Sh!thead Schumer Sells out America!

[PNWest]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-boost-to-big-banks-draws-democratic-support_n_5c8ff1bfe4b04ed2c1ad4ab7

Just because republicans are scum doesn't mean that democrats can't be too. Sh!thead Schumer is proving this. He's always been a friend to the banksters that cratered the economy under Bush and was intrumental in making sure that the people responsible for the crash never faced justice (thanks Obama!).

What Obama should have done is used the RICO laws to indict the top management of every single one of the big banks that were dealing in Collateralized Debt Obligations based on sub prime mortgages.

This is a subject that requires far more intelligence than any of the righties here (with possibly a very few exceptions) are capable of understanding so I'll translate for them: "Chuck Schumer and Barrack Obama let the bad guys walk instead of jailing them".

What should have happened, and neither GW bush nor Dolt45 have done either, is for the top managers of these firms be indicted under the RICO laws. Using these laws the government could jail them, take away all of their personal wealth and throw their families out on the street. It would have taken YEARS for the trials to have gone through the courts but a strong message would have been sent to crooked bankers.


As always the republicans, scum that they are supported the banksters to the fullest and made sure that they not only paid no price but actually profited from the damage they did. But in this case many top democrats colluded with them.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Just curious... were you opposed to bailing out banks?

 

[PNWest]

Just curious... were you opposed to bailing out banks?

No - unfortunately it had to be done in order to save the economy. But had I been in charge I would have taken more than a pound of flesh from the people that Schumer is protecting.

I hope that this won't go over your head because you are a conservative but I'll show you some respect and give you an answer suitable for a "Thinker".....

CDOs, Collateralized Debt Obligations on sub prim mortgages worked like this.

There were millions of very risky mortgages being given out in the early to mid 2000s. Since there was a republican President there was no oversight of this in any way, shape or form. And no this didn't start under Jimmy Carter. The math used to justify this crap didn't happen until somewhere near the turn of the century. The banksters would give out mortgages to burger flippers and crack whores. Bush allowed this to go on and crowed about the percentage of home owner under his presidency. They didn't care. They took the loan origination fees and passed the mortgages on to the big banks? Why did the big banks want them? First - at least in the beginning they actually believed that real estate was going to go up forever. When it became obvious that the burger flippers and crack whores couldn't take even a minor hit to the economy they used the math to get rid of the bad debt.

The math:

The idea was that you could diversify the risk away by bundling bad mortgages. It was exactly like how insurance works. You insure 100 drivers and maybe one or two of them wreck their car. You pay for it but the rest of the drivers that didn't wreck make you profit. Anyway these crooks bundled up millions of bad mortgages and then created these wonderful CDOs. They took the pot and created "tranches" that each paid different rates. The way that worked is that the first mortgage moneys that came in went to pay off the highest quality tranches, then the next highest and so on. You got paid higher interest as each tranche got more risky. The math said that those top tranches were AAA rated. Sounds good right? Well it actually would have been if those MOFOs understood the concept of diversification. In reality there was no diversification. Think of an insurance company that insures only homes on Galveston Island - There 10,000 homes right - you're diversified - right? No you aren't because when a hurricane hits Galveston most of those home get damaged. And that's why insurance companies insure in many, many locations - to make sure that one disaster doesn't f*&k up everything. Back to the banksters. When the economy stalled it hit the people with subprime loans the hardest. Economic downturns are nationwide so it hurt ALL of the subprime loans. First the lowest rated tranches became worthless when a few people stopped paying mortgages, then the next tranche as things got worse and worse it all fell apart and these CDOs blew up. Many of the banks were stuck holding onto this crap and they stared failing taking the rest of the economy down with them. The top banksters tried and succeeded in holding a gun to the head of the government - bail us out or it will be a 2nd great depression. We had to bail them out. But we should not have forgotten and when things got back on track by 2011 or so Obama should have jailed those bastards. He didn't. They continue to gamble with our money today - they take the profits if they win - we bail them out if they lose.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

No - unfortunately it had to be done in order to save the economy. But had I been in charge I would have taken more than a pound of flesh from the people that Schumer is protecting.

I hope that this won't go over your head because you are a conservative but I'll show you some respect and give you an answer suitable for a "Thinker".....

CDOs, Collateralized Debt Obligations on sub prim mortgages worked like this.

