DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on October 08, 2014, 10:35:56 AM
-
do you guys have problems with the EPA,OSHA, FDA. etc.
I don`t have too much of an issue since I remember the 80`s and seriously food is way safer today than then. the expression" buyer beware" is never mentioned nowadays and nobody is heart broken that`s hurts businesses that live on that.
-
Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes
Oversight is one thing. Obsessive regulation, after regulation, after mandate, after mandate is quite another. Especially when the agencies are being abused to push ideological agendas, with the EPA baing a great example
-
don`t hold back
-
Never ;)
-
do you guys have problems with the EPA,OSHA, FDA. etc.
I don`t have too much of an issue since I remember the 80`s and seriously food is way safer today than then. the expression" buyer beware" is never mentioned nowadays and nobody is heart broken that`s hurts businesses that live on that.
Yes , they live like a hard coral, always growing .
Where they are needed and useful they are already sufficient, they always grow into the superfluous and harmful.
-
Precisely
-
I have never had any problems with the federal government. Asshole local traffic cops have annoyed me twice in 50 years, and Homeland Security has a few pricks in it,
-
I have never had any problems with the federal government. Asshole local traffic cops have annoyed me twice in 50 years, and Homeland Security has a few pricks in it,
If everyone had your behavior and luck , there would be no need for government to exist.
-
That is simply untrue. You are not thinking.
The FDA keeps medicines and foods at least safer. Traffic lights and signs are also useful to keep others from running into me.
I attended four public universities. I think the FAA makes flying much safer. I do not need to be annoyed by government for it to be useful to me.
-
as i stated we've benefited on the safety oversight but I do see places where it really needs to tighten up. Ex. Peanut butter contamination that actually caused deaths. I see a pattern low funding cause less inspectors etc. . Overall most businesses watch themselves. With the example i just provided ,it kind if prove that method has flaws
-
Huh?
I was gonna link a specific peanut butter recall. But turns out thier are multiple recalls on peanut butter. Last one was in april. It looks to me all these companies should get regular visits from the inspector. I read somewhere the very nature of how peanut is made should make it fairly safe and is the reason why those business gets very little oversight. Looks like they need to rethink that.
-
That is simply untrue. You are not thinking.
The FDA keeps medicines and foods at least safer. Traffic lights and signs are also useful to keep others from running into me.
I attended four public universities. I think the FAA makes flying much safer. I do not need to be annoyed by government for it to be useful to me.
Here is the problem , I can't say that there is too much government presence and involvement , too much regulation and restriction , without having to qualify that I don't want there to be none.
Suppose Water is good , does this mean that there cannot be too much of it?
There has never been a bigger government than ours , we have never had more rules , and never so many of us locked up .
There has to be enough regulation , but no one is calling a halt when that is surpassed and even when the rule book gets hard to carry , they never eliminate the obsolete rules.
If we doubled the size of the government our lives would not become twice as good with twice as many rules and twice as much surveillance for twice the price.
I think if the government were reduced to about half what it is we would be happier with half the rules , half the tax and half the watchers , much closer to the right size.
Perhaps an across the board cut would be non optimal, but any other sort of cuts gets bogged down in discussion of disagreement on what is fair, thus never happens.
-
The key is to have a government that is efficient and trusted. Size is not so important as efficiency. Reagan slashed the number of IRS employees,and auditing declined, along with tax collections. It took very little time to figure out how to successfully lie yourself into a lower tax bracket and not get caught at it. If you were paid a salary and deductions were made from your check, you were largely sh*t out of luck. If you had your own business and got paid in cash, you were in the clover.
-
You're contradicting yourself xo. All of us would prefer a more efficient Government. However the bigger Government gets the more inefficient it becomes. That's just a reality. No one is a better steward of one's money than themselves. The bigger, more bureaucratic Government gets, the more garbage like cronyism, loopholes, and stuff like I'm dealing with at the hospital coming out of a 2000piece crap legislation, where patients have to go home so much sooner after a major surgery. Efficiency is the 1st casualty to an every growing government body. Too many hands in the cookie tax jar, and not enough to keep politicians out of the jar
-
It is not a contradiction.
The government needs to be powerful where power is needed, as in fighting price fixing, bribery, pollution, selling dangerous drugs as cures.
