Wall Street tells Dems not to expect any love this cycle
posted at 10:10 am on October 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
In 2008, Barack Obama and the Democrats won the Wall Street sweepstakes by a nose. In 2010, Republicans won it by a length. In 2012, Wall Street may not let Democrats into the gates at all. After the DCCC urged its e-mail lists to start signing petitions in support of Occupy Wall Street, the financial community told Democrats not to bother knocking on their doors at all:
After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.
Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO. …
Democrats’ friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can’t have it both ways.
President Barack Obama and other top Democrats are parroting the anti-corporate rhetoric running through the Occupy Wall Street protests, trying to tap into the movement’s energy but keep the protesters at arms’ length.
But many bankers aren’t buying the distinction. And some financial services lobbyists and industry insiders say the liberal line will make swing givers think twice before opening their checkbooks this year.
In fact, many of them have already switched away from Democrats even before OWS appeared on Wall Street. Politico interviewed a handful of fundraisers who have switched from Obama to Mitt Romney as part of their reporting on the subject. That comes in reaction to Barack Obama’s regulatory adventurism and failed Keynesian stimulus efforts, but the sudden cheerleading for anarchists and nihilists almost literally at the gates of the financial sector is apparently the final straw.
My question is this: just who did these financial wizards think Democrats were, anyway? They have been beating the class-warfare drums for years now, especially Nancy Pelosi in the House as Speaker and John Edwards in two successive presidential campaigns. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton co-opted Edwards’ class-warfare populism in 2008, espousing confiscatory, predatory, and punitive policies towards capital even before Obama won in 2008. The sudden adoption of full-blown class warfare by Obama was not a transformation, but the removal of a thin veil of reasonableness that had always been pretense rather than reality.
Glad to see that the wizards of finance have finally begun to realize who they backed, but it’s hardly impressive. They clearly deserve an award that speaks to their cluelessness, if not their disingenuity, at their shock, shock at class-warfare cheerleading in the Democratic Party:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Go away troll. Get back to your OWS post with all the stink peddlers.
Clearly, OWS has prompted a kind of sweeping mental illness among the baggers.
bifidis on October 19, 2011 at 10:21 AM
Sporty1946 on October 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM
You are right that an improving economy improves everyones life, but these morons won’t be happy because (since they like to spend their time, as you describe, living like hippies in a commune) everyone else’s lives will improve more, thereby expanding the gap.
Harvard Business School did a study. They asked their graduating class if they would rather have $60,000 salary, with all their classmates making a $60,000 salary. Or would they want $40,000 with all their classmates making $30,000. Guess what. More of them chose the latter. (I may have gotten the dollar amounts wrong).
You aren’t happy unless other people are worse off then you, and as these protestors will always be at the bottom of the pile, they will continue to b!tch and moan like the little babies they are.
DuctTapeMyBrain on October 19, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Here are the top recipients of campaign donations from the GSEs:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
Dodd: 30 years in the Senate $133,900
Obama: One Senate term $105,849
Notice how Kerry and Obama (the two likely Democrat Presidential nominees) got so much money and Hillary Clinton is right behind Obama. There isn’t a single likely Republican nominee on that list.
Why would the GSE’s send so much money to the campaigns of Democrats?
It is extremely lopsided. Noticed how the numbers flipped according to which party held Congress:
These bailouts were bought and paid for. The Wall Street firms and the GSEs bought the Democrats and got what they paid for. The Democrats are rotten to the core.
crosspatch on October 19, 2011 at 12:50 PM
Speaking of CQ, haven’t seen Shipley or monkei around here lately. Wonder where they’re hiding?
Del Dolemonte on October 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM
I’ve wondered for a long why any business would give the Dems any financial unless they thought they were buying protection.
Sooner or later, there is no protection available.
Sporty1946 on October 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM
That is pretty big…
jeffn21 on October 19, 2011 at 12:56 PM
But NOW Wall Street is giving to Romney? WTF does that tell you???
Mr. Grump on October 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM
This sums it all up. Financial people are not overwhelmingly liberal, they just saw the writing on the wall…they knew The Fresh Prince was going to win and started giving him the “look the other way” money.
kcluva on October 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM
-
Well… a degree and/or lots of money obviously does not equal intelligence.
