Dr Carson, right or wrong?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
It's funny you say that because somehow Bill Clinton seems to get a pass from the Democrats and media even though he was the one that pushed banks to sell mortgages to low-income families as well as signing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act into law. For some reason, the popular narrative is that it was all Bush's fault...

Try reading this instead...there's plenty of blame to go around!

25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis
 



The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (allowing similar banks to merge and set any interest rate).

The Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (allowing Adjustable-rate mortgages).

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (allowing commercial and investment banks to merge).

You read one article and base your entire argument on it. Tisk tisk.....

Like Chunky said though, there were lots of reasons for the situation we find ourselves in.
 


It does as we are talking about policy to try to prevent this in the future. Refusing to look at what caused past problems is a recipe for having that same problem recur again and again.
 


I agree completely, but looking at who caused the problem is different than the cause of the problem. Obviously the government messed up in the case of the deregulation of the banking industry. Both republicans and democrats are to blame, does saying this serve any real purpose when trying to prevent this from happening again?
 


It does, especially with the whole "accountability" schtick the government is pushing. For example, I can get in enormous trouble and so can my employer if we accidentally and unintentionally submit any paperwork to the government with any errors in it. We are held "accountable." Why not apply the same to the people ruling over us? Hold them accountable- if they screwed up, [strike]call[/strike] vote them out on it.
 
If trying to blame a group of a certain political party is the point, its surely a standard and POOR way to do so.
What would be better is to embrace the way many want it, as in, government, KEEP OUT
 
I would rather look at the entire situation than just look at who is responsible and how to punish them. The whole reason the deregulation took place was to try and get more American's to own home's and live the American dream. Turns out this noble cause lead to a runaway greed train. You can learn from your mistakes if you look at the causation and consequent results. I think this would be more productive than trying to find someone to blame.

On a side note, a lot of the people responsible for this were not elected officials. How can you vote them out?
 
Problem is, rebundling is greed, and helped drive part of it as well.
Now, you could point to this and blame the banks, its just funny it didnt happen until the government became involved.
To me, its like the public unions, and why they shouldnt exist.
 


You continue to amaze me OMG.
 
In this instance, deregulating loans, the governments "Rules" applies here.
The banks did regulate a standard amongst themselves that was overturned by the government, so OMG has a point here.
Depends on how you look at it
 


Its almost like your just making stuff up at this point. Look at the facts OMG, they made the loans then packaged them up and sold them to investment banks and so on.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act - deregulation made this possible.

Its not that hard to understand, not sure why i have to explain it to you.
 
Its common knowledge this deregulation was aimed at certain peoples, using skewed information/facts for justification, and forced on the banks, as there is a plethora of threats aimed at them, and again, like public unions, as they too shouldnt exist, backing the loans here by thw government is just as ludicous, and essentually, since it hadnt occured prior to government intervention, it can only be laid at the feet of the government, and also for those that ignored the warnings at the time
 
Yes, Congress and Bill Clinton passing an act to deregulate the financial sector helped lead to the financial collapse. Your welcome, sorry if that doesn't register in your reality.
 
If that was all that was done to procure such a deregulation, then yes, lay it at the banks feet.
But, this isnt what happened, and wasnt the only incentive for the banks to do so.
I give OMG more credit here, as the government backed the loans, procuring more power of the economy, using bad legislation, and threatening the banks thru racism as well as little guy vs big guy rhetoric, which is going full steam today.
So, it appears some havnt let up on these attitudes and approaches, threatening the media along the way, if they get in the way by writing anything to the contrary.

The people there arent worthy of the people in general, have harmed this country in a mad power grab, ignored warnings at the time and mandating a new deregulation is and can only be perceived as nothing more than more regulation
 
So why didnt all banks fail? Why did some banks remain perfectly solvent if the government were forcing them to make bad loans?

Could it be because some banks were making responsible decisions and some banks were looking to make as much money as feasibly possible?

Isnt it also that many banks (AIG) placed a lot of bets of credit default swaps? The government never forced anyone into these investments, they made a very large mistake (And got 200 million for it). When Gramm-Leach-Bliley was repealed in 1999 (As Johnson pointed out), they could finally merge with investment banks and make more risky loans. Did all banks make these bets? No, and they remained solvent.