It does not need to be powerful in more minor issues, like telling breweries what sizes their beer bottles can be sold in.
-
It can't be both big/powerful AND efficient. That's the contradiction. In fact the bigger and more bureaucratic, the easier to hide malicious intent in crony capitalism
-
Oh, that is bullshit.
You have no clue about how to run a country.
You can barely run your mouth worth a damn.
-
Obviously my point hit.....thus the kneejerk insult and deflection. Thanks for the validation
-
Go deflect yourself, Krusty
-
...and don't forget that the Koch brothers are hiding under your bed, just waiting to pick pocket your PJ's as soon as you turn down your night light ;)
-
my PJs have no pockets
-
That'll make it more challenging
-
The Kochs are not pickpockets. You are diverting the subject here.
I have never alleged that the Koch Brothers are pickpockets or cat burglars.
-
Mr Literal strikes again . Didn't seem to stop you making ridiculous claims about what Soros would personally do to me, when I happened to throw his name out. You project perhaps more than anyone I know. Seriously
-
The key is to have a government that is efficient and trusted. Size is not so important as efficiency. Reagan slashed the number of IRS employees,and auditingdeclined, along with tax collections. It took very little time to figure out how to successfully lie yourself into a lower tax bracket and not get caught at it. If you were paid a salary and deductions were made from your check, you were largely sh*t out of luck. If you had your own business and got paid in cash, you were in the clover.
Error of fact!
-
The key is to have a government that is efficient and trusted. Size is not so important as efficiency. Reagan slashed the number of IRS employees,and auditing declined, along with tax collections. It took very little time to figure out how to successfully lie yourself into a lower tax bracket and not get caught at it. If you were paid a salary and deductions were made from your check, you were largely sh*t out of luck. If you had your own business and got paid in cash, you were in the clover.
The absolute size is important , it is a matter of inertia.
The Titanic had lookouts who saw the ice before they hit it , but the Titanic was not only the largest and fastest ship that had ever been constructed , it was also the least nimble ship that had ever been constructed.
The absolute number of rules , laws and regulations is another important point , there are already enough that even specialists cannot know the entire rulebook of their specialty, sub specialties require sub specialist ,experts and coordination between them.
I cannot memorize the rules that apply directly to me , I rely on help to remain in compliance . My supervisor , my union steward , our quality and safety inspectors work to keep me in the right PPE that OSHA requires , using the chemicals as the EPA requires , using procedures as the FAA requires , etc etc...
A lot of this is needed , but there is no measurement of how much more than we need that we get.
Aircraft flew just fine twenty years ago with half as many rules , in twenty more years ,when the rules have doubled again, perhaps they won't fly.
-
No one is a better steward of one's money than themselves.
I kinda disagree with this. ex.subprime loans, student loans. also note these examples has some effect to our economy. yes it`s insulting to think legal adults in American cannot handle certain things in life. but to a degree I blame our notion anybody tricked should be looked at with ridicule instead of sympathy to the point of preventing others from making the same mistake. It almost looks like were encouraging scammers. this notion by only saying "they should know better "doesn`t seem to be working .
-
When I referred to better stewards of one's money, I was speaking in general. A person has a distinct & intimate incentive to carefully watch over their finances, what comes in, what goes out, what one can purchase, vs needs to budget for, since the repercussions of not doing are serious, if not criminal. Government has no such incentive
-
if thiers a incentive to lookover ones own finances they`re not very good at it. government do have incentive but by it`s nature it`s very slow responding and normally after a lot of damage has occur and takes years to resolve parts of it
-
if thiers a incentive to lookover ones own finances they`re not very good at it.
That's a different story....if someone isn't careful enough to manage their own finances, tax payers shouldn't be on the hook to bail them out. But in general, people are far more likely to supervise and manage their own money far better than a 3rd party, because of the vested interest they have in it
And I strongly disagree, in that Government has little incentive to do better at watching OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY'. Yea, they're slow, but they also have no reason or incentive to not only do faster, but to do better. There's no direct repercussions for their screwing up, unlike the individual person above.
-
if someone isn't careful enough to manage their own finances, tax payers shouldn't be on the hook to bail them out.
see .that`s the rub.
we did that with those loans I mentioned earlier and the loss was so great we experience the collateral effects of it. I`m not saying tax payers should bailout anything but I`m pushing prevention not cleaning other peoples messes far from it.
