jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (50 posts)

Goldman Sachs Hearing - What an Eye Opener! Our Senators are Dummies!

  1. JWestCattle profile image59
    JWestCattleposted 6 years ago

    Geez, Sen. McCaskell is an utter blond dunderhead, and almost all of them have shown their clear ignorance and clear need to use this whole farce for political posturings.  Disgusting.

    What are the qualifications for committee assignments?  Apparently none! And we trust these people to analyze and pass legislation that impacts our lives? Frightening.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I thought McAskill acquitted herself quite well. She's quite knowledgeable about sports betting and bookmaking which is an apt analogy for what Goldmine Sucks was engaged in with its "synthetic CDOs."

      1. JWestCattle profile image59
        JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm afraid I have to disagree, McCaskill was in my opinion an embarrassment to the U.S. Senate and to intelligent women everywhere, particularly blonds, several times over, and certainly to herself. She clearly had no grasp of the basic premises of investing, market-making, underwriting, or simple risk, or even of the simple fact that there is always a buyer or a seller with a different opinion.

        If it was all a charade to enable her to make dumbstruck generalities, then I guess she is a pretty smart gal.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Her questioning was more to the point than McCain's.

          1. JWestCattle profile image59
            JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't hear McCain's questions, maybe the whole hearing is out there on youtube, I'll check.  Regardless, McCaskill was wholly unimpressive and embarrassing, period.  And if to the point you mean full of innuendo and moralizing on the federal dime and sucking up to some of the GS head 'legal' thieves like she's a good mama, no doubt McCain was not as accomplished or effective in his questions.

    2. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh yes it's quite a dog and pony show! Congress is working with and has the support of Goldman on their reform bill... Thank God, now I'll sleep better at night knowing congress is watching out for my interests!

      1. JWestCattle profile image59
        JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, this highly functional and honorable Congress is looking out for our best interests!  It chokes me up to even pretend to think that.  smile

    3. 70
      logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Extremely!
      Those guys and gals don't have the brains to pour poop out of a boot!

  2. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Yeah--I always get the exact opposite feeling when I watch a hearing...like how smart and knowledgeable the members of the House or Senate are!
    It's the ones being grilled who look not-so-bright!

    I don't know.
    I can't recall.
    What was the question?
    Huh?
    Duh?
    You mean stealing is not OK?
    You mean lying is not OK?
    You mean I owe something to the people who's money I take?
    ahahaha....can you say squirm?

    I especially liked how they were during the TARP hearings...man, you heard some truth then! Marcy Kaptur was phenomenal. And Kucinich as usual. And Issa was great back then too, although now he's drinking the neo-con blood-colored kool-aide.

    We have a lot to be proud of in our gvt.

  3. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    ?  are you defending those monkeys who played the American public like a game, win or lose?

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, I'm defending the members of the house and senate!

      Even the ones I don't like.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I was questioning this thread, not your post.
        why can't people just look at a situation without their blue or red tinted glasses on?

        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Honest mistake elle, since your post came right after, and it looked like you were questioning me.
          And you really do have to take sides....because these are not honest real people we are dealing with, They are an intelligence psy-op.

        2. JWestCattle profile image59
          JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This isn't about red or blue glasses.  No matter your political leanings, we all surely would like to think that at the very least the chosen ones for committees and hearings have half an idea and understanding of the subject matter.  Clearly, they do not.  These same elected officials are presumed capable of reading and understanding legislation, clearly they are not. 

          A key question asked late in the day of the blessed head of Goldman Sachs was why the emails of these two particular ex-employees were chosen out of a mountain of emails to be released to the media, and the point clearly made that the Committee had released NOTHING to the media, so the emails came straight from Goldman. 

          The man craw-fished the length of the Sabine River -- because there is no good answer.  Care to ask yourself why?

    2. Friendlyword profile image60
      Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      She meant JwestCattle defending the Goldman Sachs Crooks.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        exactly, and I can't understand how the original poster can be taken seriously when she brings the color of a senators hair into the discussion. no further comment from me on this thread.

