The Real Causes Of The Great Recession

[g5000]

This is from Section 117 of the CFMA:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Why does a bank need exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos? Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

This type of legislation led to the outright fraud we saw leading up to the crash.

Where were all the States Rights advocates screaming about this blatant federal pre-emption of state laws? Why was Fox News not ranting about this?

Might it have something to do with the fact it was put in there by a Republican at the behest of Wall Street?

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

 

[g5000]

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model.

As rhetorical shortcuts, I used to refer to these periods as the Old Testament days vs. the New Testament days.

With the originate and distribute New Testament days, due diligence went to shit. All the past sins of the borrower were forgiven and forgotten since the paper was going to be passed up the chain like a hot potato.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

All false. But, hey, thanks for reinforcing the fact that conservatives are racist and hate the poor.

He's delusional to try to link ACORN into Bush and Cheney's Great Recession. If ACORN had that kind of ability, THEY would be the one passing out bonus checks today and NOT JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, et al.

BTW, ACORN is defunct.

Whistle is so full of.... mud ..

 

[Dad2three]

LMAO...

Did bush make congress do their job"?

No. I guess he could have done better at that.

But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.

Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.

But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.

Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?

Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.

What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?

why is that relevant?

Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?

Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?

I get it that they don't care for Obama vilifying them, and the dems have lost Wall St as a major funding source .... although Hill may well change that back to where it was before Obama. But, why is it worth hundreds of millions for Wall St to bankroll the gop on this? It's not like Wall St is suffering from overregulation stifling profits.

I can only offer you my opinion as I am not on the board of one of the major banks.....and not privy to their thinking...

I believe they were very much taken aback by the way the President and democratic congress put the entire blame squarely on the banks. The banks knew that the President and congress was well aware of what took place during the collapse...so they saw Volker as one who was assigned to the task to simply come up with a reason that blames the banks...be it true or not...and any solution would be supporting a fallacy.

Again, just my opinion.

"by the way the President and democratic congress put the entire blame squarely on the banks."



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress



The evidence indicates Fannie and Freddie contributed to the mortgage meltdown, but they played a secondary role to Wall Street. Wall Street firms and the mortgage lenders they bankrolled led the growth of the market for subprime loans and other risky mortgages.





Government data show Fannie and Freddie didn’t take the same risks that Wall Street’s mortgage-backed securities machine did. Mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie.

Wall Street Not Fannie and Freddie Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.

Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.

Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.

Then you post this nonsense.

Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.

Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL

Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?

The GOP, in all their wisdom decided for the first time, to share responsibilities with the minority party. This is why Democrats held so many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration.

Post the "many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration" and their outcomes. Then we'll compare the witch hunts by Issa and his outcomes.

BTW, the D's never passed a bill of impeachment during the Bush Administration and what of all those investigations of President Clinton? Why wasn't Reagan Impeached, Iran-Contra was more than a misdemeanor and possibly a high crime.

Try to stay on topic please.

An allegation was made sans proof. I simply asked for evidence and then responded with a statement which evidenced other Administrations and Congressional pissing contests.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Normal reading speed is 200 - 250 wpm.
I've tested out at 500 wpm with about 60% comprehension, so I don't think you had the time to comprehend all of that information dude.

60% comprehension and 100% wrong. Thanks, I'll keep my Evelyn Woods Speed Reading test results to myself.

 

[Jarhead]

All false. But, hey, thanks for reinforcing the fact that conservatives are racist and hate the poor.

He's delusional to try to link ACORN into Bush and Cheney's Great Recession. If ACORN had that kind of ability, THEY would be the one passing out bonus checks today and NOT JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, et al.

Whistle is so full of.... mud ..

Do you not see how foolish your statement is?

Nah....you probably don't.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Normal reading speed is 200 - 250 wpm.
I've tested out at 500 wpm with about 60% comprehension, so I don't think you had the time to comprehend all of that information dude.

60% comprehension and 100% wrong. Thanks, I'll keep my Evelyn Woods Speed Reading test results to myself.

Last time I looked 60% comprehension = a near failure.
A = 90 - 100;
B = 80 - 89;
C = 70 - 79;
D = 60 - 69

 

[Dad2three]

All false. But, hey, thanks for reinforcing the fact that conservatives are racist and hate the poor.

He's delusional to try to link ACORN into Bush and Cheney's Great Recession. If ACORN had that kind of ability, THEY would be the one passing out bonus checks today and NOT JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, et al.

Whistle is so full of.... mud ..

Do you not see how foolish your statement is?

Nah....you probably don't.