There were millions of very risky mortgages being given out in the early to mid 2000s. Since there was a republican President there was no oversight of this in any way, shape or form. And no this didn't start under Jimmy Carter. The math used to justify this crap didn't happen until somewhere near the turn of the century. The banksters would give out mortgages to burger flippers and crack whores. Bush allowed this to go on and crowed about the percentage of home owner under his presidency. They didn't care. They took the loan origination fees and passed the mortgages on to the big banks? Why did the big banks want them? First - at least in the beginning they actually believed that real estate was going to go up forever. When it became obvious that the burger flippers and crack whores couldn't take even a minor hit to the economy they used the math to get rid of the bad debt.

The math:

The idea was that you could diversify the risk away by bundling bad mortgages. It was exactly like how insurance works. You insure 100 drivers and maybe one or two of them wreck their car. You pay for it but the rest of the drivers that didn't wreck make you profit. Anyway these crooks bundled up millions of bad mortgages and then created these wonderful CDOs. They took the pot and created "tranches" that each paid different rates. The way that worked is that the first mortgage moneys that came in went to pay off the highest quality tranches, then the next highest and so on. You got paid higher interest as each tranche got more risky. The math said that those top tranches were AAA rated. Sounds good right? Well it actually would have been if those MOFOs understood the concept of diversification. In reality there was no diversification. Think of an insurance company that insures only homes on Galveston Island - There 10,000 homes right - you're diversified - right? No you aren't because when a hurricane hits Galveston most of those home get damaged. And that's why insurance companies insure in many, many locations - to make sure that one disaster doesn't f*&k up everything. Back to the banksters. When the economy stalled it hit the people with subprime loans the hardest. Economic downturns are nationwide so it hurt ALL of the subprime loans. First the lowest rated tranches became worthless when a few people stopped paying mortgages, then the next tranche as things got worse and worse it all fell apart and these CDOs blew up. Many of the banks were stuck holding onto this crap and they stared failing taking the rest of the economy down with them. The top banksters tried and succeeded in holding a gun to the head of the government - bail us out or it will be a 2nd great depression. We had to bail them out. But we should not have forgotten and when things got back on track by 2011 or so Obama should have jailed those bastards. He didn't. They continue to gamble with our money today - they take the profits if they win - we bail them out if they lose.

I agree with most of what you posted. Logic and math prevail. And besides, most of it is fairly well- known fact to anyone who pays attention

I don't agree any bailouts had to happen. I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior. On principle.

And as with many (hopefully) well- intentioned ideas, there were many bad outcomes. Weak, ill- managed large banks took over smaller, more stable banks. The marketplace would have been a better decider.

Automobiles: companies that were bailed out expanded overseas. There should have been major strings attached. There clearly weren't. Or not nearly enough.

Now... I believe you left out a major component here. Gee, what happened prior to the banking meltdown?

The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. A decade later, financial crisis. Brought to you by the Republicrat party. Coincidence? I think not.

And let's face it, banksters are pretty much above the law. I don't believe for a second there wasn't a plethora of criminal charges that could have been brought along the way.

 

[PhilFish]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-boost-to-big-banks-draws-democratic-support_n_5c8ff1bfe4b04ed2c1ad4ab7

Just because republicans are scum doesn't mean that democrats can't be too. Sh!thead Schumer is proving this. He's always been a friend to the banksters that cratered the economy under Bush and was intrumental in making sure that the people responsible for the crash never faced justice (thanks Obama!).

What Obama should have done is used the RICO laws to indict the top management of every single one of the big banks that were dealing in Collateralized Debt Obligations based on sub prime mortgages.

This is a subject that requires far more intelligence than any of the righties here (with possibly a very few exceptions) are capable of understanding so I'll translate for them: "Chuck Schumer and Barrack Obama let the bad guys walk instead of jailing them".

What should have happened, and neither GW bush nor Dolt45 have done either, is for the top managers of these firms be indicted under the RICO laws. Using these laws the government could jail them, take away all of their personal wealth and throw their families out on the street. It would have taken YEARS for the trials to have gone through the courts but a strong message would have been sent to crooked bankers.


As always the republicans, scum that they are supported the banksters to the fullest and made sure that they not only paid no price but actually profited from the damage they did. But in this case many top democrats colluded with them.

(Insert sound of an air pump).. long have they waited to reinflate the bubble ... Leveraged.

 

[PhilFish]

No - unfortunately it had to be done in order to save the economy. But had I been in charge I would have taken more than a pound of flesh from the people that Schumer is protecting.

I hope that this won't go over your head because you are a conservative but I'll show you some respect and give you an answer suitable for a "Thinker".....

CDOs, Collateralized Debt Obligations on sub prim mortgages worked like this.

There were millions of very risky mortgages being given out in the early to mid 2000s. Since there was a republican President there was no oversight of this in any way, shape or form. And no this didn't start under Jimmy Carter. The math used to justify this crap didn't happen until somewhere near the turn of the century. The banksters would give out mortgages to burger flippers and crack whores. Bush allowed this to go on and crowed about the percentage of home owner under his presidency. They didn't care. They took the loan origination fees and passed the mortgages on to the big banks? Why did the big banks want them? First - at least in the beginning they actually believed that real estate was going to go up forever. When it became obvious that the burger flippers and crack whores couldn't take even a minor hit to the economy they used the math to get rid of the bad debt.

The math:

The idea was that you could diversify the risk away by bundling bad mortgages. It was exactly like how insurance works. You insure 100 drivers and maybe one or two of them wreck their car. You pay for it but the rest of the drivers that didn't wreck make you profit. Anyway these crooks bundled up millions of bad mortgages and then created these wonderful CDOs. They took the pot and created "tranches" that each paid different rates. The way that worked is that the first mortgage moneys that came in went to pay off the highest quality tranches, then the next highest and so on. You got paid higher interest as each tranche got more risky. The math said that those top tranches were AAA rated. Sounds good right? Well it actually would have been if those MOFOs understood the concept of diversification. In reality there was no diversification. Think of an insurance company that insures only homes on Galveston Island - There 10,000 homes right - you're diversified - right? No you aren't because when a hurricane hits Galveston most of those home get damaged. And that's why insurance companies insure in many, many locations - to make sure that one disaster doesn't f*&k up everything. Back to the banksters. When the economy stalled it hit the people with subprime loans the hardest. Economic downturns are nationwide so it hurt ALL of the subprime loans. First the lowest rated tranches became worthless when a few people stopped paying mortgages, then the next tranche as things got worse and worse it all fell apart and these CDOs blew up. Many of the banks were stuck holding onto this crap and they stared failing taking the rest of the economy down with them. The top banksters tried and succeeded in holding a gun to the head of the government - bail us out or it will be a 2nd great depression. We had to bail them out. But we should not have forgotten and when things got back on track by 2011 or so Obama should have jailed those bastards. He didn't. They continue to gamble with our money today - they take the profits if they win - we bail them out if they lose.

Good thing gwb threw tarp at it and Obama carried it on....

 

[PNWest]

I agree with most of what you posted. Logic and math prevail. And besides, most of it is fairly well- known fact to anyone who pays attention

I don't agree any bailouts had to happen. I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior. On principle.

And as with many (hopefully) well- intentioned ideas, there were many bad outcomes. Weak, ill- managed large banks took over smaller, more stable banks. The marketplace would have been a better decider.

Automobiles: companies that were bailed out expanded overseas. There should have been major strings attached. There clearly weren't. Or not nearly enough.

Now... I believe you left out a major component here. Gee, what happened prior to the banking meltdown?

The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. A decade later, financial crisis. Brought to you by the Republicrat party. Coincidence? I think not.

And let's face it, banksters are pretty much above the law. I don't believe for a second there wasn't a plethora of criminal charges that could have been brought along the way.

Bingo. You hit the nail right on the head.

The RICO statutes could have been used against the banksters. What this would have done is truly f*&ked up their lives for at least 2 or 3 years even if they could have escaped conviction. Neither party was willing to do that.

I do think that the bailout was necessary to prevent a worldwide depression. They really would have shot the hostage back in 2008 because if they didn't get bailed out they were going down. Why not take everyone else down with them. But by 2011 or 2012 - justice should have been meted out.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Good thing gwb threw tarp at it and Obama carried it on....

Bushbama... big government liberals. The stress more significant similarities than differences.

 

[PhilFish]

Bingo. You hit the nail right on the head.

The RICO statutes could have been used against the banksters. What this would have done is truly f*&ked up their lives for at least 2 or 3 years even if they could have escaped conviction. Neither party was willing to do that.

I do think that the bailout was necessary to prevent a worldwide depression. They really would have shot the hostage back in 2008 because if they didn't get bailed out they were going down. Why not take everyone else down with them. But by 2011 or 2012 - justice should have been meted out.

Too much leveraged money. Banks fell...they all fall.

 

[PhilFish]

Bushbama... big government liberals. The stress more significant similarities than differences.

Yeah. Big money saved itself. End of story..

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Bingo. You hit the nail right on the head.

The RICO statutes could have been used against the banksters. What this would have done is truly f*&ked up their lives for at least 2 or 3 years even if they could have escaped conviction. Neither party was willing to do that.