-
The rub is tax payers being punished for someone else's ineptness and/or nefariousness. Never is the Government punished
-
The only taxes that are punishment are fines levied for breaking the law, like parking tickets.
-
completely missed the point Kimba & I have been talking about ::)
-
What prevents government from conducting flim flam?
-
Precisely......whistleblowers are all there is. Problem is, when its Democrats in power, the whistleblower is merely a "disgruntled employee" or is motivated by *insert PC related term here* animosity. And don't even think about requesting an independent investigator
But more to the point, and how it helps reinforce the point I was making with Kimba, is that there are no repercussions the Government has to deal with. And the larger, more complex the bureaucracy & Government, the easier it is to get away with it
-
When the government is a certain amount complex it can frustrate itself , and with the best intentions cannot do what it is intending to do.
Fannie Mae was supposed to help the people afford mortgage and make homeownership more common in the population.
It worked to a certain extent , but it also helped set up the crash by accepting a lot of bad debt that banks all over the nation were setting up and selling without proper vetting of borrowers.
Once it became true that almost anyone could get a large loan without having to demonstrate earning power, the crash was inevitable .
Why was this not seen?
Political popularity of zero down loans?
-
Once it became true that almost anyone could get a large loan without having to demonstrate earning power, the crash was inevitable .
Why was this not seen?
it was once blamed on minorities because the encouragement to open the process to make it easier to access.but the sheer volume of loans makes the highly suspect due to the fact the lender is totally and legally allowed to limit the loans given out to minimize loss. it`s simply bad judgement by those those involved in believing greater returns can be made loaning to people with bad credit.
-
That is close, but it isn't necessary to consider minority status in the question.
The bad judgment to make loans to anyone who has less than the margins to repay should be a bad judgment with consequences to the lender .
But if the government is handy with a program to buy all the debts before they have even been a year old there is no consequence to the lender at all and the biggest profit is going to the least discerning lender .
This program might have been intended to assist the public in home buying , and provide affordable homes to the greatest number possible.
But by pushing the margins past sustainability , it produced a collapse which caused an era of foreclosures.
The government cannot make 2+2=5 even with the most complex and thoughtful lawmaking. Good intentions are not enough for good government, good math helps too.
-
no argument there.
-
That is close, but it isn't necessary to consider minority status in the question.
The bad judgment to make loans to anyone who has less than the margins to repay should be a bad judgment with consequences to the lender .
But if the government is handy with a program to buy all the debts before they have even been a year old there is no consequence to the lender at all and the biggest profit is going to the least discerning lender .
This program might have been intended to assist the public in home buying , and provide affordable homes to the greatest number possible.
But by pushing the margins past sustainability , it produced a collapse which caused an era of foreclosures.
The government cannot make 2+2=5 even with the most complex and thoughtful lawmaking. Good intentions are not enough for good government, good math helps too.
BINGO
(and for clarification, for certain others, that's sirs again acknowledging how someone else is right)
And let me also address Kimba, in that I don't think anyone was "blaming minorities" for the housing collapse. I sure wasn't. It was Government policies started under Clinton, exacerbated by Bush. When the red flags were all over the place, DC Democrats circled the wagons around Freddie & Fannie, and the rest...as they say....is history
-
The reason for the bad loans was that banks making the loans could peddle them elsewhere and take none of the risk. This was allowed because of what REPUBLICAN Phil Gramm did to permit the sale of loans earlier.
-
The reason Banks were making bad loans was specific to Governments insistence that banks start making these loans to folks who would otherwise not be approved....that the Government "had their back", and if they didn't, then the Government, under the FDIC would have to look "very hard" as to any "bad practices" that these institutions were perhaps performing *wink wink...best start approving these loans*. I realize the knee jerk attempt to make this all some GOP act, while the Dems were completely innocent, however Graham had squat to do with this.
It was put in place under Clinton, and then exacerbated by Bush (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html), so yes, Bush was also very much to blame. Republicans in both the House and Senate could see the writing on the wall, and were trying to do something, but were stonewalled in both houses by DC Dems, that portrayed those effort as some supposed witch hunt after the folks running Fannie & Freddie.
And then it came crumbling down, when it could have been prevented. A Bipartisan caused crash.
