Nobody,
I couldn’t agree more. My goodness Reuters, did you cut and paste a press release from Pelosi/Obama? Worst attempt at “journalism” I’ve seen in quite a while.
It etches “too big to fail” into law. Instead of breaking up “too big to fail” firms we are changing our law to all but explicitly guarantee that the Treasury is on standby with dump trucks of money to give banks.
It has so many loopholes and exceptions that it may in fact be worse than the status quo.
This is a failure of Obama- to reign in the practices which led to this disaster in the first place, to break up these “too big to fail” firms, to honor his campaign promises, and to “support Main Street over Wall Street.”
Wall Street is not Main Street, and this administration’s priorities have been made abundantly clear. What a spineless President, and an even more spineless Congress. Shame on them, and shame on us for letting it happen.
Republicans and an army of lobbyists for banks and Wall Street firms, whose profits would be threatened, have fought for months to weaken and delay reforms, criticizing what they call an unneeded and costly intrusion on business. The battle will continue for months to come in the slower-moving Senate, which is expected to push for more modest legislation.
There are several other points of reference that don’t look at who created the issue, but points directly at who was in office when it occured. When will the media report that Obama increased the deficit by trillions and not point to others for the reason he “had” to do it…
The most disastrous failures have been on the watch of the Chairmen of Banking and Financial Services, and the Securities and Exchange Oversight Committees. These people were (and ARE..)Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd – and yes, they are STILL in charge of these failed committees. Why not change THEM?! These new proposed powers will simply make it easier for them to cover their tracks. This looks like “REAL Change” that is “Not REAL” after all.
John,
Answer to your rhetorical question: Never. The broadcast media has a vested interest in this administration and will continue to present the left spin.
So, it wasn’t under the Bush administration whent the meltdown occurred?
Republicans and an army of lobbyists for banks and Wall Street firms didn’t fight for months to weaken and delay reforms? It won’t affect their pocket books?
The battle will not continue for months to come in the slower-moving Senate, which is expected to push for more modest legislation?
“Faced with a recession and multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts of firms such as AIG and Citigroup Inc stemming from the Bush administration, President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats are vigorously pushing for change”
The above quote should have also been included to prove the “tone”.
According to Reuters (aka state-run media), it’s the Republicans and “the army of lobbyists for banks and Wall Street firms” that are the villians. The Democrats and Obama are our saviors. (Although they started this whole thing by “encouraging” banks to make risky loans all in the name of social/economic justice.)
That’s about how much you understand about how all of this started Alllllllllan. See LEM’s comments for the concise explanation.
We expect this kind of yellow journalism from Reuters and have come to expect it to be parroted by the IJ, but IJ really should have enough respect for themselves and us to pick someone else’s version to share.
Ok, I understand where one would interpret that as a point of view or even slanted. But the fact still remains that this did happen while on Bush’s watch, the Fed did deregulate, AIG and the banks were bailed out, we are in a bad recession and Obama’s campaign slogan was about “change”.
Now, the banks and other financial institutions chose to do these risky loans and credit default swaps and failed because of it. Yes, they were encouraged to do these loans but didn’t have to.
Berkshire Hathaway wasn’t involved and they are trading at $99k a share.
•The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
•Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
•Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
•Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
•The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
•Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
•Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
•Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
•The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
•An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
•Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The first one to go was Beher Sterns back in March of 08. It took only 7 days.
Want real change? Enact the FAIR Tax, require property ownership to vote, term limits, secure the borders, and bring our troops home. Why hasn’t this been done? Re-election & control. Corruption in our system? Maybe.
Similar to the republican attempt at blocking healthcare, the democrats blocked the reform which would have adverted this crises. In 2003 Bush made comment of the needed reform. In 2005 McCain started a movement to get changes made which would have stopped this situation. Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and a few other democrats lead the front against it, but every single democrat in office stood united against it. The bill never went to the final floor. Bush’s liability in this economic crises is null and void. He made every attempt to change it, along with the republican congress of 2005. The democrats currently hold a larger majority than republicans did in 2005, and they still are having troubles passing a healthcare bill.
