Citizen's Arrests of Capitalist Pigs and CEO's Who Roam Free

[Katzndogz]

Let me see if I've got this right. John Stumpf should be arrested because his bank was essentially forced to issue mortgages to people without the means to make the payments, refused to issue mortgages to other people who didn't qualify even under ridiculously relaxed guidelines and foreclosed on people that didn't pay their obligations.
Yeah. OK Dainty. Whatever you say.

Um, Ernie, no one forced ANYONE to make loans to people who couldn't afford them.

the CRA outlawed "Redlining" of neighborhoods, not rejecting individuals.

The reason the banks issued these mortgages is that they figured it was a no-lose deal.

If they foreclosed on Johnny Foodstamp, the house was worth more than the mortgage, and they'd more than get their money back by reselling it.

Then they took that mortgage and sold it as an "investment", overstating its value.

That was the criminal part of what was done. And they've have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for the meddling kids pointing out the runaway inflation of property values wasn't actually based on anything.

It's hard to understand how false your beliefs are. You really need to educate yourself. Your lack of knowledge is so monumental, it can't be addressed in a post. It takes an entire course.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let me see if I've got this right. John Stumpf should be arrested because his bank was essentially forced to issue mortgages to people without the means to make the payments, refused to issue mortgages to other people who didn't qualify even under ridiculously relaxed guidelines and foreclosed on people that didn't pay their obligations.
Yeah. OK Dainty. Whatever you say.

Um, Ernie, no one forced ANYONE to make loans to people who couldn't afford them.

the CRA outlawed "Redlining" of neighborhoods, not rejecting individuals.

The reason the banks issued these mortgages is that they figured it was a no-lose deal.

If they foreclosed on Johnny Foodstamp, the house was worth more than the mortgage, and they'd more than get their money back by reselling it.

Then they took that mortgage and sold it as an "investment", overstating its value.

That was the criminal part of what was done. And they've have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for the meddling kids pointing out the runaway inflation of property values wasn't actually based on anything.

^ lib hack has no familiarity with the topic.

The banks that did the lending were subject to a LOT of political pressure to make such loans or face various "consequences" even if the legislation itself never demanded that they do so.

One of the problems with having so many political "regulators" enforcing bureaucratic regulations is that undue pressure CAN be applied in that fashion. And was. Joebitch will never be honest enough to acknowledge any such thing, though.

 

[editec]

We have this debate about what caused the RE bubble to pop frequently.

The same real data is offered over and over again, and it is dismissed by the right wingers in favor of their narrative that is proven over and over again to be false.

One can only conclude that the right wingers are ither extremely ignorant, FAITH BASED thinkers or (in some rare cases, I suppose) outright liars.

Me personally, I credit them as being honestly ignorant but most of them are unwilling to give up their narrative because it comforts them, and that REALLY is the hallmark of a faith-based thinker.

 

[Katzndogz]

For one thing, and just one. The banks were given quotas to lend to people with bad credit. In some cases, there was little money left to loan money to people with good credit! The quota had to be made to stay open. A bank couldn't so much as put in an ATM machine if it hadn't met their quota of bad loans.

What made the housing bubble even bigger was the Johnny Foodstamp took out the equity in their homes as fast as home prices rose. They started out with an affordable $150,000 home, and borrowed against a $700,000 home. Then spent the money on having fun.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizen's Arrests of Capitalist Pigs and CEO's Who Roam Free

Why are so many of these Big Wigs allowed to roam free while most agree that what they did was illegal, regardless of the deals they made with government attorneys and regulators to pay fines and admit no wrong doing?

Even a private citizen can?t arrest a bank CEO - MarketWatch

Even a private citizen can’t arrest a bank CEO
Commentary: Activists try to put the cuffs on Wells Fargo chief
April 26, 2013 | Al Lewis

“Too-big-to-jail is an outrage,” Willis told me in a telephone interview after the attempt.