Which is why Dems are so desperate to have Republicans sign on to Obamination Care, that way all this destruction of our healthcare can be portrayed as a bipartisan caused debacle, and not what it really is, pure partisan democrat caused
-
The reason for the bad loans was that banks making the loans could peddle them elsewhere and take none of the risk. This was allowed because of what REPUBLICAN Phil Gramm did to permit the sale of loans earlier.
I didn't know about Phil Gramm being involved this way, but this still counts as government management being a problem, and causing a problem.
-
i was trying to point out those loans was only partially caused by the government and that the main motivator was greed. the lenders wanted a lot of those loans to default to get those properties which at that times was growing in value . but then eventually the collapse actually happened. note the sheer volume of those loans far exceed any requirements the governments has suggested. but now is round two with the relaxing of the loan requirements . are the banks foolish enough the repeat this again ? I don`t recall anything saying sub-prime loans are back.
-
I hate to disagree Kimba, but the main motivator was the Government "insisting" that these loans need to be approved, and that its ok, but because "Fannie & Freddie have got your back". Sure, lending institutions want to make money, that's why they generally don't approve of loans to folks that they truly believe wouldn't be able to make the payments. In steps the government saying, it's cool, go right ahead. And if you decide not to....well, we here at the FDIC may need to take a 2nd, more scrutinous look at your lending practices. (a not so subtle threat)
-
I`m not saying the government didn`t insist on those loans but that the government did not insist on that many. the lender has the power to say no once the minimum is hit which it normally does but as I point out other factors are encouraging more loans being given out.
-
The loans were made because the idiots selling loans and derivatives were given huge bonuses for selling them.
The government was far less involved in pushing loans.
-
They were selling them because the Government insisted they be sold. They were at the forfront in pushing them
-
I`m not denying it`s lt`s pushed. I`m saying more than the government asked is being approve which is where the lost gets carried away. as I said before" sheer volume "
-
When the Federal Government, who regulates your very existance, not only passes legislation, but then tells you how you need to "help" more minorties get home loans, or......suffer the repercussions of the FDIC rethinking your ability to even practice, you're generally going to do their bidding. Sure, they were bought off with the notion that the Fed would back them up. It's the same with insurance companies having been bought off to get their support of Obamination Care. The source of both though is not greed of Institutions, but the power of the Government to dictate what said institution "needs" to do
-
uhm
this does not counter what I said , I haven`t countered you. I`m stating the lender took advantage and did way more damage. this is more an issue of the government not knowing how to give instruction to businesses and businesses forgetting how to behaving responsibly.
basicly we`re in an age nobody can be treated as an adult anymore. authority lost it`s meaning now.
-
And I disagree....they did what they were told to do. There would have been no "damage", as in housing bubble collapse, if it not for the tactics of the Federal Government
-
and I say they exceeded it and the evidence is the numbers are way past the government requirements and suggestions.
-
With the difference being they wouldn't have exceeded anything, if it not for the Government to give them that green light
-
With the difference being they wouldn't have exceeded anything, if it not for the Government to give them that green light
the difference is businesses are not children that should have their held to make sure they don`t misbehave. this is a most likely ignored precedent that businesses cannot be trusted to handle large amount of credit/money. the banks are perfectly capable of going the minimum of the governments instructions and had been for many decades until someone came up with a plan to takes advantage of default loans.
-
I realize the point you're trying to make, Kimba. It is valid, but greed is not the end-all be all to evil, especially as it relates to what caused the housing bubble collapse. Greed contributed, but policy, pushed by the Government is what directly led to the bubble & its collapse.
One last time, if it not for the tactics and legislation pushed by the Fed, the lending institutions, would have continued to deny loans, of all kinds, including sub-prime, to those folks & families that were deemed financially unfavorable to repay on the loans. They still would have made their profits, they'd still have been making money, in whatever greedy fasion you may define as greedy, but there would have been no bubble nor burst.
-
sigh
-
Kimba-
I understand Sirs perspective better than I get yours.
Don't give up , I might never see what is the main thing to you , but you can be satisfied that you gave it a good try .