-
RalphyBoy on October 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM
I think this is punitive. They are punishing the Democrats for supporting the “OWS” neo-commies and trying to make hay from it. I don’t think this time they are so much attempting to buy the Republicans as they are trying to punish the Democrats this time.
The reason I say that is because by and large they tend to butter both sides of their bread. They donate to both sides but maybe favor one side or the other by some small margin (several percentage points). I think this time it is going to be completely lopsided with the Wall Street firms basically abandoning the Democrats.
If you add to that some other signs, for example the teachers union NEA losing over 100,000 members in the last year, unions facing “right to work” legislation in Michigan. Unions in Wisconsin are reporting a loss of about 30% in union dues now that government no longer collects the dues for them.
The Democrats are going to be in a world of financial hurt on ‘down ticket’ elections this cycle.
crosspatch on October 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM
And I don’t really care, I want Perry to win but I will vote for Romney in the general election if he wins the nomination. Anything else would be voting for Obama and there is no bloody way I am going to cast a vote for anyone except whoever is the Republican candidate against Obama.
There is absolutely no way I am going to cast a ballot for a write-in candidate or a third party candidate. That is a pure “loser” move and guaranteed to help Obama.
crosspatch on October 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM
Absolutely, their protesting has nothing to do with economic fairness, economic injustice, opportunities, blah, blah, blah! It has everything to do with the fact the OWSers want everything to be handed to them. They don’t want to work and create the opportunities that will improve their economic situation, they are part of the growing thumbsucker generation that has had everything handed to them all of their lives. All they want is to get high, have sex, eat sushi/tofu, play video games, and play with their iPads all day and have the rest of us productive and hard working people pay their way!
That’s what its really all about, that is the truth of what they are protesting and this is why they are unable to come up with a coherent and/or logical reason why they are protesting, however they have decided on a mascot…Robin Hood!
Reminds me of a cartoon about Robin Hood from way back. Robin Hood gives a bag of money to a poor person that he had just stolen from a rich person, as soon as Robin Hood hands the bag of money to the poor person he pulls out a weapon and says, “stick’em up!” It’s so true yet these OWSers are too ignorant to get the ironic truth!
Dishonest, moronic, hyprocrites every one of them!
Liberty or Death on October 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM
The fact that the answer these protestors are arguing for is destructive rather than constructive tells you all you need to know. It is harder to build someone up than it is to tear someone down. So their answer to income equality isn’t to make the poor richer, it is to make the rich poorer. Problem is that approach is not sustainable. Once you take the money from the rich guy, it is gone. Next year when the money runs out, the poor guy will still be poor. All you have done is created more poor people.
These demonstrators are letting their emotions lead them rather than their heads.
Their solution would make everyone worse off a year or two down the road but they would “feel good” because they ate the rich. It is sort of like cooking the goose that lays the golden eggs.
crosspatch on October 19, 2011 at 1:29 PM
-
That and being at the ‘happening’… Que the drum circle.
-
RalphyBoy on October 19, 2011 at 2:02 PM
If we placed bifidis’ brain in a matchbox, it would rattle around like a BB in a boxcar.
PJ Emeritus on October 19, 2011 at 3:02 PM
Ah yes, can’t forget the importance of being at “the happening” after all in their selfish and narcissistic little minds nothing is more important than one’s own 15 minutes…and drum circles of course because what is a “happening’ without a drum circle!
Liberty or Death on October 19, 2011 at 3:13 PM
I have no problem with private organizations, corporations and/or unions contributing to political campaigns, as long as they are not functioning as “coercive aggregators.”
But GSE’s are different: they ARE the government, and contributions from these organization should be totally prohibited: such contributions amount to “money laundering” of public funds.
landlines on October 19, 2011 at 3:30 PM
Robin Hood stole from the state, not the wealthy.
jeffersonschild on October 19, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Welcome to the Dark Side, Wall Street.
We have cookies. :)
itsspideyman on October 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM
That’s not the case. The financial crisis had roots in the culture of unchecked greed that drove Wall Street traders to bet the stability of our financial system for personal greed during the housing bubble. Every great civilization depends upon the ascendance of virtue, something that’s in short supply on Wall Street.