        1. JWestCattle profile image59
          JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, am I hair color profiling? LOL  If you have no opinion or insight into the capabilities of our Senatorial committee to do the job they've been assigned.....then I certainly understand your wish to not contribute to this thread.  It has been rather interesting that most haven't dared to even comment in that regard.

          Nonetheless, IMO it is truly frightening to think of these 'dunderheads' making decisions about our future, Republican or Democrat, being expected to be capable of reading and understanding complex issues in 1200 plus page bills, or at the least capable of hiring honest 3rd party analysis and opinion of what they are supposed to understand.

      2. JWestCattle profile image59
        JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not defending Goldman Sachs at all.  It is quite interesting to see that most seem incapable of realizing two employees have been singled out as scapegoats, and quite timely scapegoats. Deliberate Ignorance will prove in the long run to be quite lacking in bliss.

        1. Friendlyword profile image60
          Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Even ignorant people are going to realize that not 2 people; but WALL STREET in general, played the public for fools. (If they were stupid enough to buy bad stock, we would sell it to them) That's the philosophy Wall Street had. 

          Forget that Wall Street almost destroyed this Country. They now claim we are all too stupid to understand they should have destroyed this Country. The old lady that lost her retirement and has to work a minimum wage job to survive the rest of her life; well, she's just don't understand the way things works.

          Who would defend these people?

          1. JWestCattle profile image59
            JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That sounds a bit ridonkulious...if just Wall Street destroyed this country, someone's head would already be on the block, instead, since Wall Street, Congress and the White House are intertwined, Americans are still on the block and their necks can't be stretched much further, as you noted many many lost their savings and retirements.

            1. Friendlyword profile image60
              Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It's all over his face at the hearing.  He is too rich, and too powerful for anyone to touch.  Why do you think he sat there, bored out of his mind with these little people he had to explain things to that was way over their little heads. Got to give it to him...he never looked down at his watch in boredom.

  4. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    I'm sleeping better at night since Jan of 08.
    Like a baby actually...
    Only the nightmare rumblings of the Repubs gets through anymore...instead of the cold grip stanglehold they used to have.

    Your repubs are blocking reform.
    Your repubs are blocking anything good and valuable.
    Forunately, your repubs are toast. Fried. ssssssssizzzzle, like that egg in that commercial; this is your brain on drugs.

    melting like the wicked witch, after having the water of truth poured on them.

    Levin: "You sold a s**t product, didn't that concern you?"   
    Golden Boy of Wall Street: "Uh Duh Um Err Ah Uh Uh Uh Uh....."

    Yeah yeah we know...they did nothing wrong. Just like the last administration. Nothing wrong.
    Obama and the Dems orchestrated this Wall Steet boondoggle in february....started the wars, and were in charge when 9/11 happened. As a matter of fact, before Obama was sworn in, Wall Street operated like Angels.

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Tell it to your man Obama who has more than his fair share of ex Goldman employees as ad visors, not to mention their huge investment in a company Obama helped establish Chicago Climate Exchange, that will get a big piece of the estimated 10 trillion dollar market in carbon credits, basically a derivative just like the mortgage backed credit default swaps were. Oh and Obama's buddy Al Gore is another big investor.

      Gee, I wonder why Obama REALLY wants to push cap and trade? Hmmmm...no, no corruption there!

    2. JOE BARNETT profile image60
      JOE BARNETTposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      chris - even after all this , it's on tv for all to see now there is no doubt. we all can see the reason for all the hoopla was to divert attention away from them. they thought if they said Obamas daddy was a mulim we wouldn't notice that we were on the brink of financial extinction. they thought if they said socialism loud enough no one would notice that they were loosing their house because they lost their job. i notice they are all quiet now but the funny thing is . . . come election time they will vote the same again. what is it that you call a person that continues to do the same thing while trying to get a different result? . . .insane!

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        YES! maybe that was it all along...diversion.
        Because they go out there and say things they KNOW are not true...
        Wouldn't you think that would embarrass them?

        Just who are they working for that they would debase their integrity like that?

  5. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Kind of makes you wonder why his Fed went after them doesn't it?
    Kind of makes you wonder why he would bite the hand that fed him doesn't it?
    Maybe cause they got away with such murder for so long, it was obscene. And no amount of back-scratching could cover this up.
    After all, it was free-for-all free market for a decade. And Bushs's SEC seemed to look the other way. Plausible deniability...HUH? Not MY fault.

