Two Portlanders refuse to testify before grand jury after FBI raid

@MarkKpic Nixon removed us from the gold standard??? I believe that was Dem. FDR that did that!

BC- I do see your point, and believe that the whole of the topic could take a thread of it's own. IMO, the first 'bailout' of the banks (Tax Reform Act of 1986) was the first instance where widespread abuse of (what are now labeled 'subprime' mortgages) brought the financial industry to the brink. This 'bailout' occurred under (GOP Messiah) Ronald Reagan. Personally, I feel strongly that there is evidence that this one occurred in large part because of (another GOP) Nixons decision (and again, another coorilation to the military-industrial complex) to remove the US from the so called 'gold standard'.

 

As is so often the case, when we refuse to learn from history, it tends to repeat itsself.

 

Now, in all fairness, it was under Clintons watch that debt became a commodity. That's where the 'credit default swaps' component became such a ferocious component of it.

 

I believe passionately that a critical analysis of the issue would lead any analytical mind to realize that the issue is not exclusively a 'dem' or 'pub' one. Rather, it's a money/greed one that uses the influence of money to manipulate our federal government.

 @MarkKpic actually the start and cause of the housing issue was a program set forth under (Billy Beer Brother) Jew hating Carter.  He started a program to force lenders to give money to low income folks unable to pay the rent, let alone house payments and taxes.  THAT is why the other fact you accurately note that it accelerated under Clinton (& was pushed by Dem majorities when possible, as well as Jesse & Al) comes into prominence. In the end of the season for the crap Bawney Fwank, Chris DuDodd, & Zero ALL fought against regulating those loans then accused Bush of being the one that deregulated the....funny that....no LSM mention of the facts.

MQ- Thank you. And I equally respect your desire to share opinions of a complex issue with no clear answers in a manner befitting two adults.

 

Despite what we may disagree on, I think it's fair to say that we're both aware that the current financial mess that we are all living in was not created by the majority, but rather the minority.

 

 There are ethical people in society, just as there are ethical people in industry. The problem is that those who serve themselves first, above all else, tend to have no problem with throwing everyone else under the proverbial bus. Include into that equation those who dont think beyond 'monthly payments', and politicians who care more about their reelection campaigns than the people they've been elected to represent...

 

As I said, Roman society lasted about 400 years. Historically, they've been the benchmark. (an argument could be made about 'british' society, but there's some serious asterisks with that one) Without a serious 'adjustment' of some sort in our society, we are headed towards a cliff.

 @MarkKpic Fair enough. I'll stand by my heart-and-soul statement. There's blame to go around, but it clusters around the guys wearing suits and getting bonuses, in my opinon. Good discussion.

>'Actually, it's easier to just say we're all to blame rather than hold some rich (not all white) guys accountable.'

 

Could not agree more. There is corruption and greed aplenty in the whole of the debacle. 'We' are as complicit by being asleep at the switch when it comes to oversight of our own government as 'they' are for the rampant profiteering that took place via the 'default credit swaps'.

 

>'so the lender is as responsible as the borrower. And the lender has the duty of verifying the borrower's information.'

 

Nor did the borrowers insist on verification of ALL information contained in the documents. For almost every instance where you can show me a falsified document by the 'bank', I can show you one where someone allowed the morgage broker to falsify information on a legal document. Fraud is fraud. When you sign that document, you are attesting under penalty of law that it is accurate. While the lender has responsibilities (that they shirked), so does the borrower (which they also shirked). One side cannot complain of exclusive 'victim' status when they were just as complicit in the behavior.

 

When Norman and Judy know dang well that they cannot document an income of $150k/year, and yet their mortgage broker is telling them 'just sign, it's no big deal... we can make it work.' There's a feduciary fraud taking place on BOTH sides of the desk.

 

>'And that was just the starting point for the corruption. The selling and packaging and reselling of the loans was exclusively the domain of the rich guys. And it was the heart and soul of the bubble.'

 

I disagree with the idea that it was the 'heart and soul' of the problem. At the heart of the problem was plain 'ol greed. Or, lust of money, if you prefer a theological summation. Echoes of Samuel Clemmons come to mind, 'the fundamental problem with laws is that they are writeen by lawyers.' The groups and individuals who are supposed to be looking out for the whole of the country are as complicit as anyone in the industry. Again, fault comes back to 'us'.  The things that happened haven't resulted in any prosecutions because, nothing they did was illegal. Little by little, starting under Reagan, laws meant to regulate such behaviors were repealed. Under Clinton, the regulatory arm was further retarded, and  when GWII finally put the axe to the actual number of investigative officers who were supposed to be watching, and put someone in charge who was more interested in doing nothing than watching... the inevitable nature of Man took over.... and here we are.

 

It's a big part of the reason I find it impossible to vote for candidates (read:GOP) who profess that 'the government needs to remove regulation and oversight of industry'.

 

Of course, the flip siide of that is the 'nanny state' ideology that is offered by the DNC.

 

>'You keep bringing up student loans. Is the source of the problem there irresponsible students borrowing for more college than they can afford? Or is the source mainly for-profit institutions that market themselves dishonestly, prey upon people's legitimate ambitions, get the loan papers signed, and then collect their money without delivering any education?'

 

You ask that question like it's an either/or choice. I'd say that BOTH elements of the ts question you pose are equally as valid an argument for the invevitable 'market correction' that is to come.

 

 

 

 

 @MarkKpic Actually, it's easier to just say we're all to blame rather than hold some rich (not all white) guys accountable.

 

When a contract is signed, BOTH parties are responsible for their ends being legal and ethical and the terms clearly understood - so the lender is as responsible as the borrower. And the lender has the duty of verifying the borrower's information. Didn't happen that way. Lenders falsified documents and put people into loans that were more expensive than what they could have qualified for.

 

And that was just the starting point for the corruption. The selling and packaging and reselling of the loans was exclusively the domain of the rich guys. And it was the heart and soul of the bubble. The bought and paid for government (including Timmy G) didn't regulate anything, so it was all just allowed to happen.

 

You keep bringing up student loans. Is the source of the problem there irresponsible students borrowing for more college than they can afford? Or is the source mainly for-profit institutions that market themselves dishonestly, prey upon people's legitimate ambitions, get the loan papers signed, and then collect their money without delivering any education? Is it the students or the executive? If both, are they equally to blame or is one set a bit more responsible for the mess than the other?

 

I'd say it's the executives, and in that sense it mirrors the housing bubble.

 

 

 

 

MQ- A statement prefaced with 'the single largest component' would tend to indicate that there were other factors in play, Yes? I will admit that I was in error by not deliniating all of those factors, but I doubt K2's bandwidth would allow for a comprehensive piece on the issue.

 

It's easy, not to mention all to clique', to blame it all on 'the big banks'. It's also dishonest. There is corruption in the financial industry, and our own government (spearheaded by newly appointed Sec of the Treasury Tim Geitner, thanks Pres Obama!) is as complicit in the problem as any of them. Lest we forget that the industry is supposed to be regulated by our government, who is supposed to be working in ALL citizens best interest, not just the wealthy elite.

 

But, that's not reality. Reality is that a whole lot of people threw caution to the wind and signed on to mortgage and refinancing contracts that they didn't take the time to critically analyze. This, in turn, put skads of money into the economy, and stilted it up for about 12-16 years. Everybody was happy because the proverbial piper hadn't come calling yet. This resulted in what you keep referring to as 'the bubble' that 'popped' at the beginning of 2007.

 

When you accept money, and sign a contract, the responsibility is on YOU to make sure that it is an ethical, legal document that you can afford to complete the terms of. Just as waaaaay too many people only look at monthly payments on their cars today, waaaaaaaaay too many people were only looking at the entry rates on their ARM's, and the $$$$ in their pockets. Keeping their mouths shut for fear of ruining their chances of getting their hands on that cash.

 

Yes, the subprime mortgage shell game came tumbling down. I expected it to starting in about 2004. I was only off by about 3 years. The next one will be the financial aid system. But, again, nobody wants to hear that because it would mean that colleges would lose out on their billiions in government handouts.

 

It's easy to blame 'the man', and it's socially palatable to say that those 'rich white guys' are all the countries evil. The reality is that we have met the enemy, and he is us.

 @MarkKpic "The single largest component of the 'housing bubble' was the fact that too many people bought more house than they could afford." I somehow missed that ARMS and refis were covered in this statement, but it doesn't matter - it's still wrong.

 

Without the mortgage-backed securities market on Wall Street, there would have been no housing bubble.