I do think that the bailout was necessary to prevent a worldwide depression. They really would have shot the hostage back in 2008 because if they didn't get bailed out they were going down. Why not take everyone else down with them. But by 2011 or 2012 - justice should have been meted out.

Wel, I can this: I could have much easier lived with the bailouts had there been strong accountability to go along with the money. The lack of prosecuion set a horrible precedent IMHO.

 

[PNWest]

Wel, I can this: I could have much easier lived with the bailouts had there been strong accountability to go along with the money. The lack of prosecuion set a horrible precedent IMHO.

Yep - and we'll see the consequences of that in the years to come.

 

[PhilFish]

Wel, I can this: I could have much easier lived with the bailouts had there been strong accountability to go along with the money. The lack of prosecuion set a horrible precedent IMHO.

Agree.

I could have done with one more rate drop.

 

[PNWest]

Agree.

I could have done with one more rate drop.

Damn Phil, that's cold. You like that borrowing that free money don't you?

Don't you worry about all those old geezers living off of bonds and CDs? Those are the ones that paid for the stock market gains that PNWest and Phil enjoyed.

 

[PhilFish]

Damn Phil, that's cold. You like that borrowing that free money don't you?

Don't you worry about all those old geezers living off of bonds and CDs? Those are the ones that paid for the stock market gains that PNWest and Phil enjoyed.

Um. Yes. As do most bright bulbs.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Damn Phil, that's cold. You like that borrowing that free money don't you?

Don't you worry about all those old geezers living off of bonds and CDs? Those are the ones that paid for the stock market gains that PNWest and Phil enjoyed.

You just reminded me of the best one- sentence summary of the meltdown I've heard this far: free money makes you stupid.

 

[Dawg]

Yep - and we'll see the consequences of that in the years to come.

Bush didn't sign the CRA Slick did in the 90's
No Credit/Bad Credit come on down banks must loan your $$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-boost-to-big-banks-draws-democratic-support_n_5c8ff1bfe4b04ed2c1ad4ab7

Just because republicans are scum doesn't mean that democrats can't be too. Sh!thead Schumer is proving this. He's always been a friend to the banksters that cratered the economy under Bush and was intrumental in making sure that the people responsible for the crash never faced justice (thanks Obama!).

What Obama should have done is used the RICO laws to indict the top management of every single one of the big banks that were dealing in Collateralized Debt Obligations based on sub prime mortgages.

This is a subject that requires far more intelligence than any of the righties here (with possibly a very few exceptions) are capable of understanding so I'll translate for them: "Chuck Schumer and Barrack Obama let the bad guys walk instead of jailing them".

What should have happened, and neither GW bush nor Dolt45 have done either, is for the top managers of these firms be indicted under the RICO laws. Using these laws the government could jail them, take away all of their personal wealth and throw their families out on the street. It would have taken YEARS for the trials to have gone through the courts but a strong message would have been sent to crooked bankers.


As always the republicans, scum that they are supported the banksters to the fullest and made sure that they not only paid no price but actually profited from the damage they did. But in this case many top democrats colluded with them.

To use RICO there needs to be underlying crimes. The biggest scandal surrounding the banking collapse was that their actions were not crimes. The rich and powerful take care of each other.

 

[PNWest]

To use RICO there needs to be underlying crimes. The biggest scandal surrounding the banking collapse was that their actions were not crimes. The rich and powerful take care of each other.

There were underlying crimes. There was ample evidence that these banks were KNOWINGLY issuing fraudlulent sub-prime loans. Aplicants were coached on what needed to be put down to get the loans. This was documented. So was the fact that these banks knowingly mis-stated financial conditions that led investors to think taht things were far better than they were. So was the fact that these banks engaged in rigging the TED Spread (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_spread) illegally.

Most if not all of the top bankers in the country could have and should been charged.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

There were underlying crimes. There was ample evidence that these banks were KNOWINGLY issuing fraudlulent sub-prime loans. Aplicants were coached on what needed to be put down to get the loans. This was documented. So was the fact that these banks knowingly mis-stated financial conditions that led investors to think taht things were far better than they were. So was the fact that these banks engaged in rigging the TED Spread (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_spread) illegally.

Most if not all of the top bankers in the country could have and should been charged.

Some who were directly involved in issuing fraudulent loans were prosecuted, but the big boys who caused the collapse benefited by loose regulation, which was partially corrected by Dodd-Frank. It’s sad, but true - their actions were by and large not criminal back then.