    And did it ever occur to you that maybe some people really do care about which they speak, regardless of the dirty-dealings? I mean, Gore has been writing about the planetary crisis since the 70"s!!
    Earth in Balance...ring a bell?
    Either we hand gobs of money to people who pollute the planet and kill things, or we hand gobs of money to people who will do less damage.

    I pick less damage...unless there is another choice?

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously you don't have any knowledge on carbon cap and trade or how it "works". I urge you to do your own research as anything I say will be rejected by you.

    2. TheSituation profile image78
      TheSituationposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      How much Kool-Aid do you drink exactly?

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not the Blood Red that's for sure.

  6. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    That is true...I do not see you as an honest broker..you pick the side of people I consider to be wrong.
    But I don't insult your sanity, as you do mine. Just something to keep in mind.

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh really?



      But that's okay, I can take it. I know it isn't personal, just passionate.

  7. Daniel Carter profile image91
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    It has occurred to me more than once that on a more personal basis, if one were defrauded such as the American people have been, they could sue for damages and probably win based on clear admission to guilt and plenty of documented evidence.

    It begs the question of why haven't the American people filed a class action suit against the big money machines who ruined our ability to afford housing and support ourselves. It would certainly stop the big bonus payouts which SCREAM arrogance, greed and elitism in the face of Americans who are jobless and still losing their homes.

  8. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Not you! The People pushing their agenda in the media...talk, fox, etc. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
    This is clearly an op...and started in 1991-2 or there abouts, when Russshhhhh all of a sudden appeared and was everywhere.

    Same company reps Beck.
    YOU do the research!

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I wouldn't say it's clearly an "op". What I would say is a very rich conservative Rupert Murdoch, saw an opportunity to fill a niche in a market that wasn't being served. His bet turned out to be a good one and he is enjoying the benefits of his vision.

      If you want to talk "ops" then you might want to look at Obama's press secretary and how the Obama administration handles the press and controls his message. Obama has not had a formal press conference in 10 months, longer than any president in history. Gibbs deals solely with only a few of the press corps mostly the NY Times. Though Obama has given more one on one interviews, doing so allows him to control his message, a good example of this is the Bret Baier interview where Obama used stall tactic to avoid answering questions. Many in the white house press corps are complaining that they are being shut out. This handling of the press and of Obama's message is purposeful and a well thought out strategy that simply can't be ignored.

  9. 60
    Patriot 40posted 6 years ago

    HE IS AN EVIL, CONIVING, CRIMINAL THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT BEHIND BARS FOR LIFE.

    1. Friendlyword profile image60
      Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And he laughs out loud...

  10. earnestshub profile image86
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    I find it interesting that most Americans still don't know where these greedy crooks got their money from or how they got it for that matter.
    Gamblers, with your money.
    Lock em up for 10 years or so. Give them time to think about it.
    Glad to see them in the gun finally.

  11. 0
    chasingcarsposted 6 years ago

    Wasn't the hearing about Goldman Sach's behavior and not about congress's behavior?  I would have been upset, too, if I had to question these arrogant people who were all but doing crossword puzzles while they were being questioned.
       Accusing the Dems of playing politics is hypocritical when you see McCain questioning these people while he is voting in a GOP block to avoid even bringing the question of financial reform for debate just to try to make the Dems look bad.  If the GOP were serious about financial reform, they would have welcomed the debate.  Voters are waking up to this tired old shell game.  Not everyone in this country is stupid.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree to a certain extent that the GOP with its blocking anything proposed by the Democrats does have an air  of agenda to it.

      The problem is that the "WHOLE" system is corrupt and that trying to use these slime bags to clean it up is counter productive.  It is like sticking your hand in a big pile of stinking crap and expecting to pull a beautiful sweet smelling rose out of it.

      While many of the ideas being offered have great promise the slime bags can't let it go by without getting their dirt on it to gain an advantage.