 

The subprime industry existed to supply mortgages to be bundled and sold in an astoundingly corrupt market. To get these mortgages, they falsified documents, lied to borrowers, and took advantage of people who didn't know any better (like a strawberry picker in CA who got $750,000 for a new house). And they let some stupid people do what stupid people do. But, without the ability to sell those mortgages to Wall Street, they never would have made those loans and there would not have been a bubble.

 

And they have not been held accountable and reformed in any meaningful way. JP Morgan can use depositors' money to gamble and lose $6 billion and it's okay. Anarchists and squatters really do amount to squat in this equation. 

 

 

MQ- 'You're wrong about the housing bubble' I don't believe I am. My comment, when taken in it's entirety, is pretty accurate. It's also supported by quite a few investigations by reporters and think-tanks on both sides of the ideological devide.

 

'It was fueled not by people buying new houses...' There's more to my comment that what you've said. I did not specify 'new' or 'existing' mortgage contracts. Nor did I say that purchasing was exclusively the cause, another importatnt component of the bubble was refinancing deals made with ARMs that were insaine to begin with, yet people signed on to them. In the end, noone MADE them sign those documents. They saw 'easy' money and refused to look critically at the whole of the situation beyond just cash in their pockets. HUGE mistake. When you sign a legal document, the onus is on YOU to ensure you understand the pros AND cons of the agreement you are entering into. THAT is where the error most often occurred (insofar as the refinancing component of the collapse).

 

And, again, there was plenty of 'blame' to go around. While a part of it was the borrowers, another component was most certainly the financial institutions and their "greed above all" ethics. Another was the elected officials, and the individuals appointed by them to lead Freddy Mac and Fanny May. Simply put, the problem was greed. Self-serving, myself above all else, give it to me regardless of the cost, greed. That was repleat on ALL fronts. Not just 'wall street'.

 

'Increasing home values do not necessarily indicate a bubble...' True. But, given the rate of increase, and the simply unsustainible rate at which people were financiang properties to 'roll' them, anyone with a critical mind could see the cliff coming. The people who didn't jump off the stampeede before it ran off that cliff are now the ones crying fowl. Hindsight is 20/20. The next 'bubble' is likely going to be the student loan program. That one is going to have much more dramatic effects, as there is no longer a tangible property on which the government can foreclose to try to offset their indebtedness.

 

'I agree with you about money in politics...' I agree with much of what you've written. Different paths to the same destination, I suppose.

 

 

'Compare the damage done to this country...' Rhetorical justification. When some guys shop gets smashed to bits because he just happens to have the storefront next to a Starbucks, or when people begin squatting in foreclosed homes with no accoutability to the community in which that home resides.... there's a problem with the theory you propose. It's not an either/or type situation. Until there is some actual integrity in office at a national level, the situation will continue to get worse.

 

Frankly, the US has had a pretty good run. Even Rome only made it 500 years or so before it's own internal corruption and greed chewed away at it's foundations enough for it to collapse. Given our current government, and the way in which our leaders are elected, I don't know that our country as it is will last 200 more. Of course, people refuse to look at that reality, because elections have become all about 'what's in it for me' rather than the benefit of the country as a whole.

 

Who knows, perhaps in 200 years Mr Williams and Ms Plante will be written as heroes. Today, I just see them as a corrosive component within the whole.

 

 

 

 @MarkKpic You're wrong about the housing bubble.

 

It was fueled not by people buying new houses, but by subprime refinances that the mortgage industry created to satisfy the demand from Wall Street for material that could be packaged as securities and sold. In other words, the fraud and the crime came almost entirely from the finance industry - people have always wanted as much or more house than they can afford - lending standards put a cap on this until the industry removed those standards (and then started lying to and defrauding borrowers).

 

Increasing home values do not necessarily indicate a bubble. The bubble got started in 2001. The laws that permitted it were largely signed by Clinton. Bush II gutted the regulators.

 

I agree with you about money in politics, but term limits will only accelerate the revolving door - the finance industry can always sponsor new candidates who will serve their interests. The only solution is to get the money out of politics. Money isn't speech. And this transformation won't come from above - it will be people protesting (whether it's Occupy or the Tea Party), and some of these people might not be the folks you'd invite to dinner. But to focus on meaningless details is to miss the actual problem.

 

Compare the damage done to this country by anarchists to the damage done by the finance industry - then compare the number of anarchists being arrested to the number of bankers being arrested. There's the problem. More than a few bankers need free meals and healthcare. Instead, they get bonuses.