To say that there’s nothing wrong with the system that caused the near collapse of our financial system, and hasn’t been significantly reformed, is naive. Today it’s impossible to measure the risk posed by Greece because the same CDS instruments that polluted global finance (requiring the bailout of AIG) are once again at play. Traded in an opaque, unregulated system without transparency, the toxic CDS market once again threatens to cause another implosion. How many meltdowns are necessary before change is finally embraced?
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/modern-economics-failed-us-says-economist-graeme-maxton-131229788.html
bayam on October 19, 2011 at 4:34 PM
Is all bifidis can do is shout in our face and run?
itsspideyman on October 19, 2011 at 4:35 PM
That’s idiotic. You are blaming the “trading” of the toxic mortgages rather than the gov’t that required the toxic mortgages to begin with. Even if the toxic mortgages were not wrapped up into instruments and traded, they would still exist and banks and gov’t institutions would still be just as insolvent because of them. You don’t have even the most basic understanding of the cause of the housing bubble or what it meant or how it played out.
And greece’s problems are a lot more than the housing bubble. It is their socialist policies and low productivity that causes their problems.
I love how socialists want to blame everyone but themselves for the problems they cause. If the gov’t hadn’t required Fanny and Freddy and banks to lend to people who couldn’t afford it in the first instance, there would be no housing bubble, there would be none of the “evil” instruments trading those mortgages and we would be sitting in a much better place.
Please remember, without the bad loans, no housing bubble. Look to Barney Frank and others who forced this upon us and stop claiming it was the traders’ fault.
the traders traded a produce that sophisticated banks, etc. should have known what they were buying. High return means high risk. They knew they were buying into high risk. For that I have no sympathy for them and don’t believe they should have been bailed out. But they did not create the housing bubble, nor did they create the bad mortgage problem.
Monkeytoe on October 19, 2011 at 4:51 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/modern-economics-failed-us-says-economist-graeme-maxton-131229788.html
bayam on October 19, 2011 at 4:34 PM
Del Dolemonte on October 19, 2011 at 4:54 PM
That video clip from Cassablanca can be used, reused, and rereused on so many threads here.
Just perfect!
listens2glenn on October 19, 2011 at 5:02 PM
We’ll see.
Right now, that just tells me they’re going to donate from a distance, and with scowls on their faces.
At least till proven otherwise.
listens2glenn on October 19, 2011 at 5:13 PM
That would be a dunce cap would it not.
chemman on October 19, 2011 at 5:14 PM
The progressive wing of the democrat party ran the party off the cliff in 2010. The only democrats that survived are the ultra uber far left making more of the “lemming” decisions that turned them into a coastal party in the first place. I was wondering what it was going to take to wake up the money class -when a housing crisis falling on their heads, didn’t seem to get any of their attention.
Dr Evil on October 19, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Hilarious!
Laura in Maryland on October 19, 2011 at 5:16 PM
After the Democrat’s regulations that forced the banks to make the bad loans…
… then Fanny and Freddie buying up all the bad paper by people like Franklin Reins and Jamie Gorelick,
then the financial wizards incorporating the bad paper into stock bundles and selling them all over the world with the backing of the full faith and credit of the United States tax payer…
… and when the bubble burst, the winners and losers were chosen and bailed out depending on their political connections.
Then protests are organized by said Democrats against said financial wizards to point blame away from said Democrats for causing the problem in the first place…
… and divide the country all for political gain.
Yeah…
… Those Democrats.
Seven Percent Solution on October 19, 2011 at 5:21 PM
You’re right, so quit saying it.
Wall Street isn’t the problem, leftist politicians in DC (and elsewhere) are the systemic problem that caused the near collapse.
And nitwits like you think more of the same ideology will ‘fix it’ – talk about naive.
Midas on October 19, 2011 at 5:23 PM
And infinitely better than you, troll.
Oh, well. If your funny little “revolution” actually would succeed, the upside would be that we wouldn’t have to read your tripe any longer. Useful idiots like you are – historically – the first to go against the wall. Because you’re no longer useful.
