President Obama

[Slight_Return]

No, just for the people who are clearly talking out of their ass.

How does that manner strike you?

As you have asked, like the manner of a bully. (you and dubya peas in a pod)

 

[TX Bill]

No ones fault but there's if they take out loans they can't afford. That stands for individuals, companies and governments.

But wait, according to a few of my esteemed liberal friends, it's Bush's fault that they took out loans they couldn't repay. It was the Bush administration that forced the banks to lend to people who couldn't repay.

Hey, I've got an idea.

Let's give more tax breaks to the middle and lower class (those who don't pay much in tax already), stick it to the wealthy (who shoulder most of the tax burden in this country already) and give tax breaks to those who don't pay any tax at all, basically giving them additional income to meet those mortgage payments.

Oh, wait, someone already thought of that:

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

 

[TX Bill]

They could handle it though, until the fine print kicked in after five years and suddenly real interest rates were applied. Heaven knows how those people were sold such mortgages. Aren't there agencies setup to help and protect the public from such financial traps? but forget them, what were the banks actually thinking?

CRA

Read up.

That's what the banks were thinking. I addressed this earlier in responding to one of your posts.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

They could handle it though, until the fine print kicked in after five years and suddenly real interest rates were applied. Heaven knows how those people were sold such mortgages. Aren't there agencies setup to help and protect the public from such financial traps? but forget them, what were the banks actually thinking?

Oh please. I say again. A mortgage is quite probably the largest financial commitment you'll ever take. If you choose not to investigate the full terms of the deal it's your fault. It's a simple matter of risk. The only person you can rely on to look out for you is you. If you decide to place the wellbeing of yourself and your family into the hands of a company that's pretty negligent on your behalf.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

As I've said before, the reaction to the crunch will hit the sensible people that looked after their finances because inflation will really hit those that decided to save for a rainy day. Meanwhile the idiots that took on more than they could handle (both individuals and companies) get help thrown at them left, right and centre. These people sure weren't complaining when the property boom was making them a fortune and pricing others out of the market. Now things have burst, tough titties. You benefit in the good times, you suffer in the bad.

 

[atrottel]

I will have to disagree. In the US federal government, the 3 branches of powers (executive, judicial, & legislative) all have separate powers. We the People are represented by our elected officials - our congressmen, senators, president, etc. Judges don't represent the people, they represent the constitution. Their job is not to act on my behalf, they are not to be activist, not to be modernist, conservative, liberal, gay, straight, or elsewise. Their job is to review and adjudicate law in light of the constitution. Is it just an American symbol to have Lady Justice holding a scale while blindfolded?

It can vehimently be argued that the intent of the founding fathers was to have a living and evolving constitution. Many, if not most, were believers in state rights and desired limited federal govenment. If the constitution were to evolve through the judiciary, why would they make formal provisions for amendment the constitution? It is all too convenient for an entity to cede to itself powers that are not prescribed.

You are - slightly - putting words in my mouth in that I didn't mean that judges should represent the people, but rather they were appointed by representatives of the people (nominated by the executive and approved by the legislative) for their own knowledge of and opinion of the constitution, which can be, as we have seen, varying different shades of view.

You may find a particular view distasteful and your own view may be that a judge should stick exactly to what is written in the original constitution. Other opinions say that the constitution should be interpreted in a modern light. But your opinion or anyone else's rightly don't count - only the opinions of the justices matter once they are appointed.

It is (lights blue touchpaper and retires) exactly what the debate about gun control laws and the right to bear arms is about. Should an American citizen have the right to bear arms now because the US Constitution was written at a time of insurrection and war? If that right exists, does it apply to all and any arms? And if not why not?

 

[Basil Fawlty]

Good luck to him I say, absolutely stunning to have a black man in the white house when you look back 50 years ago they were forced to sit at the back of buses and weren't allowed into certain places because of the colour of their skin

 

[Slight_Return]

the possibility shouldn't have been there.
the banks should have realised the problem initially, thats not removing blame from where the idea for it all came from, but they had their own interests to look out for by looking out for their customers.
as it stands now, those people that were given false mortgages are suffering and everyone else gets to suffer along with them.

 

[TX Bill]

As you have asked, like the manner of a bully. (you and dubya peas in a pod)

When someone wants to try and persuade me of the view that our country's current economic woes are purely of George Bush's making and there is no culpability on the part of anyone else other than one George Bush (and to that extent, his admistration), I will give that view the ridicule it richly deserves.

I stated earlier that Bush was by no means perfect and his legacy will have some questions. You naturally jumped on my blackmarks comment which I understand. However, for me, his blackmarks have more to do with his lack of fiscal conservatism. Our government didn't cut spending (and we most certainly won't now under a Democratic regime) while he was in office and earmarks were still an acceptable practice.

If you want to call that me being a bully, feel free to do so.

But I deal in facts, not talking points and hyperbole. Most everyone on here does the same.

Most everyone.

 

[TX Bill]

Oh please. I say again. A mortgage is quite probably the largest financial commitment you'll ever take. If you choose not to investigate the full terms of the deal it's your fault. It's a simple matter of risk. The only person you can rely on to look out for you is you. If you decide to place the wellbeing of yourself and your family into the hands of a company that's pretty negligent on your behalf.

It also implies that every mortgage company out there was hoodwinking every borrower that came across their path and just simply isn't true.

Sure there were some shady mortgage lenders. But I'd say that most people knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed on the dotted line.

If they didn't, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[TX Bill]

Oh, and to be fair Slight Return, you aren't the first person I've ever had a "run in" with here regarding politics. I'm in the minority here and I understand that.

So don't feel like I'm bullying you.

I've had conversations with many others on this forum including many who have posted in this very thread and we get along just fine.

And yes, I'm sure I started out with them the same way I started out with you. Nebbiolo could probably back me up on this one.

 

[atrottel]

I'm in the minority here and I understand that.

Really???

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. (There are a few "fiscal and social conservatives" and Republicans on here, as well as those who feel strongly nationalistic and right-wing over in Europe. But you - and others - seem to give as good as you ever take in the debates.)

 

[Nebbiolo]

Oh, and to be fair Slight Return, you aren't the first person I've ever had a "run in" with here regarding politics. I'm in the minority here and I understand that.

So don't feel like I'm bullying you.

I've had conversations with many others on this forum including many who have posted in this very thread and we get along just fine.

And yes, I'm sure I started out with them the same way I started out with you. Nebbiolo could probably back me up on this one.

Discussions Bill, not run-ins.

 

[The Esk]

Who's at fault for the sub-prime crisis?

I'm not sure how an Everton related board gets to such weighty matters but here's my take on who is at fault for the sub-prime crisis:

1. Alan Greenspan
2. Mortgage Lenders
3. Investment Banks
4. Hedge Funds and other high yield investors
5. The Credit Rating Agencies
6. Mortgage Brokers
7. The consumer


All bar the consumer knew what was happening, some consumers might have known but decided to ignore the risks, but the majority would have had no idea.....

More details on request

 

[Slight_Return]

and who gave the green light for the first six to shaft the seventh?