Van Jones: Obama Must Choose on Housing: A Sweetheart Deal for the 1% or a Fair Deal for the 99%

WIZEGUY____So help me it better be just a rumor. Because if it is not and Obama agrees to let these criminals off scott free. I think we need to get a 1 million signatures to have him impeached then Joe Biden will take his place until we can get Hillary in there. What do you think?

Obama knows that if true accountability is had, the congress, Fannie and Freddie and several presidential administrations will be at fault.

I am thinking heavy on this...I voted for Hillary in the primary and feel she wouldn't have been so condescending trying to get the GOP to compromise...he has been showing some back bone lately (Keystone XL) the GOP will call it a witch hunt I will call it getting what their gnarly asses deserve....the fact is they really didn't break the law they gambled and lost sadly they lost "our" money....

No matter how much it would hurt I will never pull the "R".. or not vote it is too important to stop the madness that has besieged us for the past 30 years...

I know that because these phyco's have been getting away with the uncivilized RAPE of our Country for too long. After the Grand Theft that been perpetrated on this Country we need to go after all those that we can. Because there is no time limit for the crime of murder. Because after their actions /I'm sure they have killed someone.

I'm sure they have killed someone

The American dream my friend the American dream...

Does anybody really doubt that Obama will continue to side with the big banks? How do you think he will raise his $Billion to save his job if he doesn't. As always, when the choice is Obama vs anything else, he never hesitates to run the bus right over whatever will help him. The 99% is screwed here because he knows he will still get that vote no matter what....and he needs Wall Street to reach his campaign fund raising goals to try and save his job. Consider it another "Jobs Program".......it's all about his!

Obama Must Choose on Housing: A Sweetheart Deal for the 1% or a Fair Deal for the 99%

Obama is part of the 1% and he got his own housing deal in Chicago

All those bashing Obama here, ask yourself this, what is the GOP plan to help homeowners who are hurt by criminals at the banks?

Obama needs to do right on this, for sure - yet the alternative offered by the GOP is as bad and would hurt us even worse.

.

Common Sense Mike

Does anybody really doubt that Obama will continue to side with the big banks? How do you think he will raise his $Billion to save his job if he doesn't.

billion from the banks ? proof please ...

1/3rd of Obama's 2008 came from small donations.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4771073&page=1#.Tx1xxHpowiY

So far during the 2012 presidential race, it seems the 99 percent prefers President Barack Obama and his Tea Party-backed Republican rivals. That is, small-dollar donors -- those who gave $200 or less -- compose about half of the total fund-raising hauls of Obama, as well as Republicans Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Ron Paul, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Meanwhile, the establishment GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have relied much more heavily on wealthier donors. Small-dollar donors make up just 10 percent or less of their hauls, despite being two of the three biggest fund-raisers in the race, according to the Center's research.

However, the story of the presidential money chase so far is Obama's prolific grassroots fund-raising.

Despite slipping approval ratings and a sputtering economy, Obama's support from small donors has skyrocketed past his 2008 levels.

During the first two quarters of the 2012 presidential campaign, small-dollar donors have yet to make up less than 46 percent of Obama's total haul.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/10/grassroots-donors-swell-war-chests.html

lol btco ... Greenwood has no reply .... of course , to your question.

yawn...the facts have often been presented where he received significant funds from wall street and the banks....which basically allowed them to purchase the Treasure Department.

All those bashing Obama here, ask yourself this, what is the GOP plan to help homeowners who are hurt by criminals at the banks?

To get rid of Obama and Reid.

"Get rid of Obama"

In four words, the Republican platform.

To get rid of Obama and Reid.

And replace them with what? Seriously, tell us what are the GOP plans to restore a balance in America?

Is it supporting consumer protections? Have they put up a bill to reinstate Glass Stegall?

What are the GOP doing?

Obama has one big fault, his banking policies, yet the alternative offered by the GOP is worse.

We need to have a political system that is not beholden to special interests, until more people get behind efforts like Occupy or Move to Amend, we are screwed. Yet we get screwed harder by the GOP.

Tsk Tsk

I see it's a partisan thing for you.

Tsk Tsk

I see it's a partisan thing for you.

Partisan my ass.

All those bashing Obama here, ask yourself this, what is the GOP plan to help homeowners who are hurt by criminals at the banks?

Probably the same thing...so what's the difference? Perhaps you can explain why in your mind it's ok if Obama or Democrats do it....but it's evil if the GOP does the same thing? (Talk about brainwashed!)

And for those who are so blinded by partisanship that they can't see the truth, try finding some balanced information instead of relying on all the left wing nut job blogs!

Now, it is true that Romney and Republicans are out doing Obama in raising campaign contributions from business, and here's why!

Probably the same thing...

So if Romney or Newt are elected you think they will suddenly reverse course and support the CPA? Those who previously found it necessary to apologize to corporations who cut corners for bigger profits and put our country at risk would suddenly get tough and demand they pay to clean up their mess instead? The "conservatives" would all take the opposite stance on taxes and start looking out for the 99% instead of the 1% if only we vote that black man out of office eh?

Here are two cases in court right now that are an outrage and example of why we need to get aggressive with these white collar criminal slobs.