So, actually the Bush administration had nothing to do with the economic collapse. They happened to be in office when it happened and couldn’t change it.
The reason this article is not a proper objective article, is like many left or elitist articles, they used the facts in a way which put an extremely left leaning argument in their favor while attempting to sound unbiased based on twisted facts. It was indeed very poorly written.
“The reason this article is not a proper objective article, is like many left or elitist articles, they used the facts in a way which put an extremely left leaning argument in their favor while attempting to sound unbiased based on twisted facts.”
Are you kidding me? You’re going to tell me that all right-wing reporting is completely unbiased and doesn’t include skewed facts? Huh…I guess I can start watching the Fox network again after all…
Unbiased observer & Chris – You can search the Fact Check.org, PBS Frontine, Wall Street Journal Wikipedia or any other source and they all pretty much the same thing.
I tried posting the links but for some reason this site will not allow it.
Nice post, although it doesn’t look like an official press release. I did find this article on the CBOE news site. IT give a unique perspective from the CBOE chairman about regulating OTC derivative markets.
First I’ll direct Optimist: If you keep up with the insulting people making the Fox news assumption, every time they have facts that disagree with a mostly leftist media, then I will have to disregard any of your arguments as childish jibber jabber. Don’t make assumptions on where my facts come from. Disprove them if you wish, but you can’t because they are true. I don’t feel the need to argue with you.
Alan,
The reasoning behind why your comment is true about your fact sources is clear: Any mainstream sites based on facts are written by either an elitest, a college grad in liberal arts, journalist, or science studies, which maintains a 60-70% democrat affiliation.
I do wish you would put together the facts on your own rather than relying on outside sources to compile it for you. Anyone can put together numbers.
If those sites missed the following facts then your sites are no longer valid arguments: In 2003 the NY times wrote an article semi criticizing Bush for his inteneded financial over haul. He was called the man of the year due to his intent of changes. In 2005 3 republicans including John McCain started a regulation act which all democrats kept off floor in a partyline effort and all republicans votoed to persue. Prove that statement wrong, and your facts are correct. You have as of yet disregarded the statements I have made.
I only directed one of your comments, which is the only one linked to the Bush administration: You claimed he failed to intervene. He did not fail to intervene. Democrats blocked his intervention.
So, where do you get your information and facts from then? If it is not news sources or the like then where? A palm reader?
So I guess what you and a lot of other people on here are saying is if it doesn’t agree with you, then it is all false and leftist/liberal garbage?
So, then sources like The Wall Street Journal and Fact Check.org are just “mainstream sites based on facts are written by either an elitest, a college grad in liberal arts, journalist, or science studies, which maintains a 60-70% democrat affiliation.”
No, I’m saying unless a source provides a full picture including the possibility of what I just stated (rather than an obvious clear left leaning agenda in this one, which left it out) Then it is a leftist written article. Though what I wrote is not a “possibility”. It’s even on tape.
By the way: The childish wink, along with missing my concepts proves your debating skills are amateur.
Disprove my statement. The burden of proof (look it up) is on you. My facts I have researched for over year. Some facts are facts. Your facts were true, but specifically and intentionally left out that factually, The dems partyline blocked regulation. Disprove that statement. The republicans all tried to pass it. Disprove that statement.
Seeing as you can’t, I’ll just leave, and you have lost the debate.
Oh, were not done yet. You still never stated where you get your “material” from.
I’ve stated several credible sources of news and info that are not disputed except by you and ones who seem to have an ideology and no neutrality.
So, again, what you are saying is that all these organizations where people get news and info are skewed and slanted unless they are in agreement with you and the like? Well, I guess than all of them are slanted being they pretty much all say the same thing.
I mean even Wikipedia of all places has an agenda?
