[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I guess the media is also on youtube making these people look like fools without a clear msg. The part I highlight is the only thing you posted I agree with. You wnat the people convicted but the problem is that most of the people who ran this into the ground did not break laws they just made poor decisions or greedy decisions.

Again FD, SELECTIVE EDITING. I can create any story you want by finding the exact responses and then editing them to make it look like all the people are ****ing stupid. HERP DERP! LOOK GUYS I INTERVIEWED 150 PEOPLE BUT WILL ONLY SHOW YOU 5 BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE MOST STUPID PEOPLE I COULD FIND. Give me a ****ing break. This kind of shit pisses me off and it does exactly what it is supposed to. Throw guys just like YOU off on the real problem. (greedy banks and corruption) Keep you focus on the real problem at hand, not what you perceive is a bunch of jerk wads wanting free handouts. Our media reminds me much like this part in this movie. Blind them with the moon (bullshit) so they continue towing the line they want you to believe.




You mean fraud isn't breaking the law? Let me quote you what friend of mine said who is in the financial industry.

The banks greed is what caused the collapse.

I was in the industry, so I have some institutional history.

You can blame the consumer all you want, but that simply isn't correct. There were primarily to types of loans that were bad loans.

1. Sub-prime: these were the high interest variable loans for people with bad credit history. They were often sold as a "fix your credit" loan. People were told that they could make payments consistently for two years at high rates and then refi it into a fixed conventional loan. The banks gambled every single time they sold these, but didn't care. The points, fees and rates were extremely high and they were making a ton of money.

2. Neg-Am loans: these loans had a deferred interest feature. I'm other words...let's say the going rate was 6%. They would lower your payment by only charging you 2%. The other 4% would get added to your balance, increasing your debt each month. These are the ones that people say that the consumer was to blame and they do deserve some blame, but listen to how they were sold...greedy as ****...

People were told 2 things to convince them it was a good loan. First...they told people that they could take that money (payment savings) and invest it making more than the amount of deferred interest. Also...they were told that they could refi it every 2 years (that was the max you could defer) essentially keeping their payment low. (more fees, more loans, higher profits, higher stock prices, ETC.)

This inflated property values because cost of the house became less important to consumers. Payment were still low. When property values

The problem was when property values peaked and stopped rising, the deferred interest piled up to a point where people owed more than it was worth and couldn't refinance...the rate jumped back up and people could no longer afford the payments.

It's important to remember that these bankers knew these were bad loans and that at some point it would all collapse. They didn't care. They saw it as a way to makes gobs of money...and they did.

Sorry for the lengthy response, but I hate the "blame the consumer" argument

Sounds like fraud to me. Nothing different from this and a Ponzi scheme.


Nope. Nothing wrong with this. /facepalm