so you obama people

[Kratos]

Ron Paul 2012.

I'll take a wild guess that you support Ron Paul because he wants to end US support for Israel.

[tyward]

Well, I support Ron Paul because he wants to end support for everybody. Perhaps they can support themselves while we work our way out of this crisis. T

[RuhlFreak55]

I was thinking to myself "wtf, why hasn't tock blamed Bush yet?" ie typical dem response "Bush created a mess and it's an expensive fix."

Thank-you the world is round once again.

that's ridiculous though because most of the policies that eventually led to the end of housing were enacted under clinton.....not saying bush is without fault...i don't like him much either....but clinton started the "american dream for everyone bullshit"

[Kratos]

Well, I support Ron Paul because he wants to end support for everybody. Perhaps they can support themselves while we work our way out of this crisis. T

I was just expressing my thoughts on buffedguy's motives, cause he cares little about America, his religion is always the agenda for his politics.

[BuffedGuy]

I'll take a wild guess that you support Ron Paul because he wants to end US support for Israel.

Peace be unto you, Kratos.

It is not just about Israel. Israel is just one part. It is the entire philosophy of non-interventionism. I believe that this is what America was founded upon, and I find that my religious belief jives well with that. I also like his economic policy, although admittedly I am a novice when it comes to the economy. (His economic policy also conforms to my religious beliefs...at least what I know of it.)

I was just expressing my thoughts on buffedguy's motives, cause he cares little about America, his religion is always the agenda for his politics.

Caring for the welfare of the people in the land I live in is a part of my religion. We warn our people, just like Moses warned Pharaoh, how Lot warned the people of Sodom, and all of the prophets warned their peoples.

When America wages senseless wars, then those involved earn sin on their hands and harm their *own* souls. So my religion instructs me to try to save my people from that fate, that of Pharaoh--who also oppressed the believers in the land. Pharaoh oppressed the Children of Israel, so Prophet Moses [as] advised him to stop from that. This is because of care and concern not only for the oppressed, but also for the oppressor. Prophet Muhammad [s] advised us to help the oppressed AND the oppressor. The people asked him: "we understand why we should help the oppressed, but how do we help the oppressor???" The Prophet [s] replied by saying: "By stopping him from oppressing." The reason is that he is harming his own soul by oppressing.

So EVEN when we warn our people (the American people) against oppressing in the land, it is for their benefit. As the Quran instructs us to pray: "Our Lord! Make us not a test and trial for the disbelievers." (Quran, 60:5) What this means is that let not the oppressors from amongst the disbelievers have power over us, because this will be a test and trial for them (the disbelievers) and they will then fail and harm their own souls. So to allow an oppressor to oppress harms not only the oppressed but also the oppressor himself. The oppressed is a trial and test for the oppressor, and vice/versa.

America does NOT benefit when it occupies foreign countries. Rather, it brings about much harm to itself, not only in the eyes of God, but even in this worldly sense, i.e. it makes Americans less safe by creating hatred towards Americans, which fuels extremism abroad.

What I am trying to say to you is that my religious orientation does not at all clash with my American identity; rather, I believe that they reconcile with each other quite well. There is no contradiction.

[mho]

Well, it would be one thing if Bush and the Republicans had lived up to their reputations as fiscal conservatives. But they didn't.

Bush didn't include the $$$ spent and pledged for the war in his budget in his figures; kept all that info off the books.
O'Bama includes everything.

Add to that the crazy lending practices that the banks were doing, thanks to the federal regulators not having the foggiest idea what the bankers were doing. And you can thank the Republicans making sure that banking experts were hired to oversee them; instead, all the Bush administration hired were lawyers.

On Bush's watch, the banks screwed up multi-Trillions of $$$ in mortgage loans. Plus his administration (most notably the VP) lied about what Saddam Hussain was up to, and since Bush was too stupid to know what was really going on, he authorized a needless war, which got thousands of Americans needlessly killed, and plunged America even further into debt.

----

Even after all that, the American people still don't have a clue about how to vote.

You can thank Jimmy Carter for the Community Reinvestment Act and thank Bill Clinton for repealing the Glass-Steagal Act.

[tyward]

I read something today that seemed to ring true. It was about how I am expected to believe that poor people, who could not make their house payments, brought down the banking system of the most powerful nation on earth. Somehow I don't think so...