Here OMG:


Why didn't all the banks fail?

How did government make them trade risky derivatives?

Why did the banks move into subprime loans without any push from the government?

Why have the banks spent so much time lobbying to deregulate the market so they could make more risky bets?
 
Alright, lets use your logic. If the blame for a situation can be given to the government for not having ENOUGH regulation then there are many changes that need to be made. First of all, we need to regulate all guns. People are only shooting each other because the government has created an environment that causes this. Also, all diets must be regulated. People are draining our healthcare system because they are able to eat anything they want. This again was created by an environment of freedom that was created by our damn republic government.

Who do you think lobbied for the regulations to be lifted?????

The banks.

By the way, just to help you out. getting rid of regulations is not regulating. Somehow you have it set in your mind that removing regulations somehow equates creating them. Also, I said Clinton and congress helped lead to the financial collapse, I didn't say they were solely responsible. Its amazing the hoops you will jump through to satisfy your need for the government to be the cause of all the problems in this country.
 




If everyone remembers, there was a period there the summer of 2010 where hundreds of privately owned small banks were closing doors like mosquitoes flying into a bug zapper. Also, if you remember, there was talk about is all being intentional as part of a forced consolidation by the world banks to continue to control and manage the world money in an effort to shore up the European Union.

How about TARP. That was direct government intervention to bail the banks out on our dime because of previous Administration's and Congressional efforts to ensure that all American could live the american dream and own a home. Reality is bailing out the banks because they were going to default on the sub-prime mortgages (because home owners could not afford payment once the principle came due) was a direct result of previous government policy to sell people houses.

It's not in the banks best financial interest to lobby to regulate or de-regulate. The banks and government are two sides of the same coin. The banks re-sell bonds given to them by the Treasury to foreign and domestic investors. If he government is giving a bank (with stock holders to answer to) the means in which to make a profit through re-selling bonds (ironically, bonds can be bought directly from the Treasure itself) and it is the same business who also makes huge sums of money off loaning said government the dollars it needs to function, why would banks lobby the government to change the playing field? They wouldn't!


Now your just being superfluous and disingenuous.
Not sure what you are referring to, possibly Dodd-Frank. If you are referring to Dodd-Frank as the reason for banks lobbying to "deregulate", then understand that the banks are not lobbying to deregulate in the literal sense as much as it is that Dodd-Frank is an abortion of financial legislation that many rules have not been finalized. Many new departments like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are still writing their rules. So, as is due process, the industry that is to be directly impacted by these rules is given a chance to have input on what rules and regulations are put in place. I work in the Energy Industry, and State and Federal government is always calling on our company to give input on proposed rules and regulations. It may not be the "gaming of the system" that you think it is.
 
You mean, by going to the ones with the skin in the game, and not just someone whos taught economics at some institution has a better POV as to its needs in possible future regulation?
Now, why would the government then turn around and feed the lies to the people and let them believe it was the banks fault?
Like Ive been saying, either throw em out because they dont know better, or, throw em out because theyre not worthy of the people.
Lets just say, if this were not true, and it really was the banks fault only, and mainly, why isnt portions of our government not pounding home what really happened?
Could it be that possibly theres just too many names to place the responsibility on?

The way I see it is, some pols are greedy, backed by greed in the market, and sure theyd embrace bad legislation.
On the other hand, some pols also would love to see their constituents doing better by their faulty legislation as well.

Neither is good for us, and to allow it to happen, replace the blame, its time for better leaders
 


You have a very short memory OMG. Previously in this thread I told you that the main goal was to get everyone to own a house so that everyone could live the American dream. Obviously this NOBLE goal turned south quickly due to greed, stupidity and a lack of oversight(regulation).

You're naive if you think lobbyists don't have incredible pull in the political process.
 


There you go arguing semantics again.....it's apparently time to move on from this thread...
 
I dont want a house, I want a successful business, with millions of government dollars invested.
Now, why cant we all have this?
If people argue that people cant afford health care, yet they also believe they can afford a house......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom