Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (561501)	4/18/2010 2:03:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577225

> Are you going to contribute to the Goldman defense fund? I am astonished that the media continues to look past the REAL problem that led to this crisis. While they (along with Obama) are bashing Paulson and GS for these transactions, it was not Paulson's transactions that brought down the market. It was the bad loans, made to persons who were totally unqualified, with insufficient equity in the property to assure payment, essentially REQUIRED by CRA under the '96 Clinton regulations. Part of the problem but not the entire problem. There was an atmosphere of extreme laissez-faire under Bush that led to this and other disasters. As far as I can see, this is an attack on the wrong people. If you want to prosecute someone, prosecute Clinton, Dodd, Frank, and others who created the situation that led to this train wreck in the first place. No mention of Gramm.......and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Figures. I realize you're a partisan hack and would NEVER, EVER be intellectually honest (even if you were intellectually CAPABLE) about it. Me? LOL. Dude, you need to be posting here: Subject 57572

To: i-node who wrote (561501)	4/18/2010 6:35:51 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577225

"I am astonished that the media continues to look past the REAL problem that led to this crisis" That is because you still don't understand what happened. This is a perfect example. "It was the bad loans, made to persons who were totally unqualified, with insufficient equity in the property to assure payment, essentially REQUIRED by CRA under the '96 Clinton regulations." This has only a tangential relationship with reality. The CRA loans had a lower default rate than the average. While there is some truth to the first part of your statement, the second is totally bogus. While it is true that a lot of loans were made to people who shouldn't have gotten them, the CRA had nothing to do with it. They were done because the lenders could package them into other securities and sell them off to investors. So, there was no risk to them to give out loans to unqualified borrowers. In fact, there was lots of incentives to make risky loans because they could always, and often did, take out a CDS on those shaky loans. This is why Goldman Sachs is now in hot water. "As far as I can see, this is an attack on the wrong people." Given that you show no understanding of what happened, you would feel that way. "I realize you're a partisan hack and would NEVER, EVER be intellectually honest (even if you were intellectually CAPABLE) about it." There is that projection thingy again, i-node. Given how often the reality of the situation has been pointed out to you, yet you still persist in hanging on to your overly simplistic fable, your intellectual honesty is in obvious short supply.