      I think that there needs to be a movement that comes from the people that is well intentioned and has a solid ideology based on democracy for there to be any real change.  The times for using the system to effect change are long gone because the gang on the hill is only interested in their own interests of re-election and self advancement and have spent a great deal of time and money to cement it into place.

      "I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty."
      Thomas Jefferson

    2. JWestCattle profile image59
      JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sure the hearing was about Goldman, but the Senators have to make it about themselves and sound bites as well, and they did so quite poorly for the most part, as well as some showing their lack of understanding of basic accounting principles, much less anything else to qualify them to be on this committee.

      We pay these yahoo's a lot of money, the least they could do is send committee members back to school to learn the basics of the subject matter they are charged with debating and legislating and holding hearings about. 

      These same people can't possibly understand the ramifications what's in the Financial Reform package.  We need financial reform, mostly tightening of lending standards for ALL loans,  government and private IMO -- but what else is in the bill?  We won't know if it's shoved through Congress with a lot of rhetoric keying in on a few points that sound good, and ignoring whatever else is there that may actually hurt us.

  12. 0
    Will Bensonposted 6 years ago

    Our financial mess was not caused by a few skunks at G-S or by the ignorance of some elected reps. Where was our SEC and these representatives when this mess spiraled out of control?

    Consider...huge campaign donations are dumped into a political system so now it has gotten too expensive for candidates to succeed without these "donations." The rules get relaxed, the SEC gets underfunded (to the point of being barely effective) and Wall St. is left to police itself, using it's innate honesty, I suppose.

    Grandstanding on TV and finger pointing is a smokescreen hiding the most needed reform --Campaign Finance Reform.

    Follow the money.

    - My thoughts.

  13. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Levin's panel sheds light on collapse
    Subcommittee work to shape new laws


    WASHINGTON -- A day after an 11-hour hearing, Sen. Carl Levin still couldn't believe what he heard from Goldman Sachs executives about betting on a mortgage market collapse while selling investors on its continued rise.

    Click Here

    Many others still can't believe the 75-year-old Democrat would be driven to quote a Goldman e-mail using an expletive to describe a mortgage offer a dozen times.

    But Levin made no apologies Wednesday, saying the "very colorful" term was necessary to illustrate the gulf between what Goldman was telling clients and what it was saying privately.

    "They don't understand the ethical problems," he told the Free Press. Levin's hearing, the fourth in a series on the financial crisis, has given fresh fuel to the push for a Wall Street reform bill on the Senate floor.

    "There not only was a collapse of a housing market," Levin said on the Senate floor. "There was a collapse of values. And extreme greed is the thread that connects these events."
    Hearing yields disbelief

    Working quietly, Levin's permanent subcommittee on investigations has produced far more insights into the financial crisis and credit market collapse than other panels charged with similar investigations.

    The Wall Street executives who testified Tuesday at Levin's hearing on the financial crisis were each provided a microphone, water and 6-inch-thick binders -- each filled with several hundred pages of often embarrassing e-mails. Those binders were the results of 15 months of digging by Levin's committee staff, which has found more than a million pages of documents and conducted more than 100 interviews and depositions.

    As with the panel's prior probes into Enron's collapse, credit card abuses and tax loopholes, its work paves the way for changes that Levin and other lawmakers can write into law covering Wall Street.

    Under the Wall Street reform bill on the Senate floor, traditional banks would face tougher rules around "proprietary trading" -- deals done for the bank's balance sheet rather than for clients. Levin wants to see those same rules apply to investment firms.

    "We're going to end the situation where financial institutions can produce the kind of recession we're in and the foreclosure situation," Levin said.

    Click Here

    Unlike much of what the Senate does lately, there's little partisan divide among the committee, as Democrats and Republicans eagerly tag-teamed Goldman executives about the firm's behavior. And it has legal muscle with the power to issue subpoenas, which Levin said he would have used had six Goldman Sachs executives not agreed to testify voluntarily.

    Before the 11-hour Goldman grind, Levin had overseen three other hearings this month. The first highlighted how Washington Mutual, the nation's largest failed bank, collapsed under bad mortgage loans often built to fail. The second produced evidence that the nation's top banking regulators knew of the growing risks from such loans, but stayed on the sidelines bickering among themselves.