-
I`m trying to prove thiers no central villain here and I did not disagree with sirs but add to it that the banks acted irresponsibly also. but the focus kept going just the feds and true sirs did acknowledge the banks actions but just seems to not want to give them the share of the responsibility. I stated the fact the banks far exceeded the feds minimum requirements to give loans which should be way more than enough proof the lender are also highly responsible since the lender is completely not fluenced by the government to give loans at all. but this gets brushed aside by saying feds made them. but sirs do you acknowledge that uncontrolled greed can be harmful?
-
Aaah...
But what is the governments proper role?
Regulation that is effective at preventing cheating is good for almost everyone(not cheaters themselves).
Regulation intended to regulate the nature of credit cannot possibly be thought out well enough.
This situation we are discussing is merely a large case in point for the larger concept.
So we are discussing a detail, of a larger concept.
When the government made it possible to sell loans to the government , or to bundle loans and sell the mass of loans as a single object, it decoupled the responsibility and consequence of the original loan from the outcome of a bad loan.
Then the banks that made the best money and grew the most were the ones that made and sold the most loans , bales of money rolled into the irresponsible and they left the responsible behind in the dust.
What made the big banks irresponsible is a chicken and egg question, reverse it to ask what made the irresponsible banks grow big?
Evolution works on corporations in a similar manner to its action on creatures , the selection is in favor of the fittest.
But there are short legged cattle ,because a farmer once bred speed out of his heard, due to the farmers desire the fittest on the farm was opposite to the fittest in the wild.
Our banks cope with what the bank owners want by promising them profits, the same banks cope with our government by promising them obedience, successful banks reach the balance in this environment.
When some banks are making huge profits , on an activity that the government sanctions , how does a bank manager explain to his stockholders that he does not want to participate? If he is not fired , he is abandoned and his bank will shrink from the smaller profit and lack of investors.
If there were banks but no governments , they would never lend to anyone that they suspected could not pay back.
But with the government offering to buy loans before anyone has proven that the debtors were good for it , the proper attitude for a banker becomes "why not?".
If there were government but no banks , we would build fewer and smaller houses.
There have been times when there were not enough banks and "tight money" made selling a crop and buying farm equipment and seed very difficult. This has been a national Issue since the time of Alexander Hamilton.
There is a proper role for government and banks , but we pretty often loose track of what is proper and central and try to use the aircraft as a tractor and a tractor to fly.
If the government is used to prevent cheating in banks and banks are used to facilitate projects large and small, we can return to the basics and use simple rules.
-
but sirs do you acknowledge that uncontrolled greed can be harmful?
To be honest...anything that is "uncontrolled" can be harmful. Uncontrolled love could lead to something like fatal attraction. I'm not giving the banks and lending institutions a free pass, Kimba. There is some culpability, but as I said, minus the actions of the Fed, they wouldn't have been pushing the lending envelope. They were making profits just fine, before Fannie & Freddie
-
fair enough.
plane I need time to read your stuff over again. maybe answer back on it.
-
fair enough.
plane I need time to read your stuff over again. maybe answer back on it.
Thank you , that is very complementary!
Don't feel pressured to agree, you know I like agreement and I like disagreement too.
-
ditto
-
The problem with Fannie and Freddie was that Fannie and Freddie were allowed to buy bad mortgages, mortgages in which the debtors had no way of paying them off. And it was not just Fannie and Freddie, there were a number of non-government affiliated companies that also bought bad mortgages. Lehman was one, and it was forced out of business.
This was because banks were permitted to take huge risks, because proper regulations were removed.
-
Polar opposite, I'm afraid. They were pushed, by legislation enacted under Clinton, pushed harder under Bush and the FDIC to do exactly that....with the agenda of having more people be home owners. It was the legislation and the executive branch of the government that "allowed" Fannie & Freddie such an out of control agenda. There would have been only a fraction of bad mortgages, if not for the above actions of the Fed
-
The standard right wing line. Simply not true.
-
Standard leftist line, ignore the facts
-
The problem with Fannie and Freddie was that Fannie and Freddie were allowed to buy bad mortgages, mortgages in which the debtors had no way of paying them off. And it was not just Fannie and Freddie, there were a number of non-government affiliated companies that also bought bad mortgages. Lehman was one, and it was forced out of business.
This was because banks were permitted to take huge risks, because proper regulations were removed.
I agree mostly.
But what do you mean by the word "permitted"?
I would have said "required".