Citigroup was busted for a second time by the SEC on a specific type of fraud. They had already been warned the first time by the SEC to not do it again in reaching an out of court settlement/fine with them. Then they did it again, and the SEC was in process of arranging for yet another out of court settlement/fine despite their loud and clear message to not commit this fraud again. A California judge refused to go along with this pitter pat on the wrist regulation that has enabled them to continue in the same direction and pushed the case onward in court on criminal charges.

In another case, bank personnel under oath admitted that the mortgage papers used in a foreclosure process were forgeries. FORGERIES!!! Excuse me for noticing, but if you get mugged in the street for a hundred bucks and they catch the criminal take him to court, prove that he is guilty, HE GOES TO PRISON. Here we are with white collar criminals mugging each customer for tens of thousands of dollars, they admit to the crime, and .... they go free or get an out of court settlement - which means all criminal charges are dropped and they are free to do this all over again.

So if Romney or Newt are elected you think they will suddenly reverse course and support the CPA? Those who previously found it necessary to apologize to corporations who cut corners for bigger profits and put our country at risk would suddenly get tough and demand they pay to clean up their mess instead?

Let me try to help you out here.....same - identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned: being one or identical though having different names, aspects, etc.: unchanged in character, condition, etc.:

For me, the best question here is, why is it when Obama or Democrats do something, it's ok or acceptable, sometimes even praised....but if Republicans do the exact same thing ...suddenly it becomes evil?

He said he needs $1 Billion dollars to get his ass re-elected. I wonder who might be supporting him this year and why?

Which brings up the question...

What's more important? Money or Votes?

Timing is everything.At the beginning of the year - money, towards the Q4 - votes. That is why he is doing this deal now. People who tend to remember things, and are able to put two and two together did not vote for Obama in the first place.

"Default and foreclosure rates are now several times higher than at any time since the Great Depression."

Takes time to clean up the mess.... smile :-)

Yes, so if we get rid of Obama this year, we can get a head start on things over 2016..:)

socrates ...

it was failed right wing policies that put us in this financial @!$%# hole and keeping those policies is what they advocate.

that won't get us out of anything.

How We Get Out of the Great Depression II
By Steven Stoft, March 2, 2009

Here we go again: Hoover got us in, and WWII got us out. Bush got us in, and
to his credit, started trying to get us out. Though, mostly he threw money at bankers.
In the Great Depression, Roosevelt tried deficit spending, but he was too timid. Then he stopped in 1937 and the economy nose-dived. It took the humongous deficits of WWII to pull us out of the Great Depression. Those deficits blasted the economy from depression into overdrive.
Of course after the war, we had to pay off a huge national debt, but during that time, from 1946 to 1980, the economy was mainly quite prosperous. We hit a bad recession when Reagan took office, and his early deficit spending made sense (though he didn't know it). But then he continued to drive up the debt through the boom years that followed. That didn't make any sense.
We are now headed into the worst slump since 1938, and you better hope Obama can fix it because that was not a pretty time. Unfortunately, as in the Great Depression, the extreme conservatives would rather trash the country than have our government succeed. They are much worse than Bush.
The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can't blame business for this. It's just a vicious cycle that the economy gets into. And you can't blame consumers for not spending in bad times. The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich). Of course there's also the problem of the banks. Obama should stop saving the bankers, and just take over the bad banks. Once they're working they can be sold back to the private sector.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Surprise: Dems are better for rallies
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

Who's the Better Manager of the Economy, Republicans or Democrats?
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/manage_economy.html

Why the economy fares much better under Democrats
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html

Bush Latest GOPer to Show Democrats Better for the Economy
By Jon Perr Sunday Jan 25, 2009

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-latest-goper-show-democrats-better-e

Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
http://www.slate.com/id/2199810

the problem with Obama ? he compromised with the right and kept some of their failed policies in place.

That's about what I assumed you would think.

It's a little bit sad that we agreed on the banks, and then you miss the fact that it all started back around 1919, and that you can't seem to get beyond your partisanship and political leanings.

It just goes to show that the problem can never be solved in a way that will benefit the average American citizen.

Some don't want to know the truth Socrates....they are perfectly happy and comfortable having their head stuck up either a donkey or elephant butt.

CSM...can't say I completely disagree....

It saves a lot of time by identifying those who wish to remain uninformed, and moving on.

Don't quote me...but if Obama actually went after the banks...I might consider voting for him.

Its not that simple. If he decides to really go after the white collar criminals, Republicans would obstruct, water down and sabotage what he would be doing in exchange for huge amounts of money from Wall Street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXJR7eZ_jQ

Cantor Promises Oil Speculators That GOP Will Block Financial Regulations

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/12/26/136385/lucas-financial-reform/

Lobbyist In Charge Of ‘Trying To Kill’ Financial Reform Hired By GOP Chair To Oversee Financial Regulations

December 2010

A few days ago, incoming Agriculture Chairman Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) announced the hire of Ryan McKee as the senior staffer to oversee the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. McKee is currently a lobbyistworking for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s division dedicated to deregulating complex derivatives products. In her new role working for Lucas, McKee will be liaising with regulators in charge of implementing new rules under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law to overhaul the over-the-counter derivatives market.

Great....and I wonder why I'm not a Liberal....

I mean a bunch of crimes have been committed

Like I said above and believe me I take it with a grain of salt...they did not break any laws if we can get them for being scumbags that would be nice....once the junkie shoots the dope he can't be arrested for possession,,, public intoxication yes which is misdemeanor BS

So, no crimes have been commited?

