[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That was partly the government’s idea. Remeber that “ownership society” portion of one of Bush’s speeches? The government wanted unfit borrowers to own houses, and that’s what happened.
Meanwhile, the financial geniuses at various brokerage companies decided they could package these crap loans and sell them to nouveau riche dupes in the former third world. Everybody wins! …For a short period of time.
I do not remember that portion of the speech - I find Bush hard to listen to. I do not find it surprising that this is the manifest of his vision. Heck of a job Bushy.
Let’s take a trip down memory lane:
It’s not entirely his vision. ACORN and other racial agitators played a part, as did lenders and rich investment bankers. There’s enough blame to go around. But more government regulation will accomplish nothing.
Now there’s so MUCH regulation that people like myself and my wife won’t be able to get a loan without 25% down and a very high interest rate. So housing prices should be on there way down for quite some time.
So much for an “ownership society!”[/quote]
The only government regulation that makes a difference is making it against financial and penal interest to engage in these kind of practices. And it works very well. The provisions of SOX that operate in this manner have done a lot to combat corporate corporate fraud. Other provisions, not so much. I agree that minute micro-management by the government does not work.
Then non-Asian minorities will start complaining about racial discrimination in lending because they don’t meet lending standards as often, which is what ACORN and other groups were complaining about at the start of this whole thing.
Bailing out large financial institutions with tax payer money is not business to me. Live by the sword die by the sword. It just informs banks that they can make serious misjudgments and not be punished for them.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The only government regulation that makes a difference is making it against financial and penal interest to engage in these kind of practices.
Then non-Asian minorities will start complaining about racial discrimination in lending because they don’t meet lending standards as often, which is what ACORN and other groups were complaining about at the start of this whole thing. [/quote]
Who cares? Let them complain all they want. This is an extremely important interest to meet important societal goals, and there is no discriminatory intent. The fact that there’s some discriminatory impact is perfectly constitutional and legal. Lots of laws have discriminatory impact.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The only government regulation that makes a difference is making it against financial and penal interest to engage in these kind of practices.
Then non-Asian minorities will start complaining about racial discrimination in lending because they don’t meet lending standards as often, which is what ACORN and other groups were complaining about at the start of this whole thing.
Who cares? Let them complain all they want. This is an extremely important interest to meet important societal goals, and there is no discriminatory intent. The fact that there’s some discriminatory impact is perfectly constitutional and legal. Lots of laws have discriminatory impact.[/quote]
Who cares? They vote, therefore the government cares. As they start to make up more of the percentage of population, we can expect more of this sort of thing.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The only government regulation that makes a difference is making it against financial and penal interest to engage in these kind of practices.
Then non-Asian minorities will start complaining about racial discrimination in lending because they don’t meet lending standards as often, which is what ACORN and other groups were complaining about at the start of this whole thing.
Who cares? Let them complain all they want. This is an extremely important interest to meet important societal goals, and there is no discriminatory intent. The fact that there’s some discriminatory impact is perfectly constitutional and legal. Lots of laws have discriminatory impact.
Who cares? They vote, therefore the government cares. As they start to make up more of the percentage of population, we can expect more of this sort of thing. [/quote]
I have more faith in the government than that. Purely as a matter of self-interest, they are going to receive a lot of pressure to do something. That’s at least a strong countervailing factor that just as assuredly relates to their desire to get elected. And preventing economic catasrophe and mass foreclosures on mortgages that should never have been issued in the first place is in the interest of EVERYONE anyway, including the mortgagors. There are plenty of non-minority mortgagors that fall into this category too. Don’t kid yourself. And not all minority OR non-minority individuals are foolish enough to demand mortgages at all costs either once they realize the consequences.
[quote]Wayland wrote:
Bailing out large financial institutions with tax payer money is not business to me. Live by the sword die by the sword. It just informs banks that they can make serious misjudgments and not be punished for them.[/quote]
Agree!
And why is corporate welfare good, but personal individual welfare bad… in the eyes of the right?
And why is corporate welfare good, but personal individual welfare bad… in the eyes of the right?[/quote]
You’re confused - in this instance, there isn’t much of a distinction. If the government doesn’t intervene, individuals across the board will most certainly suffer - and no doubt when that pain came for them, you’d be first in line shouting “do something!! How could you let it fail?!!!”
And why is corporate welfare good, but personal individual welfare bad… in the eyes of the right?
You’re confused - in this instance, there isn’t much of a distinction. If the government doesn’t intervene, individuals across the board will most certainly suffer - and no doubt when that pain came for them, you’d be first in line shouting “do something!! How could you let it fail?!!!”[/quote]
Pretty much. If Fannie and Freddie were to fail, suddenly the specter of global depression becomes very real. That is not overstatement.