What's false? That POLICY created and cheered under Dubya ISN'T responsible for the great recession, but Obama INHERITING a shitstorm and not getting US out of the ditch faster, as the GOP refused to help push, is the actual problem in right wing world???

 

[Jarhead]

Normal reading speed is 200 - 250 wpm.
I've tested out at 500 wpm with about 60% comprehension, so I don't think you had the time to comprehend all of that information dude.

60% comprehension and 100% wrong. Thanks, I'll keep my Evelyn Woods Speed Reading test results to myself.

Last time I looked 60% comprehension = a near failure.
A = 90 - 100;
B = 80 - 89;
C = 70 - 79;
D = 60 - 69

Actually, here in NY, a 65 is a D...anything below that is an F

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

LMAO...

Did bush make congress do their job"?

No. I guess he could have done better at that.

But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.

Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.

But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.

Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?

Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.

What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?

why is that relevant?

Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?

Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?

I get it that they don't care for Obama vilifying them, and the dems have lost Wall St as a major funding source .... although Hill may well change that back to where it was before Obama. But, why is it worth hundreds of millions for Wall St to bankroll the gop on this? It's not like Wall St is suffering from overregulation stifling profits.

I can only offer you my opinion as I am not on the board of one of the major banks.....and not privy to their thinking...

I believe they were very much taken aback by the way the President and democratic congress put the entire blame squarely on the banks. The banks knew that the President and congress was well aware of what took place during the collapse...so they saw Volker as one who was assigned to the task to simply come up with a reason that blames the banks...be it true or not...and any solution would be supporting a fallacy.

Again, just my opinion.

The banks were responsible, NINJA loans were standard fare, they stuck a mirror in front of your mouth and as long as you fogged it up you got the loan.
Most of the problems were with gullible buyers and ruthless banks.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

All false. But, hey, thanks for reinforcing the fact that conservatives are racist and hate the poor.

He's delusional to try to link ACORN into Bush and Cheney's Great Recession. If ACORN had that kind of ability, THEY would be the one passing out bonus checks today and NOT JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, et al.

Whistle is so full of.... mud ..

Do you not see how foolish your statement is?

Nah....you probably don't.

What's false? That POLICY created and cheered under Dubya ISN'T responsible for the great recession, but Obama INHERITING a shitstorm and not getting US out of the ditch faster, as the GOP refused to help push, is the actual problem in right wing world???

You can't blame the GOP, N*ggerbama did not / does not want to create jobs.
Tell us about that JOB PARTICIPATION rate under this current administration.

 

[bendog]

LMAO...

Did bush make congress do their job"?

No. I guess he could have done better at that.

But as a result, it sure as hell aint congresses fault.

Hey sparky...congress was not a bunch of children. They were a bunch of well paid well educated adults who promised to do a good job if they were elected.

But hey...its not their fault.....Big Daddy did not make them do their job.

Do you not see how your obsession with the failures of Bush has clouded your judgment?

Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.

What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?

why is that relevant?

Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?

Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?

I get it that they don't care for Obama vilifying them, and the dems have lost Wall St as a major funding source .... although Hill may well change that back to where it was before Obama. But, why is it worth hundreds of millions for Wall St to bankroll the gop on this? It's not like Wall St is suffering from overregulation stifling profits.

I can only offer you my opinion as I am not on the board of one of the major banks.....and not privy to their thinking...

I believe they were very much taken aback by the way the President and democratic congress put the entire blame squarely on the banks. The banks knew that the President and congress was well aware of what took place during the collapse...so they saw Volker as one who was assigned to the task to simply come up with a reason that blames the banks...be it true or not...and any solution would be supporting a fallacy.

Again, just my opinion.

Oh, I agree. The actual number of bank employees employed in derivative trading was very small compared to the total. The actual use of derivatives is not evil. Bank A assumes X amount of risk. To balance that out, Bank A trades X amount of its risk to Bank B for a Y amount of risk. Obama vilified the entire industry. Some traders knew the real estate cdo were toxic. Some in the mortgage industry knew it too.

But my question today is simply what do the banks see as so toxic in the Volker rule that they're willing to pay out hundreds of millions to kill it?

On one hand, there may be better alternatives. We could require the banking entities to separately capitalize their wings of the one that sells investments to the public at large to the wing that makes investments on the bank's behalf.

http://www.law2.byu.edu/ilmr/articles/winter_2011/BYU_ILMR_winter_2011_3_Dictionaries.pdf

Or do the banks simply want to go back to before the credit debacle?

 

[mudwhistle]

That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.

I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.

Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.

I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.