Has a wrong been done?

Crimes have been committed...don't kid yourself...for one thing....otherwise why the need for absolution?

Interestingly, the very same politicians who see corporations as people have a hard time seeing corporations as criminals, because, after all, they are entities not individuals. I predict that Pres Obama will accept the deal as crafted. And that the crafters of the deal will not see the corporations as chargeable with criminal acts. And we'll all be stuck with the deal. But Obama will still be our best option in November.

can you give me the crime except for being scumbags...i know its a hard pill to swallow but they worked the fringe of the law knowing they could get away with it...this will be all mute if he says to justice "get them @!$%#s"...like all big cases i see them being fined, no prosecutions and they will all sleep well with plenty of drugs...

Crimes have been committed...don't kid yourself...for one thing....otherwise why the need for absolution?

In the old country we had a saying that a person was better off falling under a train, then under a political campaign. Whether or not crimes were committed is irrelevant, the mob wants blood, and everyone knows it - someone has to pay, and someone will.

The banks want to protect themselves as institutions and I predict that a couple of CEO/CFO types will be made sacrificial lambs individually. A little closer to the election date, that is. So corporations, not being people, but still being prudent, want to protect their corporate persona, likely at the expense of the personnae comprising the corporation. Why do you think this 1% BS is continued to be propagated, even as the movemen has all but withered and died? Because it is a cheap way to deflect the blame.

Fraud.

Roger,

1% BS has died. Really? Why does Mitt keep talking about class warfare, then?

In what sense are concerns about income inequality, bull @!$%#?

Mr.R.R.

Perhaps, but I don't think that being part of the "one per cent" should provide blanket amnesty either. You're responsible for your actions. I'm responsible for my actions. They are responsible for their actions. Is there an inconsistency there which I am missing?

1% BS has died. Really?

OWS has all but died, the 1% goes on. Here is what I said 1% BS is continued to be propagated

Please try to read more carefully next time, control your liberal urges, and don't ask me why Mitt Romney says this or that - I have no idea what he says, let alone why.

Perhaps, but I don't think that being part of the "one per cent" should provide blanket amnesty either.

Nor does it, but surely provides a helluva lot good layers, which is the next best thing.

You're responsible for your actions.

And most of the time the right and wrong, are not the same a legal and illegal.

I'm responsible for my actions.

You're a better man than me, I am also responsible for the actions of my wife and daughter, especially when they do not turn out as they planned it.

They are responsible for their actions.

Don't we all wish that that were so?

Is there an inconsistency there which I am missing?

I am not sure. All I said that the corporation are protecting themselves, while most likely will be willing to make rare and random human sacrifice in a form of an occasional chief something or other. As for responsibility - let's put Barney Franks on trial, now that he retired his ass, perhaps we should reap him a new one, he might like that.

Bottom line?

We agree they will protect themselves.

Which suggests to me that there is nothing wrong with others doing likewise.

I'm assuming you know I'm no fan of Barney "Big Bank" Franks or Chris "Wall Street" Dodd.

Roger,

Why is income inequity BS again?

None of you folks want to answer this question. Why is that?

Well, there's the roto signing part.

Roger,

OWS has all but died? Says who? Fox News? Someone better tell the Occupiers themselves. They seem pretty active around here for a dead movement...

"1% BS..."

Sure, I saw what you wrote and asked a question.

"In what sense are concerns about income inequality, bull @!$%#?"

You still haven't answered, though you are doing a great job of avoiding the question. :)

Like I said above and believe me I take it with a grain of salt...they did not break any laws if we can get them for being scumbags that would be nice....once the junkie shoots the dope he can't be arrested for possession,,, public intoxication yes which is misdemeanor BS

Forging mortgage papers is ILLEGAL. Grouping junk mortgages into bundles and then grossly over rating them is ILLEGAL. Knowing that these are junk bundles and selling them to customers by misrepresenting them is called derivatives fraud, and it is ILLEGAL. Using these bundles as assets (because of their over rated status) on accounting books to basically "cook the books" is ILLEGAL.

What we really and desperately need to do right now is DIVIDE UP the Wall Street giants in the same manner as the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 did. Investment components of large corporations would become their own stand alone companies. They would no longer be "too big to let fail." At the first sign of cooking the books, fraud, forgery, etc... force them into bankruptcy with all executive assets seized to pay off debts.

Currently just TEN banks own 77 percent of all US banking assets and control most of the trading/investment in America.

Grouping junk mortgages into bundles and then grossly over rating them is ILLEGAL.

Not unless you can prove an intent to defraud, which would be difficult given the amounts of money these idiots lost themselves.

What we really and desperately need to do right now is DIVIDE UP the Wall Street giants in the same manner as the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 did.

The reinstatement of Glass Steagall would be an excellent start.

There are some smoking guns out there. You find culpability at some of the highest levels in Wall Street where investment banks were betting against the very securities they were selling, and referring to them as "dog @!$%#" in emails that later surfaced.

Yeah, but that's going to be isolated. You're going to get one or two people, and nowhere near the trillions of dollars involved.

Ron Paul?

Oh hell no! Ron Paul has no clue on anything economic or financial. None what so ever.

He said that the financial crisis was all due to regulation. He cannot even see that there was MASSIVE FRAUD COMMITTED BY BANKS! According to him, they are the solution, not the problem.

