Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumGeithner Admitted Administration Sacrificed Homeowners to ''Foam the Runway'' for Banks
&t=0Neil Barofsky: 'Geithner Admitted To Us Privately That Obama's Housing Policy Was DESIGNED To Sacrifice Homeowners In Order To "FOAM THE RUNWAY" For The Banks'
SOURCE: http://dailybail.com/home/barofsky-geithner-admitted-to-us-privately-that-obamas-housi.html
10 Million Americans lost their homes.
http://www.alternet.org/investigations/10-million-americans-foreclosed-neighborhoods-devastated
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Linette Lopez
Business Insider, Aug. 1, 2012, 2:57 PM
Neil Barofsky was the Inspector General for TARP, and just wrote a book about his time in D.C. called Bailout: An Insider Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.
SNIP...
Bottom line: Barofsky said the incentive structure in our nation's capitol is all wrong. There's a revolving door between bureaucrats in Washington and Wall Street banks, and politicians just want to keep their jobs.
For regulators it's something like this:
"You can play ball and good things can happen to you get a big pot of gold at the end of the Wall Street rainbow or you can do your job be aggressive and face personal ruin...We really need to rethink how we govern and how regulate," Barofsky said.
CONTINUED... http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-barofsky-2012-8
A pot o' gold awaits those who go along to help the few get along.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)In California, we have term limits. It makes this problem worse. Instead of serving the people's interests in order to insure their re-election, our politicians are focused on trying to find a job once they are termed out.
The first couple of years in office, they are struggling to learn the ropes and are, for that reason, relatively ineffective. Then they have a few good, productive years, and in the last few final years they focus on trying to figure out how they will make a living and educate their kids when their term is over. So that is even worse than D.C.
Jerry Brown is an exception because he is already at retirement age and does not seem to be worried that much about where he goes from the governor's office.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This is what I'm talking about! Listen to this, as a reward.
eppur_se_muova
(36,299 posts)He saw his job as protecting the banks, while doing nothing for homeowners--never mind that Congress' whole justification for HAMP was to help homeowners.
CrispyQ
(36,527 posts)I'm getting it tomorrow. 
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)saying what someone told him privately is the definition of hearsay.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)that when he interviewed him for his book.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"Dont blame Obama." Why dont you lead with that?
Millions lost their homes and the banks were bailed out. And all that you worry about is hearsay.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)announced by banks who are the primary dealers for $85 billion a month from issuances of the Treasury...
And that ain't hearsay. More like heresy...or tragedy.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Someone you would know would be in close contact with Geithner and the Obama Administration.
http://www.nydailynews.com/2.1353/bush-picks-new-york-prosecutor-neil-barofsky-oversee-700b-bailout-article-1.334641
bonniebgood
(943 posts)a third party. Im with the Jessie Ventura Ballot.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)It's like people don't have the first clue how money works, that banks produce the money multiplier effect that IS the money supply.
Without money what is your economy?
Without an economy what is the US?
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)wow. Just wow.
And the STRETCHING in that post. Really.
Without the truth, where are facts?
If your mother is drunk, she isn't sober...
Holy. fuck.
dkf
(37,305 posts)That creates this economy.
Banks take in deposits and loan most of those funds holding part in reserve. Thus what was 1 dollar deposited becomes more than a dollar when it is lent. You do that time and time again and you have that multiplier effect. Who does the lending? Banks do.
What is a country without a decent banking system? Nothing like the US for sure.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)after that, suggesting that "oh, what's a few million homeowners compared to the entire banking system" is a bullshit comparison, and a pretty stupid one too. To insinuate that this is OK, because "they're the multipliers" is straight FACIST and I'm not kidding.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Seriously?
Boy that would be extremely short sighted.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)I would help out the Savings and loans and would have started a government run banks.
Let those who made irresponsible decisions about banking and investing risks suffer the consequences of capitalism too.
dkf
(37,305 posts)They said we took trillions in GDP out of the economy thanks to just what turned out to be a scare because the government stepped in.
If they had actually let all those institutions fail? What we experienced was nothing.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Did you live through the crash?