Willis had just interrupted the annual shareholders meeting of Wells Fargo (US:WFC) in Salt Lake City where he told CEO John Stumpf that he was under citizen’s arrest

...

“The only thing John Stumpf has is a lot of money,” Willis said. “Otherwise, he’s just a person like any of us. If we did what he did ... we would all be locked up.”

Last month, U.S. Attorney Eric Holder went before the Senate Judiciary Committee and confirmed what activists like Willis have been saying.

“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,” he said “And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.”

Since that remark, activist groups have been flooding Washington with petition signatures demanding justice. A petition by MoveOn.org demands “immediate steps to break up the big banks and prosecute the criminals who used them to destroy our economy.”

Why not just cut to the chase and simply execute them on the spot? I mean...after all...if you're gonna be a lynch mob, ya might as well do it right.

And, while you're doing that, the knuckle draggers can roam around town hanging librul's and progressives from the lamp posts. That's what they'd really like to do anyhow, ain't it?

Then, after all the simple minded morons, budding revolutionaries, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy freaks, racist's, bigots and TRUE PATRIOTS who live out on the fringes of civilized society have succeeded in killing each other off.....why then, the rest of us can get together and work out solutions to our nation's problems without having to wade through the swamp of ideological insanity where you confused, anti-American dickheads dwell.

Why not? Because I prefer to treat like all . They have rights as all criminals do.

Isn't it the right wing that is always complaining about miranda rights, free speech rights, privacy rights, .....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Citizen's Arrests of Capitalist Pigs and CEO's Who Roam Free

Why are so many of these Big Wigs allowed to roam free while most agree that what they did was illegal, regardless of the deals they made with government attorneys and regulators to pay fines and admit no wrong doing?

Because they haven't been convicted of a crime in a court of law you ignorant moron.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizen's Arrests of Capitalist Pigs and CEO's Who Roam Free

Why are so many of these Big Wigs allowed to roam free while most agree that what they did was illegal, regardless of the deals they made with government attorneys and regulators to pay fines and admit no wrong doing?

Ask Obama. He helped bail them all out.

Yes he partly did. And I suppose you don't remember it was under Bush that it started...the bailout? I suppose you think Romney would have went after them?

I do think you forget Obama was crucified for initial support of Dem bills that would make many practices illegal and Obama was crucified for supporting more regulations of the pricks

stupid!

 

[georgephillip]

Same people who 5 years ago were blaming global recession on Bush are now claiming the collapse of US and European housing markets are unrelated. How quaint!

Bush had the (bad) luck of the draw to be living in the White House when twenty years of crony capitalism blew up Wall Street. I don't blame him any more or less than Clinton for what happened in 2008, but I'm not confused about which one percent of the population both parasites serve. Elites from both major parties have turned economics into a propaganda exercise for financiers, landlords, monopolists, fraudsters, and other rent-seeking bottom feeders whom classical economics sought to tax out of existence.

I never came close to buying a house.
'Never earned more than $18,000 in one year, and that happened exactly once during 45 years in the workforce.
Often my annual income was less than $10,000, and one memorable year it was exactly $0.
No. I was not in prison or jail during that time.

Yet from the mid-90s to 2007 my mail box would fill up with offers of "pre-approved" credit cards.
I had never heard of a MBS at that time, so I was a little confused about the constant solicitations.
Now, I get it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/10/reality-economics/

 

[georgephillip]

Hank?
Please tell me more.

"When Paulson left the top job at Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary in 2006, his big concern was whether he'd have an impact. He ended up almost single-handedly running the country's economic policy for the last year of the Bush Administration.

"Impact? You bet. Positive? Not yet. The three main gripes against Paulson are that he was late to the party in battling the financial crisis, letting Lehman Brothers fail was a big mistake and the big bailout bill he pushed through Congress has been a wasteful mess."

Hank Paulson - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME

He took office in July 2006, and you're blaming him for the crisis? LOL!