If you cannot even understand the root cause, how in the @!$%# do you even have a clue as to a solution?

I'm not shilling for him, but maybe the reason so many suggest that he doesn't have a clue is because he doesn't know enough to go along to get along and might, as a result, knock the whole house of cards down. Why do you think the establishment is so afraid of him?

They are not afraid of him, they just can't buy him - in my opinion. That doesn't make him a better choice, not by a long shot. Especially since he truly doesn't get it.

They can't buy him......

They can't buy him......

Yet, he has NO CLUE and cannot even define the root cause to our recent recession.

Sure he can..you just don't like it...nor, apparently, do you like the idea of freedom.

No problem, but don't complain about the present state of the "two" political parties.

Sure he can..you just don't like it...nor, apparently, do you like the idea of freedom.

So I don't support "freedom" because I choose to think that Ron Paul is a piss poor choice? Are you @!$%#ing kidding me?

Ron Paul has said that government regulation is to blame for the housing crisis. He doesn't even get the root cause right! He is totally clueless and living in an alternate reality.

" Ron Paul has no clue on anything economic or financial. None what so ever."

And Obama does ???????

He knows nothing about economics or financial he is another sleaze ball attorney who knows how to speak very well from a teleprompter.

The banks wouldnt be the only ones that would go down if they went after all the criminals, the senate is full of them that had their pockets in this mess with the banks, those with Freddie and Fannie were in very deep and the ones in congress that were suppose to be watching them, remember there was nothing wrong with them when they were warned by Bush then they have been taking billions since then from the tax payers some were even given sweetheart deals to turn their backs. But they will be aloud to walk just like in the pass and just like now.

teleprompter?

Rick, come on. You can do better than that.

btco...regulations....freedom.....see the disconnect? I'd provide the definitions, but I'm pretty sure you already know them.

And yes, "we" do know the root cause, I'm just not sure that you and "we" agree.

And yes, "we" do know the root cause, I'm just not sure that you and "we" agree.

Oh do tell!

I believe you brought them up first.

I believe you brought them up first.

Let's hear it in your words

I already responded to your thoughts in a previous post. There's really no point.

freetacos..in this case you snuck in during the time I was posting my response to btco.

To whom were you responding in 4.15?

The documentary "The Inside Job" is a must see for everyone concerned about our largest white collar crime wave in American history we are calling a recession. They criticize Obama for having government experts that enabled this white collar crime wave to happen and not going far enough in holding Wall Street fully accountable. I just hope he was listening.

And I would hope he would seize the opportunity to assertively hold Wall Street accountable.

I would agree with Nobel Prize winning economics and economic professor Joseph Stiglitz that we have not gone far enough to hold Wall Street accountable and make America safe from future white collar crime driven recessions.

What a load of crap. The banks have no obligation or part in the fact that people took out loans on depreciating assets.

Bull@!$%#.

The U.S. Treasury's Office of Thrift Supervision noted last year (page 7):

The FBI estimates that 80 percent of all mortgage fraud involves collaboration
or collusion by industry insiders.

This confirms what one of the country's top fraud experts has said for years: that it was fraud by the big banks – more than anything done by the little guy – which caused the financial crisis:

Orson Benn, once a vice president at the nation's largest subprime lender, spent three years during the height of the housing boom tutoring Florida mortgage brokers in the art of fraud.

From his office in New York, he taught them how to doctor credit reports, coached them to inflate income on loan applications, and helped them invent phantom jobs for borrowers.

While prosecutors looked at roughly $100 million in loans written by Benn and a cadre of co-workers, that represents just a portion of the loans they approved during his aggressive expansion into Florida.

The Miami Herald found that Benn's network approved more than $550 million in home loans from Tampa to West Palm Beach to Miami, according to an analysis of court records. In Miami-Dade County alone, Benn's office approved more than $349 million in loans on 1,913 homes — more than one in three have since fallen into foreclosure, the analysis shows.

Valdes brokered at least 100 of those loans worth $22 million — nearly all based on false and misleading financial information, the newspaper found

Sorry, Gene (Mean), but once again you seem to have missed the memo.

The very first point of which would seem to be something with which you should agree. Personal responsibility. Why are the banks not subject to the same requirements as the people you reference?

Mean,

Okay, I see what your are saying. So, let's all just not pay them. Would that be a crime?

Hey! Isn't fraud a crime?

Only if put it in the mail.

The only fraud is mail fraud?

That's new...

Socrates,

Sorry, Gene (Mean), but once again you seem to have missed the memo.

The very first point of which would seem to be something with which you should agree. Personal responsibility. Why are the banks not subject to the same requirements as the people you reference?

The banks are the victims. They're the ones out the money, caused by people who lied to them.

Let me ask you a question: do you know how much money you owe? Of course you do. Most people are keenly aware of their debt load because they're the ones making the payments.

The trouble point for debt load is about 30% of income, according to the Fed. I'd actually disagree with that and call it at 20% of income because that's where the breathing room starts getting to be thin air.

If my debt payments were 1:3 dollars of my paycheck, then I'd call that trouble. I'd call that trouble at even 1:5 dollars of my paycheck, and I certainly wouldn't be rushing out to borrow more.

These people qualifying for loans they couldn't afford, they knew that they couldn't afford those loans. They're not stupid sheep led to the slaughter by conniving banksters.