This system of bailing out the banks that made the bad decisions and created the mess is done to keep the currently rich, continually rich, while the middle class and poor pay for the messes created by the uber rich.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I hated to see the banks bailed out as much as the next guy, but a lot of people losing their houses doesn't rise to the level of suffering during the Great Depression.
The system and the bailout sucked, hopefully the next time there's a meltdown the government will have a more balanced approach to saving the economy, but there has been nowhere near the level of suffering as there was when the banks were allowed to fail.
TARP was Dubya's program, I don't believe the bailout would have looked the same with a democratic controlled government, but the democrats biggest failing is their inability to blame the meltdown on the republicans. After the Great Depression the only time the republicans controlled the house, senate and White House was 2 years in the 1950's (until Reagan) - that's how good the democrats were at blaming the Great Depression on the republicans. Practically continuous control of the federal government for almost 50 years.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)If bankers can't keep the economy from crashing, then turn the banks over to the people.
You won't have rich fucks getting richer, but you'll have economic stability. Unless you believe the people cannot regulate themselves.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)*IF* they would have collapsed (and if we're honest, it would NEVER have been ALL of them, and you damn well know it) it would have been because of THEIR fraudulent practices, not the homeowners. Blame the victim much?
Talk about short sighted...
dkf
(37,305 posts)Once financial institutions freeze up all the daisy chains of agreements stop. Then everyone runs into liquidity problems and the system shuts down.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)because that is FASCISM.
YOU were the one who posted that the millions of homeowners should be sacrificed OR ELSE the entire banking system would collapse.
Really.
And it's still Fascism.
dkf
(37,305 posts)That's not what would have saved the banks or deep sixed them.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)And since it would not have deep sixed the banks or saved them, then your correlation of homeowners as 'colateral damage' is just as absurd.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)They are hoarding it.
Or as my friend who works as a bank auditor put it, "we are flush with money and we don't see any reason to loan it out."
dkf
(37,305 posts)When we complain how the fed loans at 0% these are the funds we speak of.
Someone is using these funds to generate economic activity.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Don't you hear the complaints about how banks can borrow at 0%. Obviously if there are complaints someone is using the funds.
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)that creates an economy.
You can't have money if labor isn't there to create the wealth for some private bankster to hoard.
Private, for profit and greed, banks are not the only type of banking systems available.
What failed were private, for profit and greed, banks. Not Savings and Loans, not government controlled banks. You don't need private banks to have an economy.
What's a country without a labor force? Try getting anything done if workers all decided to stop working. A banking system is possible without private banks so is an economy.
You are so blinded by capitalism, you can't even see what really runs an economy.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Labor by itself doesn't create excess supply either.
We have tons of labor available, look at u-6. If labor in itself produced excess goods why don't we have a booming economy? Capital = a job. Labor on its own = unemployed.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)to be loaned out.
Yes, labor by itself creates excess supply.
When a person works, they always produce More from their work than what they need for themselves. In small primitive societies, that excess was distributed to the children, the elderly, the sick. In today's society the excess wealth is distributed to the uber rich while children, the elderly and sick are forced to pay through the nose.
There are a million ways to organize a society's excess supply and wealth and making it so the uber rich get even more rich, despite them creating crash after crash, is NOT the best approach though it is the most historical.
matthews
(497 posts)economy. They have no money, we have no economy.
dkf
(37,305 posts)matthews
(497 posts)And how would that work for the country?
dkf
(37,305 posts)matthews
(497 posts)BEGAN to improve when the country allowed its PEOPLE to acquire money and savings.
The people.
Not its banks.
dkf
(37,305 posts)matthews
(497 posts)
tularetom
(23,664 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)
Vanje
(9,766 posts)It was the banks that wrecked this economy , through high risk gambling schemes, and outright fraud.
I beg you. I implore you to watch the documentary, " Inside Job".
You can see it for free here:
http://vimeo.com/62026076
fasttense
(17,301 posts)You don't need banks to have an economy.
dkf
(37,305 posts)They had lenders back in Jesus time for goodness sakes.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)eg.
Luke 6:34-35 ESV
And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Deuteronomy 23:19 ESV
“You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.