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LYRBAO!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"When Paulson left the top job at Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary in 2006, his big concern was whether he'd have an impact. He ended up almost single-handedly running the country's economic policy for the last year of the Bush Administration.

"Impact? You bet. Positive? Not yet. The three main gripes against Paulson are that he was late to the party in battling the financial crisis, letting Lehman Brothers fail was a big mistake and the big bailout bill he pushed through Congress has been a wasteful mess."

Hank Paulson - 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME

He took office in July 2006, and you're blaming him for the crisis? LOL!

Crony capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LYRBAO!

He took office in July 2006, and you're blaming him for the crisis? LOL!

 

[georgephillip]

Where was the rich bitch before taking office in 2006?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me why it matters.

 

[georgephillip]

Hank's corrupt.
He needs rehabilitation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's awful. LOL!

 

[JoeB131]

[

^ lib hack has no familiarity with the topic.

The banks that did the lending were subject to a LOT of political pressure to make such loans or face various "consequences" even if the legislation itself never demanded that they do so.

One of the problems with having so many political "regulators" enforcing bureaucratic regulations is that undue pressure CAN be applied in that fashion. And was. Joebitch will never be honest enough to acknowledge any such thing, though.

So what you are saying is that the Banks were under no legal obligation to loan to poor people without assets, but they did it anyway because the Federal Government (run by Republicans) made them do it through "political pressure".

The reality was, the banks made these loans because they could make money off of them, the government wasn't regulating what they were doing at all, and they could always count on a bailout if shit went south.

Seriously, guy, you pretty much sound like a battered wife the way you defend the banking industry. "OH, it's not his fault he beats me!"

 

[Starlight]

Let me see if I've got this right. John Stumpf should be arrested because his bank was essentially forced to issue mortgages to people without the means to make the payments, refused to issue mortgages to other people who didn't qualify even under ridiculously relaxed guidelines and foreclosed on people that didn't pay their obligations.
Yeah. OK Dainty. Whatever you say.

The bank was forced to?

:rof:

Blackmailed, perhaps would be a better word.
Here's an article from 2000 during the Clinton Admin. READ IT.
If you need more evidence, check out who the government assigned the job of tracking CRA compliance.
Do some research on your own, Dainty, and get back to me.

Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition—a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA—issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled "The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved." "Timely comments," the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, "can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating."

And now it's being proposed that banks relax their rules again, Ernie, so more people can buy homes again. First the banks are threatened, if they don't give loans to those unable to afford them, and then they are sued by the government for relaxing the rules the banks were told to establish in the first place. Now the Obama administration wants the banks to lower their loan standards again.

Insanity....doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And now it's being proposed that banks relax their rules again, Ernie, so more people can buy homes again. First the banks are threatened, if they don't give loans to those unable to afford them, and then they are sued by the government for relaxing the rules the banks were told to establish in the first place. Now the Obama administration wants the banks to lower their loan standards again.

Insanity....doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

But again- no one forced the banks to make loans to people who couldn't pay them off.

If they had a bad credit score, they could refuse them a loan.

Instead, they just gave them loans with ridiculous terms, knowing they could foreclose, sell the property to the next sucker.

And it was all so fine with the banks, UNTIL the bottom fell out of the property market, and all those $200,000 McMansions they sold to middle class folks who just lost their jobs were only worth $100,000.

 

[georgephillip]

What happens next time the bottom falls out, and there's no public support for another bail-out?
Cyprus?

 

[007]

funny to see people protecting criminals

... as in the way you libroids protect muslim terrorists... no, not funny... more like sick.

 

[007]

Is it just me, or is Dante getting goofier and goofier with each post?

It's called desperation. Between Benghazi heating up and the complete failure on the preventing of the Boston bombing, iced off with the increasingly louder new call for a total recall of obamacare, and we're witnessing the complete collapse of the obama administration. We could very well see the impeachment of obama in the not so distant future, along with others. Those still supporting obama at this point look ever more STUPID, they're nothing but completely blind, brain washed, partisan hacks... as in Dainty.