Real Estate lawyers do the closings. Quite lucrative. I'm sure they made money.

In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.

You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.

The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.

That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.

I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.

Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.

I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.

the typical fee in the NYC area for representing a buyer is about 2500. The attorney does not draft the loan documents. That is done by the bank attorney (known as the settlement attorney)...and contrary to popular belief, the settlement attorney does not work for the bank; he or she represents the bank.
But for that 2500, the buyers attorney negotiates the contract, (usually not a difficult process), reviews the HUD and explains to the buyer what they are getting into.

The brokers ARE idiots...but in all fairness, their fees are large because it covers all of the deals they did NOT make, but busted their butts for......true reason why realtor commissions are 6%.[/QUOTE]

R

This is the kind of shit that makes this place so unpleasant. All of the dickheads that pull this same ole same ole.

I'd rather post pretty pictures than talk to all of you jizzbreath mofos.

Clever. Now explain why.

Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.

Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.

Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.

Then you post this nonsense.

Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.

Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL

Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?

The GOP, in all their wisdom decided for the first time, to share responsibilities with the minority party. This is why Democrats held so many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration.

Post the "many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration" and their outcomes. Then we'll compare the witch hunts by Issa and his outcomes.

BTW, the D's never passed a bill of impeachment during the Bush Administration and what of all those investigations of President Clinton? Why wasn't Reagan Impeached, Iran-Contra was more than a misdemeanor and possibly a high crime.

And your point is what?

You asserted that Democrats had no voice in Washington. I just proved you're wrong.

 

[Jarhead]

Nothing is as simple as Democrats want it to be, lets also remember the Democratic controlled congress was holding funding for the wars over Bush head to get what they wanted.

What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?

why is that relevant?

Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?

Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?

I get it that they don't care for Obama vilifying them, and the dems have lost Wall St as a major funding source .... although Hill may well change that back to where it was before Obama. But, why is it worth hundreds of millions for Wall St to bankroll the gop on this? It's not like Wall St is suffering from overregulation stifling profits.

I can only offer you my opinion as I am not on the board of one of the major banks.....and not privy to their thinking...

I believe they were very much taken aback by the way the President and democratic congress put the entire blame squarely on the banks. The banks knew that the President and congress was well aware of what took place during the collapse...so they saw Volker as one who was assigned to the task to simply come up with a reason that blames the banks...be it true or not...and any solution would be supporting a fallacy.

Again, just my opinion.

The banks were responsible, NINJA loans were standard fare, they stuck a mirror in front of your mouth and as long as you fogged it up you got the loan.
Most of the problems were with gullible buyers and ruthless banks.

I believe you are not aware of what NINJA loans were.....so I will explain it to you.

They were no income, no employment verification loans....BUT...

The applications were STILL reviewed by an independent underwriter for approval based on what was on the application....in other words the following still had to be met..

1) The income asserted by the applicant must meet the requirements for the loan
2) Current employment/assets must meet the criteria
3) The LTV must make sense

So the only way a NINJA loan contributed to the problem was if, in fact the applicant LIED on the application about income and job status.

So it is the banks fault if the applicant lied?

Are you aware that the application has 4 places to sign and all signatures have the affidavit wording below them?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

What did the Democrats want, and what impact did the alleged "funds" entail?

why is that relevant?

Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?

Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?

I get it that they don't care for Obama vilifying them, and the dems have lost Wall St as a major funding source .... although Hill may well change that back to where it was before Obama. But, why is it worth hundreds of millions for Wall St to bankroll the gop on this? It's not like Wall St is suffering from overregulation stifling profits.

I can only offer you my opinion as I am not on the board of one of the major banks.....and not privy to their thinking...

I believe they were very much taken aback by the way the President and democratic congress put the entire blame squarely on the banks. The banks knew that the President and congress was well aware of what took place during the collapse...so they saw Volker as one who was assigned to the task to simply come up with a reason that blames the banks...be it true or not...and any solution would be supporting a fallacy.

Again, just my opinion.

The banks were responsible, NINJA loans were standard fare, they stuck a mirror in front of your mouth and as long as you fogged it up you got the loan.
Most of the problems were with gullible buyers and ruthless banks.

I believe you are not aware of what NINJA loans were.....so I will explain it to you.

They were no income, no employment verification loans....BUT...

The applications were STILL reviewed by an independent underwriter for approval based on what was on the application....in other words the following still had to be met..

1) The income asserted by the applicant must meet the requirements for the loan
2) Current employment/assets must meet the criteria
3) The LTV must make sense

So the only way a NINJA loan contributed to the problem was if, in fact the applicant LIED on the application about income and job status.