Proverbs 22
ESV
The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.
Proverbs 19:17 ESV
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.
Leviticus 25:35-37 ESV
“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.
Matthew 6:24 ESV
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
dkf
(37,305 posts)But yes, religious tenets about lending still hold back Muslim economies. That's exactly the point.
Christians got over that ages ago thanks to the example of the Jewish people who were the early bankers as their religion always accepted interest payments.
Who wants to lend to someone who wants to buy a house if they don't get compensated for it? There would be no point, only the downside risk of not being paid back.
matthews
(497 posts)the leader in innovation and technology?
Subsistence farming?
What we got when we got huge central banks were failures and bailouts. And like after the '29 crash, the only people who cashed in were the rich. They didn't lose all that they had. So they took what they had left and snapped everything of any real worth up.
Sound familiar?
fasttense
(17,301 posts)that were allowed to do anything they wanted were limited by kings and religions.
The type of banks that crashed this economy have not been seen since the Great Depression. We can function just fine without the current style of banking.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)The taxpayers and homeowners ARE the fucking economy, not the pissant thieving bankers.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Boy I'd like to see someone become a homeowner without a bank.
I'd also like to see how an employer pays a worker without a bank or how that worker pays their bills without a bank.
How do you even get cash without a bank?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Cash only basis huh? Even Social Security wants a bank account to deposit to.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)If a bank goes bye bye all the good stuff is gone too you know.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)on so many honorable business people by lumping them with the scumbags of the finance world?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)What that has to do with anything I don't know.
But go on...don't use any bank services then.
KT2000
(20,588 posts)We propped up banks and other financial institutions on an international level. I would love to see a detailed analysis of the risk posed by the failing financial institutions and work from there.
There were certainly devastating consequences to allowing them to fail but there is also a power play at work here. Every administration can and will likely be blackmailed by the financial sector into having its will done - or else.
Currently the very same institutions that sold out our economy and the millions who lost their homes and livelihoods, are buying up the very homes that failed, only to rent them out and bundle the rental contracts into "financial instruments" to be sold again.
First of all there should have been truth from our government. This was not normal banking and bad loans that went bankrupt, this was in many cases fraud. The program to assist homeowners with loan modifications was bogus when left in the hands of the same banks that were bailed out.
There should have been penalties for those who caused this - but there has not been. That is how the power works. That two administrations were cowed into deciding the banks' scenario of either or has set us up for the future - they are our overlords.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Government Modification Program Has High Re-Default Rate, Watchdog Says
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Borrowers who have received mortgage modifications under the government's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) continue to re-default at a startlingly high rate, the Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP) highlighted in its quarterly report to Congress.
HAMP was launched in 2009 to help as many as "3 to 4 million financially struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that is affordable for borrowers now and sustainable over the long term."
Yet, the government program is woefully short of its target, the watchdog said. As of April 30, 2013, of the 865,000 borrowers who had received permanent modifications, 306,538 had re-defaulted. Of the remaining borrowers in active HAMP permanent modification, 88,000 or about 10% have missed a payment or two and are in danger of re-defaulting.
Worse, the longer the borrower is in the government modification program, the greater his risk of default. Modifications made in 2009 have reached a 46% default rate. Modifications that were made in 2010 are re-defaulting at 38%, the report said.
Twenty-two percent of the borrowers who re-defaulted on their HAMP moved into the foreclosure process, while 12% lost their homes via a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure process.
The high rate of defaults not only fails to help borrowers, it also costs taxpayers money. Taxpayers have lost $815 million in TARP funds paid as incentives for non-GSE HAMP mortgage modifications for 163,811 homeowners who later redefaulted.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11987502/1/government-modification-program-has-high-re-default-rate-watchdog-says.html
I would like to see an in-depth analysis of these figures because I no longer believe numbers that financial institutions generate - as in how did the foreclosures come about.
I know people who tried to go through the modification process. First of all they were contacted by law firms that wanted to "assist." They were frauds.
Then they had to deal with their banks only to find out their paperwork was repeatedly lost. They were dinged for fees while they endlessly submitted the same paperwork over and over again.