[mho]

I read something today that seemed to ring true. It was about how I am expected to believe that poor people, who could not make their house payments, brought down the banking system of the most powerful nation on earth. Somehow I don't think so...

Then you need to do some more research on the subject. I wouldn't fault homeowners as much as I would the government for forcing banks out of the business of redlining. Government regulations do have a place in businesses, but regulations that promote unsound and high risk practices with other people's money are unacceptable, imo.

[tyward]

Actually, I see the problem as industry specific deregulation. Although there were many regulations set up in the early 1930's to help prevent the systemic breakdown of the American (and worldwide) financial markets, many of those regulations were gutted during the past eight years. The most problematic change, which I wrote about in 2004, was the raising of the leverage percentages, allowing banks and other financial institutions to increase the spread on the money that they actually held in different types of escrow. Profits were great while house prices, as well as other asset valuations where high. The problems began when things began to fall and the multiples began to build. The truth is that subprime borrowers are a fractionally small part of the problem; wait until commercial paper and credit card debt hit the fan...

[SMCengineer]

Actually, I see the problem as industry specific deregulation. Although there were many regulations set up in the early 1930's to help prevent the systemic breakdown of the American (and worldwide) financial markets, many of those regulations were gutted during the past eight years. The most problematic change, which I wrote about in 2004, was the raising of the leverage percentages, allowing banks and other financial institutions to increase the spread on the money that they actually held in different types of escrow. Profits were great while house prices, as well as other asset valuations where high. The problems began when things began to fall and the multiples began to build. The truth is that subprime borrowers are a fractionally small part of the problem; wait until commercial paper and credit card debt hit the fan...

Unfortunately, the reasoning that "deregulation" caused this financial crisis is merely a platitude. In no way can anyone economically explain how "deregulation" caused a speculative bubble of this magnitutde. Over-leveraging is not a result of deregulation. That is, unless the deregulation you're referring to is artificial manipulation of interests rates, in which you would be correct.

Oh, and I would add commercial real estate onto the list you mentioned.

[Kratos]

That was my point buffguy, you see America as an opressor of Muslim countries and that's as far as your political thought process goes.

[tyward]

Platitude indeed...I'm referring to specific legislation giving financial institutions the ability to increase their investment leverage primarily through the use of off book derivaitives trades that, and I'm sure you must be at least somewhat aware of the reinsurance industry, were based on complex formulas usually hinging on multiples of the LIBOR longer term and the LIBOR O/N. Because of the complexity and hidden nature of these investments, which were given the highest ratings through another reinsurance process, were marketed throughout the world. I supported the legislation at the time because American banking was losing business to London. If they were platitudes that I was investing in, then then the millions I made in the derivatives industry, while I was working a regular job, certainly come as a shock to me. Yuo don't believe me? Good, stay poor forever, and no, I never need other peoples money to invest...
BTW, you might want to read my post, I did mention the commercial market...

[SMCengineer]

Platitude indeed...I'm referring to specific legislation giving financial institutions the ability to increase their investment leverage primarily through the use of off book derivaitives trades that, and I'm sure you must be at least somewhat aware of the reinsurance industry, were based on complex formulas usually hinging on multiples of the LIBOR longer term and the LIBOR O/N. Because of the complexity and hidden nature of these investments, which were given the highest ratings through another reinsurance process, were marketed throughout the world. I supported the legislation at the time because American banking was losing business to London. If they were platitudes that I was investing in, then then the millions I made in the derivatives industry, while I was working a regular job, certainly come as a shock to me. Yuo don't believe me? Good, stay poor forever, and no, I never need other peoples money to invest...
BTW, you might want to read my post, I did mention the commercial market...

I'm not sure I ever said you invested in platitudes primarily because I don't know what that means. How can you invest in a platitude? What I said, was the arguement that deregulation caused a financial panic is just a generic explanation. Your arguement doesn't address my question on how deregulation caused a massive speculative bubble. I understand that you're esposing the view that the unregulated derivatives market is what caused over-leveraging, but it's simply not possible on it's own merit. Credit expansion is what fueled the derivatives market. It's akin to blaming the Great Depression on the stock market crash of 1929.

You making millions during this period is great and I should definitely get some investing tips from you, but it's irrelevant to this conversation. Also, I said commercial real estate not credit cards or commercial paper. This was not to disagree with or contradict either of those, but simply to add to your list which you seem to be offended by for some reason. I meant nothing by it.