I absolutely agree Allen. All news sources have a viewpoint. In that vein, why is it so hard to admit that this one little news story has that bias? If you look at it the story has a bias. I would like to see a little less posting of press releases of any kind in IJ an more actual fact reporting.
For me, its not a matter of it having bias, its that it is so overt and in your face about how bias it is. People base their political views based upon their world view, experiance, and certain facts that they perseave, whereas facts don’t have a political bias
From what I’ve been hearing, if an individual doesn’t like a particular story, it’s automaticaly biased no matter what. All because it doesn’t fit into their agenda. I’ve seen numerous articles posted, such as this one, and everyone was screaming liberal this and liberal that when it was just a story that was reported on. Thats it, no more – no less.’
I’ll bet anyone when Reuters, AP or anyone else breaks a story that is seen as conservative, the conservative base will praise it. But when it doesn’t fit their agenda, they are all over it like a pit bull foaming at the mouth.
When the story broke about the e-mails that were hacked on climate change, I don’t think the liberal base was attacking the source of which it was reported on. They just defended what they believed in regarding climate change.
Now, back to the subject. After the whole financial meltdown, do you really think that we need safeguards put in place from something like this ever happening again? If not, please explain why?
Everyone is quick to blame big business for “letting the financial meltdown happen”. What about those people that when and got those loans in the first place that knew darn well that they couldn’t afford it? Its the mentaility of “I deserve everything handed to me”. “I deserve to own a house even though I can not afford it and have not worked for it”. And if the banks desided to not loan out the money to these high risk people, I can see the media saying “The average American can’t get a loan for a house because the greedy banks want to hold onto YOUR money!”
I give up Allen. You are going way off in the distance on this one. You have taken a simple comment on fact based reporting and turned it into a political grandstanding event. Liberal or conservative, fact based reporting should be the only goal of this journal. They should post disclaimers if they are going to just reprint press releases. This has nothing to do with your political side. My new movement is STOP THE BLATHER! You first.
Well, the fact that this article demonizes the Repbublican party by basicly comparing them to an “Army” and thus insinuates that they are common thugs, whereas the other article does not bash the Democratic party one bit. THATS why I consider this article commentary and not news.
TX Agentman – Your reply is not what I was asking. I’ve already addressed those points you mentioned and agree with you on those points.
My question is after the whole financial meltdown, do you really think that we need safeguards put in place from something like this ever happening again? If not, please explain why?
Well, I don’t have all the facts, but “safeguards” is such an ambigous word. Yes, the system is broken, but its a matter of what caused it to break. Was it corporate greed that we keep hearing from the media? Or is it society’s greed and need for instant gratification? If it is just corporate greed, then yes, some safeguards should be put in place. Now if the coroperate business gave all those loans out because if they didn’t another one would down the street, and it was a case of survivial, then I do not blame the companies for that.
So, here is why I blame socity first. There were just too many people getting loans for homes that knew darn well they couldn’t afford it. If it was losing their job because of sickness or disablement, there wouldn’t have been a problem or a financial crisis because there wouldnt be enough people effected that would hurt the economy. It was the millions of people that stopped paying their loans. Don’t you hate it when someone doesn’t keep a promise to you? I know I do, and thats exactly what happened here.
We need to know what caused it in order to prevent it. Putting safeguards on something before you know that it is what caused the problem is not effcient.
Example: You accidently hit someone in your car. Instead of finding out what caused it, you think “Well, if there wasn’t a gas pedal, I wouldn’t have accelerated and hit that person, so lets remove the accelerator” Never mind the fact that it then impeds your ability to drive effectivly.
You completely ignored the last part of my post. Who says that the “greedy corporations” gave out all those loans to people that couldn’t afford it? It makes not sense whatso ever that they would willing do that. Think about it. Would you loan $5k to someone that you thought would not or could not pay you back? No, because you would then be out of money. It makes no fiscal sense. That is why I think its socity’s fault and its instant gratification demands. “I deserve a house even though I have not worked to earn it, nor can I afford it”
Umm, they did man. It doesn’t make any sense fiscally but the lenders did it anyways. Google it.