It might have been laudable to punish the practice of "red lining", but the practice of vetting loan applicants was pretty much crippled in the process.
-
hmm
but what exactly is the power of the government over the banks it`s one thing to relax restrictions on loans. but does the government have the unlimited power to set qoutas on loans? I stated the volume of loans makes it not the government but the banks willingness to give the loans. we already establish motive for such actions.
-
That is the key concept.
Under all circumstances the bank that loans the money wants it back on schedule with interest.
If a government program insures that the loan can be sold at a profit immediately , the most profitable thing to do is to make as many loans as possible and the risk is reduced to nothing by selling the loans quickly.
Is this a good government program?
It seems to be encouraging brainless banking.
This behavior is unnatural to banks , it wouldn't have possible to cheat this way without the government involvement.
-
That is a crock.
The banks were overjoyed to make loans, collect the closing costs, and sell the mortgages to suckers.
They could do this because of a goddamn Republican Phil Gramm of Texas, made it all possible by removing the regulation prohibiting it.
-
If a government program insures that the loan can be sold at a profit immediately , the most profitable thing to do is to make as many loans as possible and the risk is reduced to nothing by selling the loans quickly.
Is this a good government program?
It seems to be encouraging brainless banking.
This behavior is unnatural to banks , it wouldn't have possible to cheat this way without the government involvement.
BINGO!!
-
The loans were gladly approved because the guys soliciting them made huge commissions. The comissions did NOT COME from the government,
-
It wouldn't have possible to cheat this way without the government involvement & push to approve loans to folks who would have otherwise been denied. That comes DIRECTLY from the Government
-
No, it did not. You are full of crap.
-
Sure wouldn't be the 1st time you were so wrong. :o
-
I am not wrong have read books on this. You are wrong.
Dead, rotten stinking wrong.
-
Now we are examining something different.
The differing attitudes twards Government help/intrusion.
-
Exactly
-
The reason so many bad mortgages were sold was that regulations permitting bundles of mortgages to be sold immediately by the issuing banks to whomever were lifted. This was the work of Sen. Phil Gramm, of Texas, one of the ugliest SOB's ever to serve in the Senate.
Juniorbush crowed about how he wanted to create an "Ownership society". The results were the crash of 2007.
Even if he had been handsome, this was a terrible idea. Huge commissions were paid to those issuing these mortgages, and the money was paid by the banks, not the government.
-
ok
lets try this another way. if the government did nothing to encourage this and the banks want give those loans anyway . what exactly stops the banks? I don`t recall banks having many restriction who they lend money too.
-
That the loans won't be bought, because they're deemed too high a risk.
-
bought? don`t you mean loaned
it`s already established the lenders target risky clients for the goal of getting property since at that time values are consistently going up and showing no sign of stopping.
-
Both. Banks would refrain from making such loans, if they also know that those institutions buying from them are declining doing so, knowing the inheirent risk of them not getting paid, at the end of the length of the mortgage
In steps the Fed saying...."we've got your back...go for it". And if you don't.....well, we have the power to re-review & scrutinize your licensing and loan practices
-
The Fed did nothing of the sort.
Keep in mind that all this happened during the Juniorbush administration.
Long before Obama was elected.
-
The Fed did everything of the sort. Started under Clinton, then pushed by Bush. By the time Obama took office, the fuse had already been lit
-
Read a book, you drooling moron. You know nothing.
Gramm had the regulations removed during Clinton's administration. This was when Congress was controlled by the GOP.
-
Can't keep track of how many books, and more so current reports that have been done, and I've read, on the subject. I suggest you drop the hyperpartisan blinders, get a grasp of current reality, along with who authorized what, and signed by who
-
Let me also add, that although the claim is erroneous, that this supposedly all "happened during the Juniorbush administration", that wouldn't change anything.
I never claimed it was Democrats alone, thus your knee jerk attempt to make this all a GOP debacle. I made it painfully clear that this was the Fed, as in BOTH parties.
Started under Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods
That was pushed to even higher risk level under Bush's American Dream Downpayment Act.
Then when flags were being raised by Republicans, political wagons were circled around both Fannie & Freddie by the Dems in congress ....and the rest is factual history
-
....and yes, Banks then took advantage of the loosening of regulations, to approve more and more loans, that they would have otherwise not approved.
