How Do We Collectively Make a Change?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Great posts from you on this thread, I agree 100%. Conservatives should be a lot more concerned about their culture and communities than about winning elections, with the last two decades as all the evidence you need.

But without dragging this thread into the usual debate, it makes me wonder how you so happily vote Republican. The Democrats may well be the Party of Death, or close, but the Republicans are the Party of Greed. And as Andrew Bacevich has written, Ronald Reagan, conservatism’s Dear Leader, was probably the apostle of that cultural shift.

I am not happily voting Republican in this election. I am much more willing to vote for them now that Palin is on the ticket, though. In fact, if you will look back at my posts prior to Palin being picked, I was begging for Kinky Friedman to join the race.

See this I don’t get AT ALL. Was meaning to make a similar reply to Varqanir the other day.

I like Sarah Palin and what she stands for by and large, although the parallels to Bush are striking and she has zero foreign or security policy knowledge (which any halfway honest person should be able to admit). That doesn’t bother me. The vice president has no Constitutional powers outside of the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. The usurpation of the last years was bizarre and unprecedented. The VP should go back to playing cards with his friends, as was the case in the 19th century.

And never mind that she was a blatant diversity hire, which Republicans were against once upon a time.

But anyway, I like Palin, I like a smalltown conservative who clearly walks the walk in her own life. But she will not be running the country. She will not be doing much of anything. She will be taking trips and cutting ribbons while John McCain invades the world and invites the world. You vote McCain-Palin, you are voting for four years of John McCain. That’s it.

This election is about the Supreme Court. I do not want to be a party to allowing Opie to pack the court with 3 more Ginsberg’s. Voting 3rd party is helping Opie just as much as pulling the lever for him.

Maybe, maybe not. The GOP has been using that “judges” hammer to keep social conservatives in line for years if not decades, and it has gotten us nothing. Roe vs. Wade still the law of the land, the culture increasingly debased. I’m not buying it any more.[/quote]

Very good post. Not much to possibly dispute. The only thing I’d say is that selection of judges does matter. Not because of historic wedge issues. Roe v. Wade (and the like) is here to stay. I don’t care who the judges are. Both parties use it as a wedge issue. Democrats to scare fiscal conservatives who don’t agree with social conservative policies. But other key issues have constiutional dimensions at leat in the mind of judges and would-be judges. Like campaign finance reform. The makeup of the Supreme Court definitely still matters and will shape this country in known and unforeseen ways.

62

Did anyone here experience foreclosure? Or does anyone know anyone who experienced foreclosure? I’m really curious what kind of pitch these people received. Were they really all just monumentally stupid and should’ve realized they couldn’t afford it? And just overcome by the desire to whole a home? Or was there a legitimately misleading sell-job?

63

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Did anyone here experience foreclosure? Or does anyone know anyone who experienced foreclosure? I’m really curious what kind of pitch these people received. Were they really all just monumentally stupid and should’ve realized they couldn’t afford it? And just overcome by the desire to whole a home? Or was there a legitimately misleading sell-job?[/quote]

When the lending institution is going to guarantee a mortgage, regardless of qualifications of the borrower, there is room for some nefarious predatory sales pitches. I am not defending these thieves at all. But they are at the bottom of the food chain, and probably the hungriest.

I would say that there were a ton of stupid people, and a ton of sharks.

Personal responsibility, or lack thereof, on the part of the borrower is still the borrowers fault.

To think that the entire financial industry needs to face more punitive regulation when this is exclusively the doing of a big brother, cradle to grave attempt by the government to make a level playing field is ridiculous.

I really thought you were brighter than this, js. Why should you shoot the dog for eating your steak when you have been feeding him raw meat for the last 20 years? It is the government’s fault for chumming the water.

This would not have happened to the extent it did had the government just stayed the hell out of the mortgage business. Now they own F&F, and they own the largest insurance company in the US. How can this possibly be twisted around to be a good thing?

64

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Did anyone here experience foreclosure? Or does anyone know anyone who experienced foreclosure? I’m really curious what kind of pitch these people received. Were they really all just monumentally stupid and should’ve realized they couldn’t afford it? And just overcome by the desire to whole a home? Or was there a legitimately misleading sell-job?

When the lending institution is going to guarantee a mortgage, regardless of qualifications of the borrower, there is room for some nefarious predatory sales pitches. I am not defending these thieves at all. But they are at the bottom of the food chain, and probably the hungriest.

I would say that there were a ton of stupid people, and a ton of sharks.

Personal responsibility, or lack thereof, on the part of the borrower is still the borrowers fault.

To think that the entire financial industry needs to face more punitive regulation when this is exclusively the doing of a big brother, cradle to grave attempt by the government to make a level playing field is ridiculous.

I really thought you were brighter than this, js. Why should you shoot the dog for eating your steak when you have been feeding him raw meat for the last 20 years? It is the government’s fault for chumming the water.

This would not have happened to the extent it did had the government just stayed the hell out of the mortgage business. Now they own F&F, and they own the largest insurance company in the US. How can this possibly be twisted around to be a good thing?

[/quote]

Your key words are TO THE EXTENT that it did. It still would have happened. There are problems in the industry. The fact that the government did things it shouldn’t have does not change this. You can just as easily say that if the banks only did what regulations demanded there wouldn’t have been any problems. The banks knew the loans were bullshit and repackaged and disguised them to be able to make even RISKIER loans. Of their own accord.