There were people who lost their homes in the meantime after having gotten bad advice from the banks.
In other words - the foaming of the runway for the banks seems only to have opened more pathways for them to abuse everyone! They and the government have engendered cynicism and lack of faith in the banking system and the economy in general.
Bottom line - they made bad loans to people who should not have gotten the loans in the first place. They falsified the loan applications in some cases in order to generate more securities to bundle while some institutions invested in insurance that paid them off when they failed. They did this KNOWING they would fail. No one has been prosecuted for fraud and the same CEOs are still calling the shots.
AdHocSolver
(2,561 posts)Equating the entire banking system to a relative handful of crooked banks is a fraudulent argument.
Back in the 1929 to 1932 time period, the banking system did collapse. The resulted in passage of the Glass-Steagall Act and other banking reforms which eventually allowed the U.S. economy to recover.
The post-WWII recovery period saw an unprecedented economic boom, and a substantial increase in the American middle class.
Money does not drive the economy. Demand drives the economy. Those millions of Americans who lost their homes cost the economy billions of dollars in DEMAND for goods and services. The multiplier effect produced in this case caused a much larger negative effect on the economy than the failure of a handful of crooked banks would have produced.
You not only seem to have have no clue "how money works", you seem to lack an understanding how an economy works.
dkf
(37,305 posts)There is a daisy chain of counterparty agreements that ties them all together. Look at any swap contract or futures contract or even the settlement of securities... The entire financial system runs on the trust that those you do business with are not going to fail. Once that locks up, and you look to see exactly what you are holding sans agreements, it may not be pretty.
What wealth is not held in some financial institution? Only hard assets.
AdHocSolver
(2,561 posts)Banking has not changed in the past 40 years. The only changes that have occurred are the rationales that describe the scams pulled by bankers to relieve investors of their assets.
For example, "job creators" is a term used to lend credibility to the "theory" of "trickle-down economics" (which theory, I would hope, most people understand is utter nonsense.)
I have a degree in Economics and I am not impressed with your economic commentary.
The agreements that matter, and which were broken, were the mortgages that were illegally foreclosed breaking the trust that borrowers had with the banks.
The "agreements" you talk about were the fraudulent securities sold to investors for which the bailout money was used to bail out the crooks that sold them.
It would have been far cheaper and more helpful to the economy (as well as be more humane) to subsidize the homeowners who had trouble with their mortgage payments rather than throw hundreds of billions of dollars (with NO strings attached) to the crooks who created the mess in the first place.
dkf
(37,305 posts)You can rail against it and wish it weren't so but then what? Just like any other impractical solution there is no point.
We had to save what we were stuck with.
AdHocSolver
(2,561 posts)I don't waste people's time spouting theory.
My observations and explanations fit reality better than your rationalizing about why the crooked bankers took the bailout money, still foreclosed on the homes with troubled mortgages, often illegally, and refused to loan money to American businesses that needed it, but instead gave themselves huge bonuses for their "success" in ripping off the American taxpayer.
The federal government, by giving the banks bailout money with no strings attached, aided and abetted these crooked schemes, and then rewarded the banks for their thievery.
What the government should have done is to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and the other New Deal laws that would prevent the banks from pulling off these scams again, made the bailout money contingent on replacing the executives who allowed the scams, audited the banks handling of the bailout money with respect to delinquent mortgages, and handed out the money piecemeal while monitoring the actions of the banks.
This is not theory. This is a description of what happened, and this is not how a viable banking system should work. Our current "system" is a description for a license to steal. No economy can survive such a threat.
ceonupe
(597 posts)kiss the whole Clinton economy away. Look at when lots of these changes really took hold and all the deregulation Clinton and the congressinal democrats supported including changes to Fannie and Freddy (the biggest scammer of all the banks combined and the real engine behind these crazy loans as they would take on all kinds of crazy risky loans)
Look its clear you have no real understanding of our economic system. If you you did you would understand that what you advocate is theory but what he is talking about is actual real time fact of how our banking system works.