I’m not going to sit here and type out a lengthy step by step lesson plan on the issue cuz, I have other sh*t to do. But, in a nutshell, lenders offered more and more loans to higher-risk borrowers, including illegal immigrants. The lenders never used to do this and changed their practices dramitically when significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002-2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles.
Go to Wikipedia or some other credible source and read about it.
No, Wiki can be edited by ANYONE, and thus is not a reliabile source of information.
I could be wrong about companies being forced to give out the loans, but I think it was a “compete or die” situation. if they didn’t sell it, someone down the street would. But the fact of the matter is, if the majority of people didn’t have the instant gradtification mentaility, there wouldnt be a need for them to have given those loans in the first place. Many of those people took those loans knowing full well they could not afford it. Now if they lost their job due to illness, then I completely understand and empathize with them, but not to the people that had it in their head that society owed them a house even though they did nothing to earn it.
Ok, I’ll give you that Wikipedia can be edited, I don’t know why, but ok. I’ll give you that. Although they do have editing practices in place and substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Anyways, there are a lot of other reports from all different places that pretty much all say the same thing. You’ll need to do your own research.
And if you would have read it, it’s not one sided/one blames all. It’s a 360 view.
And the consumers who purchased the sub primes are to blame as well. But if you don’t have someone dangling the carrot in front of the rabbit, no one would have bit. (Preditory Lending).
Before I got married to my wife, she was looking to buy in 04 and 05, the height of the market. She had $160k to put down and excellent credit with over a 750 score. Country Wide still wanted her to do an ARM or an intrest only loan. Her credit union gave her some good terms on a standard 30yr fixed (prime loan). But decided to wait as the housing prices were just to much.
And yes, you are wrong on lenders being forced by the government to sell sub prime loans to people who didn’t qualify. My credit union and my wifes credit union did participate in sub prime lending practices and are doing just fine.
I will have to verify that the corporations were not forced to give out the high risk loans. From what I have heard, they had to, but that is just hearsay. But you can’t tell me that if the banks denied all those high risk borrowers, that they still wouldn’t get negitive press. “The common man can’t get a loan to get a house?! Thats just big business trying to keep the middle class American down!” I had to restrain myself when I heard a story on the news about “how evil the banks were because they are charging overdraft fees”. And the news made them seem like the corporations were just trying to bleed everyone of their customers dry. They completely ignored the fact that the customers were the ones overdrafting their account. Here’s a thought, don’t overdraft your account, and you will not get charged an over draft fee! I’m only 24 but I understand that. But I am very tired of the news bashing big business all the time, and ignoring socitiey’s personal responsiblity.
Is this a press release? It certainly doesn’t sound like objective reporting.
if the feds don’t watch any better than they have in the past, this isn’t going to do much good.
Nobody,
I couldn’t agree more. My goodness Reuters, did you cut and paste a press release from Pelosi/Obama? Worst attempt at “journalism” I’ve seen in quite a while.
It etches “too big to fail” into law. Instead of breaking up “too big to fail” firms we are changing our law to all but explicitly guarantee that the Treasury is on standby with dump trucks of money to give banks.
It has so many loopholes and exceptions that it may in fact be worse than the status quo.
This is a failure of Obama- to reign in the practices which led to this disaster in the first place, to break up these “too big to fail” firms, to honor his campaign promises, and to “support Main Street over Wall Street.”
Wall Street is not Main Street, and this administration’s priorities have been made abundantly clear. What a spineless President, and an even more spineless Congress. Shame on them, and shame on us for letting it happen.
Liberal article is liberal. They really should have marked this “Commentary” or rewritten it so it acutally seems less partisian.
Sorry, I’m not seeing any comentary in this article. Just reporting on what passed and what it imposes.
It may seem a bit crazy but, does everyone enjoy the good ol’ partying times in this recession?