    The third hearing highlighted the conflicts among credit rating agencies, which gave top grades to mortgage-backed debt investments despite internal misgivings.

    Goldman Sachs executives defended their actions. After the hearing Tuesday, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein left a voice-mail message for the firm's employees, calling the questioning "rigorous," and saying he tried to convey the "seriousness with which we adhere to the rules and regulations that govern our business."

    As for the scatological adjectives forever preserved on the Internet, Levin said he's most astonished that Goldman's main response was to wish the term hadn't been preserved in an e-mail.

    "I was just quoting," Levin said. "I hope people don't get that confused. It makes a difference to my family."

    Contact JUSTIN HYDE: 202-906-8204. Bloomberg News contributed.

    "We're going to end the situation where financial institutions can produce the kind of recession we're in and the foreclosure situation," Levin said.

    Click Here

    Unlike much of what the Senate does lately, there's little partisan divide among the committee, as Democrats and Republicans eagerly tag-teamed Goldman executives about the firm's behavior. And it has legal muscle with the power to issue subpoenas, which Levin said he would have used had six Goldman Sachs executives not agreed to testify voluntarily.

    Before the 11-hour Goldman grind, Levin had overseen three other hearings this month. The first highlighted how Washington Mutual, the nation's largest failed bank, collapsed under bad mortgage loans often built to fail. The second produced evidence that the nation's top banking regulators knew of the growing risks from such loans, but stayed on the sidelines bickering among themselves.

    The third hearing highlighted the conflicts among credit rating agencies, which gave top grades to mortgage-backed debt investments despite internal misgivings.

    Goldman Sachs executives defended their actions. After the hearing Tuesday, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein left a voice-mail message for the firm's employees, calling the questioning "rigorous," and saying he tried to convey the "seriousness with which we adhere to the rules and regulations that govern our business."

    As for the scatological adjectives forever preserved on the Internet, Levin said he's most astonished that Goldman's main response was to wish the term hadn't been preserved in an e-mail.

    "I was just quoting," Levin said. "I hope people don't get that confused. It makes a difference to my family."

    Contact JUSTIN HYDE: 202-906-8204. Bloomberg News contributed.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20100429/B … pdates_3pm

    1. Doug Hughes profile image59
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Introducing a factual account of the antics of GS that contributed to  the Wall Street colapse... Facts - What a novel idea.

      It'll never catch on.

      1. JWestCattle profile image59
        JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Novel - a work of fiction with a story line. The current story line in this novel is that investment bankers like Goldman Sachs are responsible for the financial collapse, that they are personally responsible for the 11 million plus unemployed.

        That's the story line, it's consistent over the last 2 days on all fronts.  The head of the AFL-CIO made a fool of himself on CNBC today saying exactly the same thing, even those NBC broadcasters could not hide their incredulity at the outrageousness of the charge.

        Apparently no one can quite recall the greed that led regular people to speculate in the real estate market, sign on for loans that had no hope in hell of paying back unless the real estate market continued to rise in value.  They gambled, they lost, and we as a country lost.  The real criminals are whomever was responsible for the perpetuation of the rise in real estate values, but then we would need an Oz to pin that on some one or entity, certainly we wouldn't blame it on- a from the government housing loan programs and on up loosening of credit standards and repeal of prior regulatory laws and setting an example of laxity.

        Without a doubt those entities charged with making a market for mortgaged backed securities did their job, with the government's blessing.  MBS are not new, they've been around since well before the last S&L crisis. 

        The laxity of law and the promotion of greed led to the financial collapse. Our government is as much a villain as any other entity or group, including the people who took on loans they couldn't understand, and didn't care to understand as long as they got the house while credit was easy, way too easy. 

        And the rest of us have paid dearly for that greed, our lives have been forever changed.  Ask yourselves why it takes a Bible to establish financial reform.  Greed is still at work.  Another hubber posted a quote from Thomas Jefferson .....everyone would do well to think about that quote long and hard and demand more from their elected officials, whether Democrat or Republican.