You should really look at the mortgage modification programs and their failure rate. The truth is many borrowed way more than they should have and will lose that collateral they pledged on their loans (lose their house).
no body complained when we used these banking instruments to basically keep our economy artificially high because everyone from both parties were enjoying the high times. Only a few were welling to tell the truth.
People were borrowing from inflated home values because of the liquidity banks provided to by Harleys, cars, ATVs, second homes, timeshares and all kinds of other nonsense happily pledging their home as collateral.
AdHocSolver
(2,561 posts)The New Deal banking regulations, such as the Glass-Steagall Act, prevented the bankers and Wall Street from pillaging the U.S. economy.
When they were repealed, and Bill Clinton signed off on that action, the groundwork was laid for the thievery we experienced.
The way our current banking system works (or fails to work) is due to the fact that the crooked bankers rewrote the rules.
As for people borrowing more from the banks than they could afford to repay, the last I heard, the bank is supposed to guard depositors' money to minimize bad debt. Why didn't the bank loan officers research borrowers and refuse lending money to high risk borrowers?
The banks knowingly made bad loans to gain fees and commissions, while having the intention all along of packaging the bad debt for sale to unwitting investors. How do we know this? Because that is exactly what the banks did. No economic theory required.
The key flaw in all the arguments blaming the borrowers for the banks' crooked schemes is that the bank has a responsibility to its depositors not to make large numbers of bad loans, so many bad loans that could have easily been discovered had the bankers done their jobs, that the banks crashed the economy (and created a lot of misery for many people).
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)There was one party I saw where they hired a midget.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)
pnwmom
(108,997 posts)He's saying the program was designed for the purpose of helping the banks. He's claiming that was the priority, not the homeowners. But that's not the same as saying that the homeowners were sacrificed by Obama's policy.
The program COULD have helped both the banks and helped homeowners if it had been done properly. He's not saying Obama's policy was designed to sacrifice homeowners -- he's saying it was designed to ease the banking crisis.
But both goals could have been accomplished -- they just weren't.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Hmmm, methinks thou hast finded thine own reasone's error. If thine couldst, and if thine wouldst, and if thine shouldst, then why not?!?!?
Of course sometimes when government programs and ideas go awry, it's a good thing:
TiberiusB
(490 posts)H.A.M.P. was created by the banking industry as a counter to the cram down proposal originally expected to be included with the stimulus bill.
Cram down, obviously, didn't happen. The Obama Administration promised but never delivered.
Dick Durbin tried to re-introduce cram down into a housing bill and got absolutely no support from the White House (talk a good game and then disappear when the real fight goes down...hmmmm...sounds familiar).
H.A.M.P. essentially stripped the consumer friendly part of cram down, the part where mortgages could be re-negotiated before a bankruptcy judge, and left only the banks in charge of negotiations with under water customers. Needless to say, this transformed the whole program into just another bite at the tax payer apple for the banks that frequently left consumers worse off then when they started. Just "Google BofA and H.A.M.P."
It's easy to talk about how the economy desperately needs banks in the abstract while ignoring the glaring deficiency in the system that allowed the larger Wall Street Investment firms and mega banks like BofA to effectively turn the economy into a big casino with no downside to the wealthy players. Wall Street caused the crash in 2008, not bad mortgages. They were just the fuse, it was the bigger banks and Wall Street players like Goldman Sachs that pushed deregulation and rampant speculation courtesy of derivatives and credit default swaps that blew up the economy. Anybody trying to pretend that it was all about bad loans and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is just trolling.
Just imagine if the Fed had taken the 16+ trillion (possibly 29 trillion) it essentially gave away to pay off Wall Streets bad bets and instead funneled that money through a government program to set up distressed home owners with new loans at 2-3%. Even if you assume the low ball number of 16 trillion (and try to wrap you head around the idea that 16 trillion is the "low ball" estimate), that's, what, like $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.? That's $200,000 for a family of four, which, with the average mortgage at something like $225,000, would be nearly enough to completely pay off any private bank loans, leaving only a low interest government loan that would allow consumers to drive more of their income into the general economy and not just into banker pockets. And that's assuming you hand out the money to everyone. Just imagine how much less would be necessary to take care of just the underwater mortgages.