So it is the banks fault if the applicant lied?

Are you aware that the application has 4 places to sign and all signatures have the affidavit wording below them?

False NINJA laons were :

No Income ...............
No Jobs or Assets ..............

They wrere just exactly that and met those particular qualifications, hence the name!!

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Besides what fucking moron pays an interst only loan and thinks they "OWN" anything??

Just another name for rent, excepts it shifts the blame of the land lord / property maintenance to the tenant ..............

You really just don't understand the whole scheme do you??'

Just as the buyers were just as culpable for being so ignorant ...............

 

[zeke]

GOV'T TOOK THE RISK OUT OF SUBPRIMES? lol

Don't know that IF Gov't backed the majority of subprimes, banks wouldn't had lost money? THAT'S what a Gov't guarantee was! OVER 80% OF LOANS 2004-2007, WERE OUTSIDE OF GOV'T BACKING BUBA, lol

These here dip shits just don't think things through. Like how could the banks loose all this money if the government was backing these sub prime loans.

It's like the CRA requirement. They can't grasp that a mortgage broker running a couple mortgage loan origination offices had no obligation anywhere at any time to meet CRA requirements. But those types of operations made a shit load of sub prime loans that ultimately defaulted. And the broker suffered nothing for writing shit loans. Even the buy back on default agreements that were used at one time where eliminated. Brokers had a forward commitment to deliver X amount of mortgage loans to the secondary buyer and make loans they did. To anybody.
Oh and they made a shit load of money for themselves. That's really what the whole thing became about.

Then these people refuse to recognize the smaller, regional banks that did meet CRA requirements as well as continue to follow sound lending practices, never got in trouble. But the people running these banks were real bankers. Not Wall Street gamblers.

And yes, FHA mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures hit a record level, but the banks didn't lose nearly as much money on true government backed loans. That hated Mortgage Insurance Premium I had to explain all the time really worked.

And I still blame Clinton.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

NINJA loan

Contents

• 1 English
  • 1.1 Alternative forms
  • 1.2 Etymology
  • 1.3 Noun
  • 1.4 Related terms
  • 1.5 See also

English

Wikipedia has an article on:
NINJA loan
Alternative forms

• ninja loan

Etymology

Coined by the American lending company HCL Finance from an approximate initialism of no income, no job, no assets.

Noun
NINJA loan (plural NINJA loans)

A subprime loan issued to borrowers with no job, income, or assets.  [quotations ▼

 

[Jarhead]

why is that relevant?

Or is it that you highly doubt such "antics" goes on in politics?

Imo, the pertinent question is why do the Banks so want to get rid of the Volker rule?

I get it that they don't care for Obama vilifying them, and the dems have lost Wall St as a major funding source .... although Hill may well change that back to where it was before Obama. But, why is it worth hundreds of millions for Wall St to bankroll the gop on this? It's not like Wall St is suffering from overregulation stifling profits.

I can only offer you my opinion as I am not on the board of one of the major banks.....and not privy to their thinking...

I believe they were very much taken aback by the way the President and democratic congress put the entire blame squarely on the banks. The banks knew that the President and congress was well aware of what took place during the collapse...so they saw Volker as one who was assigned to the task to simply come up with a reason that blames the banks...be it true or not...and any solution would be supporting a fallacy.

Again, just my opinion.

The banks were responsible, NINJA loans were standard fare, they stuck a mirror in front of your mouth and as long as you fogged it up you got the loan.
Most of the problems were with gullible buyers and ruthless banks.

I believe you are not aware of what NINJA loans were.....so I will explain it to you.

They were no income, no employment verification loans....BUT...

The applications were STILL reviewed by an independent underwriter for approval based on what was on the application....in other words the following still had to be met..

1) The income asserted by the applicant must meet the requirements for the loan
2) Current employment/assets must meet the criteria
3) The LTV must make sense

So the only way a NINJA loan contributed to the problem was if, in fact the applicant LIED on the application about income and job status.

So it is the banks fault if the applicant lied?

Are you aware that the application has 4 places to sign and all signatures have the affidavit wording below them?

False NINJA laons were :

No Income ...............
No Jobs or Assets ..............

They wrere just exactly that and met those particular qualifications, hence the name!!

You are incorrect.....they were loans where income, assets and employment status the applicant listed on the application were not subject to verification.

But the applications ABSOLUTELY asked for income, assets and employment status...and the 4 places one would sign asserted under oath that the information was accurate to the best of their knowledge.

Just wanted to make sure you understood....those "victims" of the banks lied to get the loan.