Alan,
Maybe this will help you see the “tone”
Republicans and an army of lobbyists for banks and Wall Street firms, whose profits would be threatened, have fought for months to weaken and delay reforms, criticizing what they call an unneeded and costly intrusion on business. The battle will continue for months to come in the slower-moving Senate, which is expected to push for more modest legislation.
There are several other points of reference that don’t look at who created the issue, but points directly at who was in office when it occured. When will the media report that Obama increased the deficit by trillions and not point to others for the reason he “had” to do it…
The most disastrous failures have been on the watch of the Chairmen of Banking and Financial Services, and the Securities and Exchange Oversight Committees. These people were (and ARE..)Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd – and yes, they are STILL in charge of these failed committees. Why not change THEM?! These new proposed powers will simply make it easier for them to cover their tracks. This looks like “REAL Change” that is “Not REAL” after all.
John,
Answer to your rhetorical question: Never. The broadcast media has a vested interest in this administration and will continue to present the left spin.
So, it wasn’t under the Bush administration whent the meltdown occurred?
Republicans and an army of lobbyists for banks and Wall Street firms didn’t fight for months to weaken and delay reforms? It won’t affect their pocket books?
The battle will not continue for months to come in the slower-moving Senate, which is expected to push for more modest legislation?
How is this comentary when it’s reported?
“Faced with a recession and multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts of firms such as AIG and Citigroup Inc stemming from the Bush administration, President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats are vigorously pushing for change”
The above quote should have also been included to prove the “tone”.
According to Reuters (aka state-run media), it’s the Republicans and “the army of lobbyists for banks and Wall Street firms” that are the villians. The Democrats and Obama are our saviors. (Although they started this whole thing by “encouraging” banks to make risky loans all in the name of social/economic justice.)
Does your name contain one or two l’s?
That’s about how much you understand about how all of this started Alllllllllan. See LEM’s comments for the concise explanation.
We expect this kind of yellow journalism from Reuters and have come to expect it to be parroted by the IJ, but IJ really should have enough respect for themselves and us to pick someone else’s version to share.
Ok, I understand where one would interpret that as a point of view or even slanted. But the fact still remains that this did happen while on Bush’s watch, the Fed did deregulate, AIG and the banks were bailed out, we are in a bad recession and Obama’s campaign slogan was about “change”.
Now, the banks and other financial institutions chose to do these risky loans and credit default swaps and failed because of it. Yes, they were encouraged to do these loans but didn’t have to.
Berkshire Hathaway wasn’t involved and they are trading at $99k a share.
I know how all of this started. In a nutshell:
•The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
•Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
•Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
•Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
•The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
•Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
•Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
•Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
•The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
•An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
•Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
The first one to go was Beher Sterns back in March of 08. It took only 7 days.
The rest is history.
Want real change? Enact the FAIR Tax, require property ownership to vote, term limits, secure the borders, and bring our troops home. Why hasn’t this been done? Re-election & control. Corruption in our system? Maybe.
The only change I’ve seen is who’s pockets are getting lined…. Otherwise its politics worse than usual!
Change, what is going to be left when Obama is done robbing the nation. We will be lucky to have two pennies left to rub together.
Alan,
Your view is slightly skewed. You almost have it.
Similar to the republican attempt at blocking healthcare, the democrats blocked the reform which would have adverted this crises. In 2003 Bush made comment of the needed reform. In 2005 McCain started a movement to get changes made which would have stopped this situation. Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and a few other democrats lead the front against it, but every single democrat in office stood united against it. The bill never went to the final floor. Bush’s liability in this economic crises is null and void. He made every attempt to change it, along with the republican congress of 2005. The democrats currently hold a larger majority than republicans did in 2005, and they still are having troubles passing a healthcare bill.
So, actually the Bush administration had nothing to do with the economic collapse. They happened to be in office when it happened and couldn’t change it.