Solaratov on October 19, 2011 at 5:33 PM
Your understanding of the housing and financial crisis is interesting, to say the least. Instead of repeating right-wing talking points, you could actually read the financial press or any number of books that explain the foundation of the crisis, including Too Big To Fail or The Big Short. Not even people in the mortgage industry or Reagan men like Alan Greenspan believe the inane, partisan line you’re pushing.
Some banks, such as Chase and Wells Fargo, actually chose to retain sensible risk management policies and didn’t expose their shareholders to serious risk when the asset bubble imploded. But those banks were in the minority. The others either turned a blind eye to mass application fraud or engaged in borderline fraud themselves.
It was a worldwide housing and asset bubble, even in countries without ‘bad loans’. This is a basic, widely known and recognized fact. Another example of your dependence on baseless talking points.
bayam on October 19, 2011 at 5:33 PM
It’s really getting sad for the National Socialist Left these days isn’t it?
Their side is doing so badly all they can do is drop their little bag of Leftist talking point do-do and scurry away.
Chip on October 19, 2011 at 5:36 PM
According to Alan Greenspan and other Reagan men who oversaw the systematic removal of regulations, Wall Street was completely to blame.
Which sources are you basing your comments on… other than Glen Beck? Your observations would amuse essentially everyone on Wall Street, esp. anyone who was part of a fixed asset trading team of any major investment bank during the crisis.
bayam on October 19, 2011 at 5:37 PM
RE: your first post: I thought it was just because Wall St was a bunch of whores, but your theories on punishment make a lot of sense. (At least to me)
RE: your second post, in particular order; 1. Cain 2. Perry 3. Whoever can survive the ordeal. I do not do not do not want Mittens, and I agree to the extent that I would vote for Lyndon LaRouche before I’d vote for Zero.
Mr. Grump on October 19, 2011 at 5:37 PM
What was the original reason those toxic asserts were created?
Chip on October 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Someone needs to prosecute Chase and Wells Fargo for not approving enough fraudulent loan applications- because clearly the government mandated that behavior. Only Washington Mutual and other failed banks followed the law!
It’s amazing that you actually link to a Hotair article as factual evidence… classic.
bayam on October 19, 2011 at 5:40 PM
The two new polls and reports like this suggest the backlash has begun. According to the polls, a majority of Americans think the 1% is taxed enough and a majority blame Washington more than Wall Street for the collapse. It’s only a matter of time before the endorsements from the world’s despotic regimes and socialist/Marxist/Communist organizations and the anti-Semitism takes its toll and mainstreamers start to back away.
OWS-NYC is close to making its first demand (they have “procedural” matters to resolve). It will be a call for a massive public works bill (ala the New Deal) to be funded by bringing all foreign troops home. Should liven things up.
SukieTawdry on October 19, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Wall street always choses the winner, when it became obvious that dems are done, they started to temper down their contributions, which is when Ohbummer and co, decided to go for a little intimidation tactics. Dont think it will work this time.
anikol on October 19, 2011 at 5:42 PM
What puts you in a position to speak for essentially everyone on Wall Street?
Chip on October 19, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Why don’t you look into the reason why every major broker dealer, including Goldman Sachs, had to transform itself into a depository institution. Then you’ll understand the sentiment.
bayam on October 19, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Why are you blaming Wall Street investment theses that were no different than any American that thought real estate was a good investment?
Wall Street sells financial products that Americans want to buy. If Americans hadn’t believed that real estate was such a great investment then those products wouldn’t have sold and Wall Street would have discontinued the sales.
Was Wall Street to blame for the internet bubble, too? Or was that caused by millions of Americans dumping their savings and buying tech stocks and mutual funds on margin?
I’ll put my knowledge of the issue up against yours any day.
Loans were being originated based solely on the property value. Plenty of companies weren’t even requiring a financial/background type application. People knew this and continued to buy those stocks willingly because they thought that anyone failing to make their payments could simply sell their house for a small profit and pay off the mortgage. This was the thinking throughout all of America. It’s strange that you exclusively blame Wall Street for that.
Tell me, do you consider Fannie and Freddie to be “Wall Street?”
blink on October 19, 2011 at 5:47 PM
Who/what is Wall Street?
blink on October 19, 2011 at 5:49 PM
In other words, that’s just more bovine scatology as always.
