Of course they want THEIR bailouts, the "other guys" got em, so why not ? You can't do that (bailout) to a select group. That was never capitalism's intention....to have an UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD....with the bankers having the easy downhill side.
So I assume you're one of those people who have no idea why the protesters are protesting. Let me guess, Fox News watcher? It's ok to admit it. Most people that watch Fox are similarly confused and ill informed.
The CRA might have indirectly caused the crisis. Lenders were encouraged in placing those bad loans. It isn't like there was an UPPER limit on how many they could place, right? Some of them just took the ball and ran with it. I knew a coke head that got 8G's for placing a loan. He got ghetto runners to bring him signed contracts with everything filled in except the "liar loan" info... he would fill in the amounts that he knew would fly and forward the paper. The lender would package all the bad loans and sell them with Triple A ratings and they were then no longer considered in the calculations of the lender's loan to asset ratio... One girl went for that deal, she was working behind the counter at my fav Burger place. She got foreclosed almost before she made a payment, I guess they wanted to sell her house to somebody else or something...
While that is an interesting story and the typical response of republicans everywhere (don't know if you are or not) there is this "An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in 2009 concluded unequivocally that the CRA was not responsible for the mortgage loan crisis, pointing out that CRA rules have been in place since 1995 whereas the poor lending emerged only a decade later.[39] Furthermore, most sub-prime loans were not made to the LMI borrowers targeted by the CRA, especially in the years 2005-2006 leading up to the crisis. Nor did it find any evidence that lending under the CRA rules increased delinquency rates or that the CRA indirectly influenced independent mortgage lenders to ramp up sub-prime lending."
CRA loans need income or asset verification. If one didn't meet those requirements they could apply for a subprime loan. This is where I think a majority of people get confused. All CRA is subprime but not all subprime is CRA. There was a worldwide housing boom The CRA nor did the GSE's fueled the run in housing in those markets. Private securitization was responsible in driving those markets to unsustainable heights that resulted in epic losses on the underlying loans.
No, I've seen enough interviews to know how ignorant they are and how there's no real consensus to what they're doing. But if it floats your boat, go join them. Defecate in public and flaunt your stupidity. It's a free country.
Again, the Fed wrote a paper in 2004 that totally dismissed the idea of a housing bubble. All their charts, regression analyses, et. al. turned out to be worthless garbage. And not surprisingly, they denied their own contribution (low interest rates), without which there would have been no bubble.
Sadly in the UK there's been a spate of family murder sucides over the last 6 months. Father killing the wife and kids, then himself. You can bet jobs/debt is the cause. Is it better for everyone to go or rather just the father and then leave the wife and kids on their own, no income, no job, everything repossessed etc? Such a sad question to answer.
No...no you cant. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-Atherton-guns-Susan-McGoldrick-2-women.html You do this because your fucked in the head, reasons aren't a cause.