I know what I can afford. It's my responsibility to know what I can afford, and no one else's. When I borrow money, it's my responsibility to know how I'm going to pay that money back.

I am not willing to put the wrong people on the hook for this irrational exuberance with credit. The lenders aren't the ones who got the cash and signed the I.O.U.s for them.

If you sign an I.O.U. and then blame the holder of your I.O.U. then that's just wrong. If you owe the money then you pay the money. Nothing less is honorable.

Mean,

The banks are the victims? Interesting view point.

The banks are out of money? That's even more interesting. I don't suppose you can support that assertion?

Finally, why can't we just decide not to pay the banks the money they loaned us? Would that be a crime?

Perhaps you are failing to anwer those final two questions because you realize that it undercuts your entire position?

Do you remember the various bailouts? Banks came and said we are too big to fail and offloaded their toxic debt onto the government.

So if the banks aren't paying their debts, why should we?

It is quite possible that the 99% are too big to fail.

MG...Oh well. Let's go with another scenario....I borrow money from a bank based on a promise made to me by someone else who lied to me....Assuming I can't pay back the loan because I was lied to....think the banks should forgive my loan?

Mean, Are your for real????

The banks are the victims.

Again, Bull@!$%#.

The FBI estimates that 80 percent of all mortgage fraud involves collaboration
or collusion by industry insiders.

Banks hired ex Wal Mart greeters to sign thousands of loan docs. One example of the massive fraud perpetrated on us by the banks.

Note that this same recipe maximizes fictional profits and real losses. This destroys the lender, but it makes senior officers that control the lender wealthy. This explains Akerlof & Romer’s title – Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit.

btco

Thank you, sigh

The only fraud is mail fraud? That's new...

The only sense of humor is drinking everything straight? That's lame.

The banks have no obligation or part in the fact that people took out loans on depreciating assets.

That would be true if the banks and loan policies had little or no impact on asset value. I.e. car loans. Now if bank have put in place policies to inflate the asset values, prior to giving out loan, or to suppress it afterwards, or to put in place practices that circumvent their own risk-management protocols, in order to allow these artificially inflated loans to go through - I'd say that changes the responsibility game a bit.

And yes - banks have colluded with other banks to create exotic products in order to up the loan availability from about 3 times the annual salary of the borrower to about 10 times that, and yest that resulted in the artificial asset (home) value inflation. And that is just on the front end of, without discussing the bad derivatives that are being sold as good sh!t.

Mean,

The banks are the victims? Interesting view point.

It's the only reasonable viewpoint. Some 400+ banks went out of business.

The banks are out of money? That's even more interesting. I don't suppose you can support that assertion?

Of course I can. Banks were bailed out. They wouldn't have needed a bailout if they were in tall cotton. The whole reason for the bailouts and failed banks was because deadbeats didn't see fit to make their obligated payments when they were due.

Finally, why can't we just decide not to pay the banks the money they loaned us? Would that be a crime?

If the loan were based upon false information, then yes, that's a crime called 'fraud'. At any rate, you shouldn't be rewarded for irresponsible behavior like buying things you cannot afford by being able to keep your purchases. Repossession is the legal remedy for reclaiming assets from deadbeats.

Perhaps you are failing to anwer those final two questions because you realize that it undercuts your entire position?

My entire position is credible. It's the opposing position which I find to be incredible.

Do you believe that people who took out loans and failed to repay them should get to keep their houses for free? I don't believe that.

Do you believe that people who took out HELOC (home equity line of credit) loans to buy houses, boats and cars should be forgiven of debt? I don't believe that.

The loans were made and the contracts were signed. The banks didn't break the contracts, the borrowers did and so the banks should be held harmless of blame. The deadbeats, on the other hand, should be forced to repay every dime of National Debt incurred from their irresponsible behaviors.

Socrates:

MG...Oh well. Let's go with another scenario....I borrow money from a bank based on a promise made to me by someone else who lied to me....Assuming I can't pay back the loan because I was lied to....think the banks should forgive my loan?

Not at all. Your being lied to is your problem, and not the banks problem. This is a business transaction with no human element needed or desired. If you borrow the money then you owe the money.

So Mean,

The banks were bailed out, right? That means that they didn't have money, but that we gave them some.

You said the banks don't have money now.

And thus the same is true of the banks. People lied to them? Shame on them. I quote...

"(The banks)..being lied to is their problem, and not "my" problem. This is a business transaction with no human element needed or desired. If you (loan) money to a deadbeat than you take the loss, not me".

Mr. Roger Rabbit,

#5.12

Still not willing to defend your statements concerning the 1% BS? I can understand why. No legs to stand on...

How do you feel about income inequity as it exists in the United State of America?

Mean,

If the banks needed a bailout and couldn't pay their debts, why should we pay ours to them?

It's a simple question. You've been taking on a lot tougher ones...

If the banks needed a bailout and couldn't pay their debts, why should we pay ours to them?

Honor. If you sign an I.O.U. and then don't repay it, then the dishonor is upon your failure to fulfill your promise, and not upon those who fell victim to a promise unfulfilled.

Honor?

It's honorable to continue to honor contracts with those who don't. That's a good system - for the wealthy.

I think it's probably more honorable to make sure we don't get shafted again. It's not a good thing to allow you neighbor to be corrupt.