The reason this article is not a proper objective article, is like many left or elitist articles, they used the facts in a way which put an extremely left leaning argument in their favor while attempting to sound unbiased based on twisted facts. It was indeed very poorly written.
Chris, you are totally correct.
Everyone knows that facts have a liberal bias.
How can you not see that, Allan?
“The reason this article is not a proper objective article, is like many left or elitist articles, they used the facts in a way which put an extremely left leaning argument in their favor while attempting to sound unbiased based on twisted facts.”
Are you kidding me? You’re going to tell me that all right-wing reporting is completely unbiased and doesn’t include skewed facts? Huh…I guess I can start watching the Fox network again after all…
I wish you would.
Unbiased observer & Chris – You can search the Fact Check.org, PBS Frontine, Wall Street Journal Wikipedia or any other source and they all pretty much the same thing.
I tried posting the links but for some reason this site will not allow it.
Nice post, although it doesn’t look like an official press release. I did find this article on the CBOE news site. IT give a unique perspective from the CBOE chairman about regulating OTC derivative markets.
http://cboenews.com/9-29-2009/index.php
Hope you like it!
Robert
CBOE Advocate
First I’ll direct Optimist: If you keep up with the insulting people making the Fox news assumption, every time they have facts that disagree with a mostly leftist media, then I will have to disregard any of your arguments as childish jibber jabber. Don’t make assumptions on where my facts come from. Disprove them if you wish, but you can’t because they are true. I don’t feel the need to argue with you.
Alan,
The reasoning behind why your comment is true about your fact sources is clear: Any mainstream sites based on facts are written by either an elitest, a college grad in liberal arts, journalist, or science studies, which maintains a 60-70% democrat affiliation.
I do wish you would put together the facts on your own rather than relying on outside sources to compile it for you. Anyone can put together numbers.
If those sites missed the following facts then your sites are no longer valid arguments: In 2003 the NY times wrote an article semi criticizing Bush for his inteneded financial over haul. He was called the man of the year due to his intent of changes. In 2005 3 republicans including John McCain started a regulation act which all democrats kept off floor in a partyline effort and all republicans votoed to persue. Prove that statement wrong, and your facts are correct. You have as of yet disregarded the statements I have made.
I only directed one of your comments, which is the only one linked to the Bush administration: You claimed he failed to intervene. He did not fail to intervene. Democrats blocked his intervention.
So, where do you get your information and facts from then? If it is not news sources or the like then where? A palm reader?
So I guess what you and a lot of other people on here are saying is if it doesn’t agree with you, then it is all false and leftist/liberal garbage?
So, then sources like The Wall Street Journal and Fact Check.org are just “mainstream sites based on facts are written by either an elitest, a college grad in liberal arts, journalist, or science studies, which maintains a 60-70% democrat affiliation.”
Ok buddy. Whatever you say. *wink*
No, I’m saying unless a source provides a full picture including the possibility of what I just stated (rather than an obvious clear left leaning agenda in this one, which left it out) Then it is a leftist written article. Though what I wrote is not a “possibility”. It’s even on tape.
By the way: The childish wink, along with missing my concepts proves your debating skills are amateur.
Disprove my statement. The burden of proof (look it up) is on you. My facts I have researched for over year. Some facts are facts. Your facts were true, but specifically and intentionally left out that factually, The dems partyline blocked regulation. Disprove that statement. The republicans all tried to pass it. Disprove that statement.
Seeing as you can’t, I’ll just leave, and you have lost the debate.
*bows* Nice debate Alan, I enjoyed it.
Oh, were not done yet. You still never stated where you get your “material” from.
I’ve stated several credible sources of news and info that are not disputed except by you and ones who seem to have an ideology and no neutrality.
So, again, what you are saying is that all these organizations where people get news and info are skewed and slanted unless they are in agreement with you and the like? Well, I guess than all of them are slanted being they pretty much all say the same thing.
I mean even Wikipedia of all places has an agenda?
Right, exactly. The investment firms and banks on Wall Street were big into sub prime loans and credit default swaps.
