question about government involvements in our lives

[sirs]

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)

[kimba1]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

They were selling them because the Government insisted they be sold. They were at the forfront in pushing them

[kimba1]

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 "

[sirs]

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

[kimba1]

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.

[sirs]

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

[kimba1]

and I say they exceeded it and the evidence is the numbers are way past the government requirements and suggestions.

[sirs]

With the difference being they wouldn't have exceeded anything, if it not for the Government to give them that green light

[kimba1]

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.

[sirs]

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.

[kimba1]

sigh

[Plane]

  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 .

[kimba1]

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?