Why were those toxic assets originally created?
Chip on October 19, 2011 at 5:52 PM
Interesting – you accuse others of simply regurgitating talking points, yet that’s seems to be 90% of your toolbox.
“Which sources are you basing your comments on… other than
Glen BeckKeith Olbermann?” (for the record, I saw 10 minutes of a GB show about 4 years ago and didn’t like it, so never checked in again).Please provide a citation where Greenspan and “other Reagan men” state the “Wall Street was completely to blame”.
I’d ask for a citation for “essentially everyone on Wall Street”, but that one is comical enough on its face that it doesn’t really need refuting at this point.
As for the source of the problem, you can blame the corner pushers if you like – they’re certainly not innocent. But you can’t blame *the problem* on them – look more to the main supply/demand points of the transactions for a clue.
Midas on October 19, 2011 at 5:52 PM
At first it seems that you’re familiar with the concept of ‘links’ to other pages/sources, since you use the word in your post, but apparently you’re *not* familiar with it.
If you actually *looked* at the link provided, you’d see… more links in the original page! Oh my goodness, there’s a ‘link’ there to a CNN piece that has incredible details and “factual evidence” on the topic.
It’s amazing that you cracked wise on someone and thereby demonstrated your own foolishness once again. classic.
Midas on October 19, 2011 at 5:59 PM
You’re making very sensible points and I agree that it’s not fair to demonize everyone. Yes, there was a broad consensus that housing prices would continue to appreciate. It’s easy to say in hindsight that WaMu and other banks engaged in terrible judgement, and easy to forget that in 2007 many banks actually sought low quality applications. After all, if a house appreciates by 25% and the buyer can’t afford the payments, the bank stood to profit enormously from a default. As you said, banks were so engulfed by the bubble group think that only properly values were often evaluated, while widespread loan fraud and financial eligibility was ignored.
But when you look into the amount of leverage engaged by investment banks and the level of risk accepted by Wall Street, all in the name of short-term profits, a different story begins to take shape.
bayam on October 19, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Do a Google on ‘alan greenspan financial crisis regulation’. Read any of the books on the crisis, a few of which I cited earlier. It’s all in the public record. This isn’t a controversial topic.
bayam on October 19, 2011 at 6:03 PM
Why were those toxic assets originally created?
Chip on October 19, 2011 at 6:06 PM
You’re splitting hairs jefferson, back then the wealthy and the state were one in the same, that’s why the rest of the population were considered peasants, therefore Robin Hood did steal from the rich (e.g., the state) and gave to the poor.
Liberty or Death on October 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM
Fixed.
Now, tell us why your Leftist “Economist” hero Graeme Maxton is mortally afraid to tell you where he got his “Degrees” from.
Del Dolemonte on October 19, 2011 at 6:15 PM
Fixed again.
When a Leftist starts quoting Reagan people, you know they’re losing the argument.
Del Dolemonte on October 19, 2011 at 6:17 PM
And your point is…?
Seven Percent Solution on October 19, 2011 at 6:17 PM
Translated: “Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had absolutely nothing to do with the meltdown.”
Del Dolemonte on October 19, 2011 at 6:18 PM
What toppings do you use when you eat the Rich?
Power to the people…….!!!!
PappyD61 on October 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM
Name all of these other banks and please provide credible, multi-sourced evidence to back up your Talking Points.
Del Dolemonte on October 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM
In other words, you’re too lazy to answer the question.
Del Dolemonte on October 19, 2011 at 6:23 PM
Why aren’t you over on this thread?
Doesn’t that fit into your National Socialist talking point repertoire?
Chip on October 19, 2011 at 6:24 PM
Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
Remember this golden oldie?
Dr Evil on October 19, 2011 at 6:28 PM
Stupid, drunk and liberal is no way to go through life, son…
Wolftech on October 19, 2011 at 6:34 PM
While you could at least hold a semi-intelligent debate with most of our troll infestation, this one is just plain stupid.
Wolftech on October 19, 2011 at 6:39 PM
From the thrust of this thread, may one take it that the applicants for said loans had no choice in the matter – that they had to apply and take loans that they could not afford?