Thats why this regulation is going into effect.
I absolutely agree Allen. All news sources have a viewpoint. In that vein, why is it so hard to admit that this one little news story has that bias? If you look at it the story has a bias. I would like to see a little less posting of press releases of any kind in IJ an more actual fact reporting.
For me, its not a matter of it having bias, its that it is so overt and in your face about how bias it is. People base their political views based upon their world view, experiance, and certain facts that they perseave, whereas facts don’t have a political bias
From what I’ve been hearing, if an individual doesn’t like a particular story, it’s automaticaly biased no matter what. All because it doesn’t fit into their agenda. I’ve seen numerous articles posted, such as this one, and everyone was screaming liberal this and liberal that when it was just a story that was reported on. Thats it, no more – no less.’
I’ll bet anyone when Reuters, AP or anyone else breaks a story that is seen as conservative, the conservative base will praise it. But when it doesn’t fit their agenda, they are all over it like a pit bull foaming at the mouth.
When the story broke about the e-mails that were hacked on climate change, I don’t think the liberal base was attacking the source of which it was reported on. They just defended what they believed in regarding climate change.
Now, back to the subject. After the whole financial meltdown, do you really think that we need safeguards put in place from something like this ever happening again? If not, please explain why?
So, Insurance Journal just posted todays headlines with the first one regarding the Medicare expansion not surviving in the Senate.
Where’s the bias in that reporting? I didn’t see anything demonizing Joe Lieberman or Republicans.
Everyone is quick to blame big business for “letting the financial meltdown happen”. What about those people that when and got those loans in the first place that knew darn well that they couldn’t afford it? Its the mentaility of “I deserve everything handed to me”. “I deserve to own a house even though I can not afford it and have not worked for it”. And if the banks desided to not loan out the money to these high risk people, I can see the media saying “The average American can’t get a loan for a house because the greedy banks want to hold onto YOUR money!”
I give up Allen. You are going way off in the distance on this one. You have taken a simple comment on fact based reporting and turned it into a political grandstanding event. Liberal or conservative, fact based reporting should be the only goal of this journal. They should post disclaimers if they are going to just reprint press releases. This has nothing to do with your political side. My new movement is STOP THE BLATHER! You first.
Well, the fact that this article demonizes the Repbublican party by basicly comparing them to an “Army” and thus insinuates that they are common thugs, whereas the other article does not bash the Democratic party one bit. THATS why I consider this article commentary and not news.
“You have taken a simple comment on fact based reporting and turned it into a political grandstanding event.”
That’s what I said in my earlier posts yesterday regarding the people posting how biased this article is.
You’re correct when saying “Liberal or conservative, fact based reporting should be the only goal of this journal”.
And it is.
TX Agentman – Your reply is not what I was asking. I’ve already addressed those points you mentioned and agree with you on those points.
My question is after the whole financial meltdown, do you really think that we need safeguards put in place from something like this ever happening again? If not, please explain why?
Well, I don’t have all the facts, but “safeguards” is such an ambigous word. Yes, the system is broken, but its a matter of what caused it to break. Was it corporate greed that we keep hearing from the media? Or is it society’s greed and need for instant gratification? If it is just corporate greed, then yes, some safeguards should be put in place. Now if the coroperate business gave all those loans out because if they didn’t another one would down the street, and it was a case of survivial, then I do not blame the companies for that.
So, here is why I blame socity first. There were just too many people getting loans for homes that knew darn well they couldn’t afford it. If it was losing their job because of sickness or disablement, there wouldn’t have been a problem or a financial crisis because there wouldnt be enough people effected that would hurt the economy. It was the millions of people that stopped paying their loans. Don’t you hate it when someone doesn’t keep a promise to you? I know I do, and thats exactly what happened here.
Irregardles of what caused it to meltdown there has to be safeguards in place so it doesn’t happen again.
There’s plenty of blame to go around as to what led up to it. But the root of it all was Wall Street greed and the consumers who fuled it.