Tbe government was wrong and stupid. But it could not even have imagined the kind of lending practices and bullshit that subsequently ensued. And while some of the problems were caused by government interference such as insisting on a certain percentage of minority borrowers [whether qualfied or not] much of the crisis is a result of DEregulation of aspects of the industry. It’s not shooting the dog for eating eating steak. It’s changing the rules. Hell it’s not even changing the rules. Banks would still be making decisions. Management would just actually be responsible for collosal fuckups and monumental stupidity such as this. But I do think some regulation is called for. If not strengthed regulation, certainly consolidiation and measures to ensure some accountability. Right now, it’s a shitfest. a free-for-all. At leats four federal agencies have some jursidiction over mortgage lending. And state regulators have jursidiction over nonbank mortgage lenders, responsible for some 40% of the subprime mortgages.

Government is not the enemy. BAD government and bad laws are the enemy. Look at securities regulation. It works. If you look at countries that don’t have securites regulation, there is rampant market fraud, no faith in the market, deeply flawed valuation, and little investment.

65

I mean half the time these banks didn’t even require borrowers to verify their incomes. That ain’t government’s fault. That’s bullshit. And surely there should be some laws insisting on such basic requirements and some level of oversight to ensure they’re being complied with.

What we DON’T need is micromanagement. Regulators will never be in a position to accurately evaluate or second-guess many of the most important market transactions. But what we DO need are laws and institutions that reign in bank risk while encouraging transparency. Markets are inefficient. They DON’T function well entirely unregulated. Agency problems, excessive market power, moral hazard, informational asymmetries, and other problems abound. We need strong regulatory priorities to prevent outright fraud and to encourage market transparency.

66

.

67

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
<<< As fruity as it sounds, BRING BACK HOME ECONOMICS.[/quote]

And definitely make gun safety a part of that class. They could get Sarah Palin for assembly.

68

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
<<< As fruity as it sounds, BRING BACK HOME ECONOMICS.

And definitely make gun safety a part of that class. They could get Sarah Palin for assembly.[/quote]

lol

69

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Your key words are TO THE EXTENT that it did. It still would have happened. There are problems in the industry. The fact that the government did things it shouldn’t have does not change this. You can just as easily say that if the banks only did what regulations demanded there wouldn’t have been any problems. The banks knew the loans were bullshit and repackaged and disguised them to be able to make even RISKIER loans. Of their own accord.[/quote]

No - my key words were that the government chummed the water and now everyone wants to blame the sharks.

You seem to think that we can regulate our way to financial utopia. There will always be unscrupulous people - in all areas. There will always be risk.

But it is evident that you have no idea why these loans were packaged with other assets and sold as CDO’s. The banks had to do this to shore up their balance sheets, which they would not had to to do had the government not tried to force banks to lend money to people who were high risks in the first place.

If they are so stupid as to be unable to see the path that guaranteeing loans to high credit risks would take, why in the hell do you think they are going to have the collective intelligence to impose even more regulation?

I am not against some regulations - such as those imposed in the 30’s. But, the root cause of the financial collapse was not the institutions. It was the government intervening in the markets and forcing banks to give money to people who should never have been allowed to fill out a mortgage loan application.

I will say the the repealing of Glass-Steagall was a pretty stupid move.

The easiest fix would be to reinstate that act, and kind of break up the banking consolidations.

70

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I mean half the time these banks didn’t even require borrowers to verify their incomes. That ain’t government’s fault. That’s bullshit. And surely there should be some laws insisting on such basic requirements and some level of oversight to ensure they’re being complied with.
[/quote]

That’s what you don’t get. The government was guaranteeing ALL home loans. The government is just as culpable as the loan originators in this. Simply forcing the applicant to prove they can cash flow the loan would have stopped most of this goat screw.

71

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Your key words are TO THE EXTENT that it did. It still would have happened. There are problems in the industry. The fact that the government did things it shouldn’t have does not change this.

You can just as easily say that if the banks only did what regulations demanded there wouldn’t have been any problems. The banks knew the loans were bullshit and repackaged and disguised them to be able to make even RISKIER loans. Of their own accord.

No - my key words were that the government chummed the water and now everyone wants to blame the sharks.

You seem to think that we can regulate our way to financial utopia. There will always be unscrupulous people - in all areas. There will always be risk.

But it is evident that you have no idea why these loans were packaged with other assets and sold as CDO’s. The banks had to do this to shore up their balance sheets, which they would not had to to do had the government not tried to force banks to lend money to people who were high risks in the first place.

Tbe government was wrong and stupid. But it could not even have imagined the kind of lending practices and bullshit that subsequently ensued.

If they are so stupid as to be unable to see the path that guaranteeing loans to high credit risks would take, why in the hell do you think they are going to have the collective intelligence to impose even more regulation?

Government is not the enemy. BAD government and bad laws are the enemy. Look at securities regulation. It works. If you look at countries that don’t have securites regulation, there is rampant market fraud, no faith in the market, deeply flawed valuation, and little investment.

I am not against some regulations - such as those imposed in the 30’s. But, the root cause of the financial collapse was not the institutions. It was the government intervening in the markets and forcing banks to give money to people who should never have been allowed to fill out a mortgage loan application.

I will say the the repealing of Glass-Steagall was a pretty stupid move.

The easiest fix would be to reinstate that act, and kind of break up the banking consolidations.

[/quote]

I don’t think we’re really on such different pages. We probably are not talking about such different regulations. Although our financial system not the same as it was in the 30s and the same things will not necessarily work.

I’m not talking about micromanagement and regulation for regulations sake. But oversight by one body instead of more than 4 is called for. And simple, clearcut, broadscale regulations that minimize risk (instead of encouraging it) and foster transparency would be appropriate.