OldEnglish on October 19, 2011 at 6:41 PM
Since we are linking to old Hot Air post for our sources.
Video: Bail me out, Obama!
Michelle has a clip from CNN that demonstrates the silliness of the mortgage-bailout efforts of the Obama administration. Minta Garcia and her family bought an $800,000 home that they could not afford, using speculative lending as a lever. The value of the house has dropped to $675,000, and now Garcia faces foreclosure. However, the coverage omits a critical piece of the puzzle:
I guess the first question I’d ask is what made a bus driver believe she could afford an $800,000 house. Unless she makes six figures and had a hell of a down payment, the figures themselves seem so far out of whack that one has to wonder how it occurred at all. The lenders certainly deserve blame here, too, but no one forced Minta Garcia into that house and that mortgage.
Dr Evil on October 19, 2011 at 6:47 PM
I heard screaming in here, as if someone were having their arguments ripped to bloody shre….oh…it’s just bayam.
Bishop on October 19, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Good catch, and well put!
OldEnglish on October 19, 2011 at 6:52 PM
Earth to bayam: In 1994, early in Democrat pResident Bill Clinton’s first term in the Oral Office, Subprime mortgages accounted for 5% of all such loans. By 1999, that percentage had almost tripled, to 13%. Between 1999 and 2006 it increased another 7%.
In other words, while your Democrat Adults were In Charge, the amount of subprime lending went up twice as much as it later did under the evil Bush.
Del Dolemonte on October 19, 2011 at 6:53 PM
Micheal Wallsteet?
Wolftech on October 19, 2011 at 7:11 PM
I wonder what “threats” are going to be whispered about behind closed doors from Democrats to Wall Street- hints of more regulations, red tape, talk of Congressional committee hearings, more rhetoric on the trail by Obama (isn’t he the one who said he was the only thing between Wall Street and a pitchfork-carrying mob before?), etc, etc.
Nice business you got there, shame if something happened to it…
Jay Mac on October 19, 2011 at 7:36 PM
bayam can never answer a few simple questions. She pretends that it’s Wall Street’s fault that Americans bought too man houses and paid too much for them.
She probably thinks it’s Wall Street’s fault that Americans bought too many tech stocks and paid too much for them in 1999.
Typical liberal – always someone else’s fault, and she can’t answer any question not covered by her talking points.
blink on October 19, 2011 at 7:49 PM
Obama will manage to make Capitalists out of Wall Street yet.
blofeld42 on October 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM
Obama has received more Wall Street donations so far than all the Republican candidates combined.
So much for their tough talk, eh, Francis?
Adjoran on October 20, 2011 at 12:30 AM
I wish they did realize who they backed Ed, but sadly they clearly have NOT
Dollayo on October 20, 2011 at 1:02 AM
Sad but true, as that WaPo article notes.
Paul_in_NJ on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM
I love it when a leftist comes on and says “x” is the fact – its not even controversial. then claim it is a settled matter – the same routine they use for AGW. Look – it’s settled. Let me cite you a bunch of books by lefties who say that capitalism is too blame!!
So silly. Were there bad actors who engaged in fraudulent behavior? No doubt and they should be prosecuted. Did the gov’t's policies create the environment by forcing and encouraging banks to loan to people who could not afford the properties? yes. that is what created the bubble and created the toxic assets to begin with. Are all banks and traders blameless? obviously not. But to come on here and say that “wall street” and “greed” are too blame and we must therefore embrace some kind of socialist strategy for regulation is just silly. Maybe there are some good regulations that need to be incorporated to prevent such bubbles in the future – but a specific case needs to be made for any such regulation – not some silly argument that “wall street is evil” and “corporate greed”.
but, I note that the people who are never blamed are those who bought real estate way above their means. Somehow those people are blameless and the rest of us should foot the bill for their losing their homes and money. Had John Doe not bought a $200,000 house with little or no money down with an ARM on a $30,000/year salary and then soon realized that he could not make mortgage payments, we would not be in this mess. That kind of financing is not complex math. You can figure out that a 2% jump in the interest rate was going to raise your mortgage about $200/month.
Yes, the banks should not have made those loans. But, an incredibly large percentage of those loans were made by Fanny and Freddie. And the banks were being heavily leaned on by the gov’t to also make those loans.