We need to know what caused it in order to prevent it. Putting safeguards on something before you know that it is what caused the problem is not effcient.
Example: You accidently hit someone in your car. Instead of finding out what caused it, you think “Well, if there wasn’t a gas pedal, I wouldn’t have accelerated and hit that person, so lets remove the accelerator” Never mind the fact that it then impeds your ability to drive effectivly.
You completely ignored the last part of my post. Who says that the “greedy corporations” gave out all those loans to people that couldn’t afford it? It makes not sense whatso ever that they would willing do that. Think about it. Would you loan $5k to someone that you thought would not or could not pay you back? No, because you would then be out of money. It makes no fiscal sense. That is why I think its socity’s fault and its instant gratification demands. “I deserve a house even though I have not worked to earn it, nor can I afford it”
Umm, they did man. It doesn’t make any sense fiscally but the lenders did it anyways. Google it.
I’m not going to sit here and type out a lengthy step by step lesson plan on the issue cuz, I have other sh*t to do. But, in a nutshell, lenders offered more and more loans to higher-risk borrowers, including illegal immigrants. The lenders never used to do this and changed their practices dramitically when significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002-2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles.
Go to Wikipedia or some other credible source and read about it.
If I remember corretly, the government MADE the banks make those loans to the high risk borrowers.
Your kidding about Wiki being a crediable source for information, right?
No they didn’t. They were encouraged but they didn’t have to. There are a number of firms and banks that didn’t and survived.
What’s wrong with Wikipedia? Isn’t like an encyclopedia online? Please explain.
I’m curious where you get your info from?
No, Wiki can be edited by ANYONE, and thus is not a reliabile source of information.
I could be wrong about companies being forced to give out the loans, but I think it was a “compete or die” situation. if they didn’t sell it, someone down the street would. But the fact of the matter is, if the majority of people didn’t have the instant gradtification mentaility, there wouldnt be a need for them to have given those loans in the first place. Many of those people took those loans knowing full well they could not afford it. Now if they lost their job due to illness, then I completely understand and empathize with them, but not to the people that had it in their head that society owed them a house even though they did nothing to earn it.
Ok, I’ll give you that Wikipedia can be edited, I don’t know why, but ok. I’ll give you that. Although they do have editing practices in place and substandard or disputed information is subject to removal. Anyways, there are a lot of other reports from all different places that pretty much all say the same thing. You’ll need to do your own research.
And if you would have read it, it’s not one sided/one blames all. It’s a 360 view.
And the consumers who purchased the sub primes are to blame as well. But if you don’t have someone dangling the carrot in front of the rabbit, no one would have bit. (Preditory Lending).
Before I got married to my wife, she was looking to buy in 04 and 05, the height of the market. She had $160k to put down and excellent credit with over a 750 score. Country Wide still wanted her to do an ARM or an intrest only loan. Her credit union gave her some good terms on a standard 30yr fixed (prime loan). But decided to wait as the housing prices were just to much.
And yes, you are wrong on lenders being forced by the government to sell sub prime loans to people who didn’t qualify. My credit union and my wifes credit union did participate in sub prime lending practices and are doing just fine.
I will have to verify that the corporations were not forced to give out the high risk loans. From what I have heard, they had to, but that is just hearsay. But you can’t tell me that if the banks denied all those high risk borrowers, that they still wouldn’t get negitive press. “The common man can’t get a loan to get a house?! Thats just big business trying to keep the middle class American down!” I had to restrain myself when I heard a story on the news about “how evil the banks were because they are charging overdraft fees”. And the news made them seem like the corporations were just trying to bleed everyone of their customers dry. They completely ignored the fact that the customers were the ones overdrafting their account. Here’s a thought, don’t overdraft your account, and you will not get charged an over draft fee! I’m only 24 but I understand that. But I am very tired of the news bashing big business all the time, and ignoring socitiey’s personal responsiblity.
OK!