      2. JON EWALL profile image46
        JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hubbers
        dog and pony show cover up
        The players should be  Goldman Sachs (front lines ) Fannie mae ,Senator Dodd,congressman Frank and Frank Raines, Obama , Jarret and the Joyce foundation, Sachs employees in our government

        If you missed the 4/29/10 Glen Beck show ON Fox News cable  today ,the expose got much bigger. Urgent Viewing for all Huber's interested in finding the truth of who is running the country and why. The big question really is why has the mainstream media been so silent on what's happening in Washington.

        Hi Jinks for once check Beck this week. the red phone ( white house ) has not rung. The man I believe is fearful for his life after this weeks shows.

        Corruption in our Government UNCUT AND UNCENSERED

  14. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Oh give me a break!
    CRA was a good idea and a necessary one. Those banks had been red-lining forever. CRA was long overdue!
    And Fanni Mae and Freddie may have encouraged loans, but they are not the ones who told the bank lenders to SWINDLE people! Those con artists made more mon ey on sub-prime loans, so they told people they needed them, when they didn't! Swindlers and con artists taking advantage of working people.
    And the real budget-busters were the people who used the loans for second homes, and people trying to make a profit by buying homes and re-selling them. Not first-time home buyers.
    And look at this from wiki:
    "many others dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman states that the notion "has been refuted up, down, and sideways." He also noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA. According to San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim. In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event. Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation, Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.
    Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight". According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis. A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans. Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures."

    And here's the real kicker:
    "However, subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN."

    Get that? ACORN was warning about sub-prime loans! And who is it that brought ACORN down???
    Why, it was Glenn Beck and his merry band of corporate hacktors!

    So you see....CRA was not the problem, regulated banks were not as reckless as the free-market ones, and  ACORN tried to stop the problem. That is the truth.

    Glenn Beck is a shill working for the big business/neo-con agenda.
    Anything he says you can be sure the opposite is true.
    He throws out innocents to take the fall for the guilty ones.
    He's an Intelligence psy-op. Actor for money.
    imo

    1. JON EWALL profile image46
      JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lovemychris
      you say
      So you see....CRA was not the problem, regulated banks were not as reckless as the free-market ones, and  ACORN tried to stop the problem. That is the truth

      i say
      Talk to the banks in Chicago and other cities who Acorn intimidated and coerced in making bad loans based on the CRA laws.
      All those you referred to in your hub are biased and liberal reporters.
      i suggest you attempt to check other sources for intellectual and factual information.
      Fannie and Freddie under the direction of Frank Raines pushed loans that were going to fail. The conspiracy lies in our government agencies not doing their jobs in correcting the problems, Goldman Sachs and the relatioships of members of Congress.
      Sorry to say that you need to be open minded when collecting political biased information.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If you need an open mind and want to be politically un-biased, what are you doing watching Glenn Beck?
        He's completely in the pocket of the neo-cons.
        Bad for America. Bad for the world.

  15. JWestCattle profile image59
    JWestCattleposted 6 years ago

    "About Conspiracy and the NWO

    The unholy trinity, ie. the IMF, BIS and World Bank, are under the control of the private central banks, of which the Federal Reserve of the United States is most influential. The conspiracy is that the central banks, under the watch of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), allowed Basel 2 and allowed off balance sheet banking. I believe that the central banks knew exactly what would happen. I don't believe every detail of every conspiracy, just that the central banks had four pillars of conspiracy, that were no doubt set as policy prior to the bubble. The bubble followed, then the crash, then the bailouts, now the austerity.

    The Four Pillars of the NWO conspiracy which were also used against Japan:

        1. Bubble Technology/Bubble Real Estate

        2.. Crash

        3. Bailouts

        4. Austerity

    Just keep these in mind as you ponder the ongoing activities in the planned NWO, these are not free market actions but rather the actions of capital allocation and political power from the top, the elite, the amoral and the dangerous."

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Go-to-hell-IMF- … -increases

  16. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    They did the same thing to Argentina in the 90's. Great video:

    Argentina's Economic Collapse - Part 1 of 12
    7 min - Jul 10, 2008
    www.youtube.com

    (I could swear they say in that video that HW Bush sold the American people off... as the next cheap-labor force for international corporations)

 
working