I also firmly agree that the banks, etc. should not have been bailed out. the risks they took should have resulted in the attendant consequences. Now these institutions are going to engage in even riskier behavior because the gov’t basically just taught them that they will not feel the consequences of such risk it if goes bad.
Monkeytoe on October 20, 2011 at 11:41 AM
You are the one with little understanding of the crisis. Freddie and Fannie made a large percentage of the toxic loans. That is the gov’t making the toxic loan and then selling them off to be traded in toxic securities products. The fact that you do not know this demonstrates you have no understanding of what happened at all.
While it is true that some banks did not take on the risky investment (and I am agreeing with you that we should not have bailed out the banks that did) you fail to understand where the toxic assets originated from in the first instance.
It is a convenient story you tell yourself – evil wall street created bad products and caused the mess. You absolve the gov’t (more particularly dem policies) from any blame.
Monkeytoe on October 20, 2011 at 11:44 AM
Does anyone else find the troll’s excessive use of bold-face posts annoying?
I guess since he has nothing useful to contribute, he feels that screaming it louder will get his lame points across.
May I suggest UPPER CASE and bold (with a little emphasis thrown in for good measure)!
pain train on October 20, 2011 at 12:08 PM
It’s simple: For all of the talk of class warfare, what a heavy fee and tax system does is let these people buy loopholes and exemptions. Up to this point the warfare is generalized, but, hey, then you get your exemption. The politicians can say they’re sacking the castle, while secretly helping the nobles out a back tunnel with their money, as long as a portion goes back to making it look like they are good at sacking!
But the OWS people don’t want exemptions, they want it all equally torn down and redistributed. That the bankers, etc can’t have. The OWS crowd is aware of the game. They aren’t democrats, they are people aware that both Republicans and Democrats talk a game of taxation, but then use the huge tax code to buy donations through exemptions, payouts and favors.
We need flat taxes with no exemptions low enough that lobbyists won’t be worth the cost to play these games. I’m totally opposed to OWS and what they spout, but the more money Washington asks us to send, the more worthwhile it becomes to buy your way out of sending more than it costs to buy your exemption. If a new regulation to punish some action is going to cost your industry a billion dollars, it’s not something 50 million in lobbying won’t fix, and politicians know that. They write legislation with the potential sales value of exemptions in mind.
PastorJon on October 20, 2011 at 5:57 PM
BTW, the solution is for DC to spend less, need less and thus tax less. K street would be the hardest hit.
PastorJon on October 20, 2011 at 5:58 PM
More liberal jibberish. You know very well that if you could risk your entire life savings in Vegas with the promise that if you lost it all you would get it back, and if you won big you keep it, you would.
The government said: “We want people who shouldn’t own a house to have a house. Make risky loans, make as much money as you want to off it, and if you take losses we will bail you out! You are too big to fail!” Damn straight if I’m a bank and I’m told I can make billions writing zero doc, zero down, crappy loans, but if those loans go bad the government will bail me out, I would consider it, especially if my balance sheet is compared to other banks that are doing it.
Add to the governments promise of a backstop the fact that Fannie and Freddie were told to create a place to offload and sell this crappy risky paper and boom, opportunity.
If the government stays out of it, does not offer that backstop and does not provide a market for them at Fannie/Freddie, no bank takes that risk of failure. It was all upside for them, no downside. They were guaranteed to either get rich or get bailed out. Then the government picked winners and losers, forced mergers, etc based on political influence.
In other words, government caused the bubble and collapse. Blaming the banks is like blaming the balloon for popping instead of the person blowing air into it.
PastorJon on October 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM
Oh, and bayam, don’t start talking about ethics. It’s the liberals that have taken all ethics out of school. No Bibles or any other religion based, non-moving ethics or morals targets allowed. You can’t teach live your life as you choose and then get upset when bankers take an opportunity to get rich knowing taxpayers will get soaked if they fail.
Can’t have it both ways. Even the OWS protestors want to be able to do ANYTHING they want, nudity, lewdness, disprespecting private property, but don’t want bankers and corporations to have that same freedom.
PastorJon on October 20, 2011 at 6:09 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2