrower...to blame Fannie and Freddy, or Clinton, or congress. It's harder to take the politics out of it and just look at the FACTS of what happened. it's hard because too many people are slanting the facts for whatever political agenda they support.

Even if not a single high risk mortgage was made, there STILL would have eventually been a crash. It would happen because there are other high risk investments out there to push on people...and frankly since nothing has really changed...this entire scenario that occurred with mortgages will happen again with something else.

Banks should be separated from other financial institutions.
Wallstreet should be regulated a LOT more then it is...especially derivitives. Not regulating the most risky financial transactions invented is INSANE.
People in general need to educate themselves about what really happened.

Pure capitalism does NOT work any better then pure socialism...for the very same reason...PEOPLE are an unpredictable element who do not obey the rules all the time, they do not do what is best for the big picture. They are selfish, illogical, fallible, and most importantly - corruptible. For THAT reason regulation is IMPORTANT.

People should realize that these financial institutions are run by people who are selfish, greedy, who are looking out for themselves first, their company second, their colleagues third, and YOU are probably not even in the top 20 of their worries...they just want your money so they can use it to make more money for what they DO care about...see above.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day.

[artist4perry]

Monker, I appreciate your not attacking my mentality. You will find I did not disagree with their points. I appreciate your input on the subject.


Let me see, if I disagree with some of you guys, I need to know your occupation so I can say your unfit to do whatever it is you do for a living...does this point of attack make you smarter than me? Or is that just what it is...a below the belt hit...

I joked around with you to keep it lighthearted. Besides politics has many sides of thought and who says your thoughts are always right? Maybe you should have just discussed it rationally with me instead of taking the low road?

I have no problem saying I was wrong by writing my initial statement. It was incomplete and you called me on it. A bit aggressively, but you called me on it. I said you were right. Then pointed out I did not like the banks changing the rules of loans to where they made bad loans...for this I am stupid?

I am disapointed in you B. I might kid around with you but I would not meaningfully be a jerk to you. I guess if that makes me stupid then stupid I will stay. I believe in treating people better than that even if I disagree with them.

[artist4perry]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

Um.. no...

a bad bank loan is not a "good thing"... I never said that.. how you construe that from what I wrote is beyond me..

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

Apologizing because you weren't clear enough is simply disingenuous. You've been crystal clear in your opinion that bad bank loans for houses is the cause of the crisis... you repeat it in literally every post. No one was "tangenting".. All 3 of us were pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about... and supporting it with FACTS...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if that opinion is not supportable factually.. then that opinion is simply a guess...

The simple truth is that you do not know what you are talking about, yet you want to, and are entitled to have an opinion...


THAT is even scarier than the crisis were are currently in.

I may have stated things badly...there was no disingenuous motive there at all. You don't know me and should not make that assumption about me. Nor should you measure a persons ability to think over a discussion in a forum. I wrote a quick partial thought and had to put up with all this nonsense over it.

Maybe you debate team captains should lighten up a bit.

[slucero]

You take this stuff TOO seriously. I AGREE WITH YOU. It didn't cause the meltdown. Happy?

And according to you bad bank loans for houses is a good thing. It never hurt anyone. It should be an ongoing practice. Right? My point...it shouldn't. These bad loans gave the bad investments fodder to play with. Regardless of weather you agree or not. Regardless of weather it caused the meltdown or NOT.

Um.. no...

a bad bank loan is not a "good thing"... I never said that.. how you construe that from what I wrote is beyond me..

I don't think I am making myself clear enough and personally this is not something I would spend anymore time discussing. I am sorry I made a statement that was not CLEAR enough and made you go into tangents. I should have added that the bad investments to my statement. I apologize that I left that out. It wasn't because I was not aware of how the housing market crashed.

Now go play in traffic will ya?

Apologizing because you weren't clear enough is simply disingenuous. You've been crystal clear in your opinion that bad bank loans for houses is the cause of the crisis... you repeat it in literally every post. No one was "tangenting".. All 3 of us were pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about... and supporting it with FACTS...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if that opinion is not supportable factually.. then that opinion is simply a guess...

The simple truth is that you do not know what you are talking about, yet you want to, and are entitled to have an opinion...


THAT is even scarier than the crisis were are currently in.

I may have stated things badly...there was no disingenuous motive there at all. You don't know me and should not make that assumption about me. Nor should you measure a persons ability to think over a discussion in a forum. I wrote a quick partial thought and had to put up with all this nonsense over it.

Maybe you debate team captains should lighten up a bit.

What we write in a forum.. much like what we say in face to face conversation, is all we have to ascertain ones opinion on a given topic... so suggesting I not "measure a persons ability to think" by what they say(post), is akin to you apologizing to me, BEFORE you beat me up.. it makes no sense...

It's your responsibility to be clear and be able to support you statements.. Either be prepared to defend your post or, if you don't wish to be challenged, don't post. It's that simple.

I certainly do not think you are stupid... and i never said you were... On the topic we were discussing, ,meaning YOUR POINT... I said you did not know what you were talking about. That doesn't mean you are stupid, just uninformed.