If we follow your plan and honor the dishonorable, don't we then become dishonorable ourselves?

You try to put banks into the position of vicitms. A failed promise indeed. They had a job to do and they failed to do it. In failing, because they sought profits to the exclusion of ethics, they took us all down with them. Such stand are foolish because the banks are wealthy and haven't lost in the same proportion as the public they fleeced.

My question concerning being required to pay those who will not, strikes at the very heart of our ideals. It was a similar situation that caused us to dump a bunch of tea in Boston Harbor and take on the British Empire.

You are taking the Tory stand...

freetacos,

Menagene you are the one not showing any links to back up your claims and you decide to come back and say Socrates is being lied to?

I notice you never try to back up your bull@!$%#.

Common sense doesn't need to be backed up. It is what it is. Common sense says you repay your debts. Do you really need a source for that? You're actually asking me to prove that a man should pay his markers?

A. the banks are better experts than teh public on what you can afford. THere is a reason why you cant go to an ATM, and say "lend me 100k I am good for it I swear"

That would be due to the fact that an ATM only has $50,000 in it maximum and because it needs to serve more than one customer per day.

B. the banks invented "liar loans"(which used to be illegal) in order to tap the untapped market of tax cheats. People who dont report all their income to the government.

Liars invented "liar loans", not banks. "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today" is not a recent invention, and again, the blame is upon the liar, not upon the believer.

C. we all lived through it. IT was like a carnival. I got cold calls offering me loans at insane rates. Uneducated people were offered cars and xboxes and big tvs just to sign today.

I get e-mails offering me larger breasts and cheap Viagra too, but I'm not stupid enough to believe them. If somebody wants to help a Nigerian Prince get money out of Africa for a cut of the action then I have a real hard time feeling sorry for the fool and his money soon parted.

D. the banks also invented subprime, which used to also be illegal under our usury laws. This allowed them to make very high interest loans to the poor and under educated.

No, the government did that with the ridiculous Fair Housing Act. Either banks make worthless loans or get sued out of business by the Feds claiming "racism".

Honor?

It's honorable to continue to honor contracts with those who don't. That's a good system - for the wealthy.

The wealthy broke no contracts. The deadbeats who walked away from their mortgages did all the breaking. The banks kept their side of the bargain, unlike the creeps who think paying a loan back is optional.

I think it's probably more honorable to make sure we don't get shafted again. It's not a good thing to allow you neighbor to be corrupt.

My neighbor pays his mortgage. If he didn't, then of course I'd want his deadbeat ass thrown out. I don't need deadbeats for neighbors.

If we follow your plan and honor the dishonorable, don't we then become dishonorable ourselves?

That's no different than the marines who urinated on the Taliban. There is such a thing as stooping to their level.

Mean,

You've screwed up the quoting on that rather badly. I wish you'd fix it or ask for it to be deleted.

The wealthy broke no contracts? Ever hear of the social contract? But that aside.

As you have pointed out. Our system keeps careful track of who owes what to whom.

Banks took on a lot of toxic debt, these are the folks that walked away.

But how did those folks end up in that house in the first place? The banks loaned those unqualified people the money, right? By loaning unqualified people money, the banks assumed a greater than wise risk. The banks also agreed to cover the loss if the people walked away.

Everything is pretty clear. After loaning unqualified people money in order to get in on the wild profits being made, the banks by taking a bailout defaulted on the assumption of risk that they promised to cover in the event of a loan default.

Not only that, when they defaulted they stuck us with the bill. Now we have to go through a reduction in social programs and other austerity measures. We've largely lost the middle class, and lots of homes will be bulldozed while foks live in the streets.

But the Banks are fine.

Really hard to see how banks are victims and we are dishonorable.

I'm waiting to see why you don't apply the same standards to banks.

Supposedly you believe in personal responsibility, honor, paying one's debts, and not making excuses.

Unless you can show me why those don't apply to banks, I'll have to consider your code as inconsistent, at best.

The wealthy broke no contracts? Ever hear of the social contract? But that aside.

I don't believe in a social contract. Business is business. I do not mix business and pleasure. My own mother doesn't even get my work phone number because my work life and my personal life are absolutely separate, never to be mixed.

As you have pointed out. Our system keeps careful track of who owes what to whom.

It's not "our system". I have no part in what goes on between you and your lenders. That's literally not my business. There is no "our" involved here. Your business is your business and my business is mine.

Banks took on a lot of toxic debt, these are the folks that walked away.

And yet you blame the banks? By what stretch of logic do you blame the deceived and not the deceivers?

But how did those folks end up in that house in the first place? The banks loaned those unqualified people the money, right? By loaning unqualified people money, the banks assumed a greater than wise risk. The banks also agreed to cover the loss if the people walked away.

Those "folks", those deceivers, committed fraud to obtain loans. They overstated incomes, they understated debt loads and they relied upon government 'fairness' regulations which, by and large, put lending institutions at grave risk.

For example, I personally do not agree with Bankruptcies going off-record after 7 years. That should be a permanent record, a permanent scar which never heals so that lenders know better what they're dealing with instead of giving deadbeats a safe haven.

Everything is pretty clear. After loaning unqualified people money in order to get in on the wild profits being made, the banks by taking a bailout defaulted on the assumption of risk that they promised to cover in the event of a loan default.