When the Fed tells you to do something, giving you both a financial incentive to do as much as you can, in the way of apporving such high risk loans, with the added looking over your licensing shoulder, via the FDIC, in the event you don't perform as "encouraged", they yes, banks are going to push that newly provided envelope.
I mean, what could go wrong, when you have the Fed watching your back, via the tax payer?
-
bought? don`t you mean loaned
it`s already established the lenders target risky clients for the goal of getting property since at that time values are consistently going up and showing no sign of stopping.
Not so much.
Banks don't like to hold real estate, they like to receive payments .
A good loan paid on time is very profitable to a bank, but selling this loan to a bigger bank repays quickly and removes all the risk.
Foreclosures generally cause the banks to loose money , the younger the loan the worse the loss, a foreclosure on an older loan can be a profit to the bank because on an old loan they have gotten their principal out of it mostly and can sell the property... unless they cannot.
-
I observe that when you ask some teabagger about how the oppressive government is exhibiting totalitarian control over their lives, they invariably claim that they no longer have the ability to opt for inefficient light bulbs and toilets.
Of course, it is not difficult to buy an old style toilet used in any color one desires. Then they claim that their plumber is forbidden to install said toilet. If one is not capable of installing a toilet, one is just to effing incompetent to live. Buck up 'baggerboys! you are supposed to be self-reliant, like the pioneers and the guys who designed the flags with the snake on it.
As for the lightbulbs, there are now vastly efficient LEDs as well as fluorescents available, and you can easily save a bundle on electricity and replacement costs.
-
............ they no longer have the ability to opt for inefficient light bulbs and toilets.
...............fluorescents available, and you can easily save a bundle on electricity and replacement costs.
These are good examples of Government enforced foolishness.
If the wise were buying better bulbs and toilets , their evident advantage would soon persuade many to follow and also benefit.
Our government has almost no respect for the common man to have common sense, they tell him where he may and may not plough , what he may and may not sell as a crop what he must wear to work , what he may and may not say when he gets there and what risk he may or may not take.
There are few things left that our shepherding government does not control or influence, and there is work on controlling the few things left.
The TEA party has a pretty narrow focus , and they seem to do best when they stick pretty close to it, taxes are oppressive , taxes are a limiter on freedom and achievement. What the people can do without the government the people should do without the government and the government should not be larger than needed for handling the tasks that the people actually need the government for, is our government a good buy at the price we pay for it?
-
Efficient toilets and lightbulbs are very poorly enforced. You can easily buy any toilets or lightbulbs you want with total impunity.
But that is the usual example of the "oppression" that teabaggers complain about.
Monsanto controls farmers a lot more than the government.
-
Thank God for poor enforcement of stupid laws.
Should we be depending on poor enforcement ?
Or would it be better for there to be less stupid law?
I wish there were some limit on the total number of laws , and a limit on the length and complexity of each law.
Then it would become necessary for Congress to make room for new laws by trimming the old ones, a chore that congress is very neglectful of .
-
So far as I know, no one is trying to prosecute anyone for inefficient toilets or light bulbs. And as I said, this is the issue that teabaggers ALWAYS rant about, in addition to Obama trying to take away their guns, which is also a bogus claim.
-
Here's a funny thing....I'm a supposed "teabagger", and I've never ranted about that as some major issue. I know many others, and never have they made that as a major issue. I've seen many a "teabagger" commercial and rally, and not once have I seen them make this a major issue
How is it you're the only one that sees it as such?? Care to provide a link to some recorded speaking event, where teabaggers were making lightbulbs & toilets a major issue to be speaking on?? You know....something to back up your opinion??
-
So far as I know, no one is trying to prosecute anyone for inefficient toilets or light bulbs. And as I said, this is the issue that teabaggers ALWAYS rant about, in addition to Obama trying to take away their guns, which is also a bogus claim.
No, taxes and sheer government ubiquity are the big TEA issues.
That the government wants to make quite minor decisions for you is what brings up light bulbs, but there are thousands of such government interventions in a typical American life. My personal peeve is that I could be fired for not wearing earplugs in the hangar, even if the condition at the time is silence.
Also the Obama administration attitude twards guns was recently elucidated by Eric Holder , who expressed deep regret that he has not managed to reduce access to guns .