Instead, the banks got the money and the housing crisis was left to fester. Dodd Frank was a weak tea fix and even that is slowly getting dismantled, effectively setting the stage for this all to happen again, only worse. It might have been more painful in the short term to take an axe to some of the bigger players and break them up via a government run liquidation, but in the long run, the results would be vastly better.
Don't even get me started on the effort to sell foreclosures to rich investors so they can be rented back to their former owners (which, yes, Obama backed).
pnwmom
(108,997 posts)homeowners, as the OP says.
Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)
If the administration effectively stepped aside and let the banks write their own legislation, then they get the blame. Of course the legislation doesn't explicitly "sacrifice" homeowners. I can talk all day about firing a gun into a crowded room without mentioning the people that might get hit.
A good deal of my reply was actually aimed at dkf, by the way. I probably should have simply replied to the OP and not you specifically.
But...
If someone wants to try and make a case for why the administration constantly appoints Wall Street friendly slugs to vital positions (Tim Geithner, Rahm Emmanuel, Jacob Lew, Bill Daley, Jeffrey Immelt, Lawrence Summers, and so on), reserves all its populist rhetoric for campaign trails and the occasional press/photo op (cram down, the public option, the bush tax cuts, etc...), and all too frequently does nothing or worse when the actual chips are on the table, I'm all ears. I'm sure there's a "this is reality in Washington" speech out there somewhere.
indepat
(20,899 posts)But score one for big bidness at the expense of the little people. 
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)This is the main problem. Words. Specifically, the words we allow to be used as explanations from our leaders to us in questioning their acts. This is a BULLSHIT WORD. DOUBLESPEAK. Like ''collateral damage'' is another word for MURDER.
Words like ''foaming the runway'' are made up on the fly and are designed to convey the idea that the speaker is some kind of ''rescuer and/or servant of the public'' just doing his duty! He didn't foam the runways, he allowed thousands of people to be financially assaulted and rendered bankrupt, and finally homeless. Say the goddamned words you fucker!!! The REAL ONES of what you did. It wasn't foam you ass!!! It was people's lives. It was their sweat. It was their kid's educations. It was the place they would probably die in. Instead of the streets. Or so they thought.
This is why most of the solutions to the problems we have, never work.
- We keep using words that don't fit the reality.......
K&R
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you look closely, they used homeowners AS THE FOAM.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Assholes.
Trillions of fed money for bond buybacks with no end in sight.
Imagine. Imagine if that money went to people who really needed it instead. They woild pump it right back into the economy.
Instead the banks that can now run investment companies under the same roof are pumping up and manipulating the stock markets for their own benefit.
Someone is cashing in and it ain't us proles. As a matter of fact, when the fed bill comes due we get to finance this whole ass penetration.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I'll bet he doesn't lose a wink of sleep over putting the criminals over the victims.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)And, the credit markets did not loosen up like they were supposed.
But they got their multi-million $ bonuses for nearly crashing the economy. And they still get to borrow money at near 0%, and loan it at 30%.
Meanwhile GM had to grovel for a tiny fraction of that amount even though they actually make something, provide manufacturing jobs, and add to the economy, instead of sucking off of it like a dog-gamned tick.
And no bankers went to jail.
Con-artist bloodsuckers.
AnneD
(15,774 posts)as much as homeowners and the public were lubed with ky jelly.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Thanks for the video, octafish.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)their fables. Look at their credentials, who the fuck in their right mind seriously believes they represent the majority of us. Government for the people by the people is a once upon a time story in this country today. It is all about $$$$$ and fuck we the people. Not all politicians and corporatists, but a hell of a lot of them.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It make me feel so much better knowing it served such a noble cause. 
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Look at the state of this nation. Something is afoot. We all can see it. What is afoot? Theft. Theft is now legal for the specially connected.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)control the government. Private banks control that money. Decouple public money from private banking and solve the problem. To ensure it stays that way, get private money out of the public's business. If doing this is impractical or impossible then there is not solution to the rule of bankers, but to suggest the status quo is desirable is utterly absurd.
Like I'm really surprised!