Banks never promised to cover any risk in the event of a loan default. The remedy for default was always foreclosure upon a property worth more than the loan. The buyer was obligated to make the loan payments and to keep the property value greater than the value of the loan. Banks have no obligations towards the upkeep or the valuation of the property. That's why mortgage holders are generally required to carry insurance.

Not only that, when they defaulted they stuck us with the bill. Now we have to go through a reduction in social programs and other austerity measures. We've largely lost the middle class, and lots of homes will be bulldozed while foks live in the streets.

There's no "WE". I don't give a crap about social programs, those are for communists and I'm not a communist. The people who are stuck are the self-same "poor" who walked out on their debts, so if they're the ones getting hurt then that's just sweet justice at work.

But the Banks are fine.

Really hard to see how banks are victims and we are dishonorable.

There's no "WE". I pay my debts. If you don't, then there's no "WE" to be had.

It's just business. Every man for himself. To Hell with "we". There's only YOU and there's only ME. I'm not going to be a party to this lynch mob to hold the banks responsible for what deadbeats did to them.

Socrates:

I'm waiting to see why you don't apply the same standards to banks.

Banks are businesses. Morality does not apply to them. That's like asking a computer to cry at a funeral. It's ridiculous to expect morality from a pure and simple business.

Supposedly you believe in personal responsibility, honor, paying one's debts, and not making excuses.

You might call me a Republican that way.

Unless you can show me why those don't apply to banks, I'll have to consider your code as inconsistent, at best.

Banks don't have the right to vote. They're businesses. They're held to business standards, not to humanity standards.

Mean,

Banks took on a lot of toxic debt, these are the folks that walked away.

"And yet you blame the banks? By what stretch of logic do you blame the deceived and not the deceivers?"

Let's just resolve this one issue at a time.

Banks have money. They loan money. This is a service they provide in order to make interest. When they make good decisions they get to keep the interest. When they make bad decisions they lose interest and principle.

This is how the process works. Since the banks are offering a service why is it anyone's responsibility but theirs to protect their interests? Who is supposed to assess the risks they take while pursuing their business?

If McDonald's allows people all they can eat for a dollar, is it the fault of the people that come into take advantage of that offer, when McDonald's goes bankrupt?

Banks didn't have to loan money to irresponsible people. They chose to. If they loan foolishly why isn't that their responsiblity?

What a load of crap. The banks have no obligation or part in the fact that people took out loans on depreciating assets.

Same old, same old, same old Republican talking point. And then when confronted with real factual evidence, the cling to their talking point even more tenaciously.

Here are sources of information: The Inside Job, Inside the Meltdown(free for viewing on the internet at the PBS website), House of Cards (free for viewing at hulu.com), and then the many articles, blogs and videos on the internet from Nobel Prize winning economics and economics professor Joseph Stiglitz.

The whole business model for selling homes changed from the traditional once or twice sales of a home in a lifetime to the goal being to foreclose on the customer from the very beginning and the suck that customer dry of financial resources before foreclosing.

This is an example of our current problem. Angelo Mozilo was charged in ELEVEN states for predatory lending through Countrywide. He got an out of court settlement/SEC fine of $73 million, which means all criminal charges were dropped. And that means he is free to do it all over again.

Banks have money. They loan money. This is a service they provide in order to make interest. When they make good decisions they get to keep the interest. When they make bad decisions they lose interest and principle.

No, banks do not have money. PEOPLE with bank accounts have money. The money in the banks represent people's savings, their pensions, their annuities, their investments, their future.

That's why when banks fail, the FDIC (Federal DEPOSITORS Insurance Co) pays the DEPOSITORS and not the banks.

Lending money is not a "service". It is business. That is why loans are typically secured, even if only by a signature.

This is how the process works. Since the banks are offering a service why is it anyone's responsibility but theirs to protect their interests? Who is supposed to assess the risks they take while pursuing their business?

Take it a step further, and see how ridiculous it is. Why should the police pursue bank robbers? After all, why is it anyone's business to protect the interest of the banks? If the banks can't stop bank robbery, then why should anyone care whether or not they get robbed?

The banks do not offer a service. A loan is not a service. It is a business transaction square up between equal parties, both with responsibilities testified to in contract form.

If McDonald's allows people all they can eat for a dollar, is it the fault of the people that come into take advantage of that offer, when McDonald's goes bankrupt?

McDonald's does actually have a dollar menu. You do wind up getting what you pay for, however. Just fair warning in case you'd want to try it out. The scenario you describe is called killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Yes, the one who kills the goose is to blame in that story. It's not the fault of the goose for laying golden eggs.

Banks didn't have to loan money to irresponsible people. They chose to. If they loan foolishly why isn't that their responsiblity?

That's untrue. Banks were forced by law to lend to irresponsible people. Many laws from the Fair Housing Act to the Equal Lending Act made it nearly impossible to say "no" legally to anybody but a white male.

Do you want to hear a suggestion for this which would make any liberal scream in terror?

Here it is. Take every loan application from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and bounce them against Food Stamp, TANF and Social Security Disability claims for income discrepancies. If some bastard applied for a Home Loan saying he makes $50,000 per year and applied for Food Stamps saying he makes $15,000 per year, take it out of his hide.

That data mining would be easy as pie, all you'd need to do it would be the twin databases and a cheap computer and you'd have the names, social security numbers and addresses of a whole lot of welfare cheats, frauds and liars to go bust.

Liberals won't do that because that's their base, that's their bread and butter, that's the sort of people who vote for Clintons and Obamas.

Gene,

From the article

"U.S. banks raked in $35 billion in profits last summer alone and are currently sitting on a historically high level of cash reserves of $1.64 trillion. The six biggest banks -- Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley -- hold assets totaling $9.5 trillion; and together paid an income tax rate of only 11% in 2009 and 2010, far below the federally mandated 35% corporate tax rate"

So, exactly in what sense do you mean that banks don't have money?

I mean I enjoy a good opinion just like the other guy. But you simply aren't making sense. Black is white and white black. Banks are victims and consumers theives...

Not only that you appear to believe that banks are not repsonsible for their own business decisions. Now considering the bailout I can understand why you might think so; however, in this country the tradition is that good business succeed and bad ones fail.

It's like you watch Fox News and believe it...

It's like you watch Fox News and believe it.

Ok, if we can step back into the magical realm of "sanity" for a moment....

The banks are the victims. They're the ones out the money, caused by people who lied to them.

That's a stretch that would amaze Reed Richards. The banks had every means available to verify the veracity of data they were given, and to alter their underwriting. Just as an individual is responsible to pay back money they borrowed, a lender is responsible to do some due diligence before coughing up the money.

It's the only reasonable viewpoint. Some 400+ banks went out of business.

They were indeed victims....of their own incompetence.

the banks also invented subprime, which used to also be illegal under our usury laws. This allowed them to make very high interest loans to the poor and under educated.

It also enabled the poor and uneducated to buy their own homes. Many of which they still own.

If the banks needed a bailout and couldn't pay their debts, why should we pay ours to them?

Well, they're paying back the bailout money because they are legally obligated to do so. I assume we should pay them because we are legally obligated to do so.

Menagene you are the one not showing any links to back up your claims and you decide to come back and say Socrates is being lied to?

I notice you never try to back up your bull@!$%#.

To be fair, linking to Crooks And Liars, Huffington Post, or some private blog does not exactly represent iron clad proof.

This is how the process works. Since the banks are offering a service why is it anyone's responsibility but theirs to protect their interests? Who is supposed to assess the risks they take while pursuing their business?

Excellent. So presumably you have no problem with them protecting those interests. Presumably you also will join me in identifying several statements in this article as ridiculous leftist nonsense, such as banks being required to forgive $300b of principal to people who made bad financial decisions, while forgiving f*ck all to those who made good financial decisions.

MeanGene-3334839,

You are ignoring the Trillion pound elephant in the room.

A full 80% of all mortgage fraud was committed by BANKS!

They are the problem and we need to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, that is the solution.

Okay all,

This is what I'm talking about concerning Fox News. It gives people erroneous information. These people who trust Fox never even know it. So they come on Newsvine get into a debate and use the Fox News version of events.

The situation that ensues is like a college freshman trying to instruct the professor.

It becomes embarrassing.

I know very little about economics and business. But I don't count on one source for my information. And when I come across a contradiction between two articles on the same topic, I try and track down the discrepancy.

Fox News one stop thought shop is for strictly internal consumption and debate. If you bring the information out of that site and try and use it widely, you will be viewed as a fringe element. Very much like we view someone who insists on the reliability of fortune cookies.

It is harsh and I'm sorry, but if you don't want it to happen. Stop watching Fox News.

MG....

Socrates:

I'm waiting to see why you don't apply the same standards to banks.

Banks are businesses. Morality does not apply to them. That's like asking a computer to cry at a funeral. It's ridiculous to expect morality from a pure and simple business.

Exactly, which means if they make a mistake, they take the consequences.....nothing personal, just business.

Supposedly you believe in personal responsibility, honor, paying one's debts, and not making excuses.

You might call me a Republican that way.

Only if you are suggesting that Republicans truly are only for big business. You seem to cut that off when speaking of the banks. Why do you not hold them to the same standard? You are asking me to cry for them....nothing personal, just business.

Unless you can show me why those don't apply to banks, I'll have to consider your code as inconsistent, at best.

Banks don't have the right to vote. They're businesses. They're held to business standards, not to humanity standards.

Absolutely...hold them to business standards, don't cry for them for emotional reasons.....nothing personal, just business.

Where is you Hard a$$ stance here?

Flameaway,

This is what I'm talking about concerning Fox News. It gives people erroneous information. These people who trust Fox never even know it. So they come on Newsvine get into a debate and use the Fox News version of events.

I don't watch TV much. I watch an average of 3 hours of television per month. We're three weeks into January and I haven't watched one single minute of television yet this year. It's not that I don't have the ability, but rather that I find it to be an irritating insult to my intelligence. My cable TV could go out and it would probably take me weeks to notice it.

It is harsh and I'm sorry, but if you don't want it to happen. Stop watching Fox News.

I never started. I can't stand television because it's below my paygrade.

Socrates,

Exactly, which means if they make a mistake, they take the consequences.....nothing personal, just business.

They didn't make any mistake. They were robbed. There's a huge difference between losing money to a mistake and losing money to a robbery. The deadbeats who took out loans with no intention of repaying them were robbers just as surely as if they wore a mask and held a gun.

You seem to think of banks as some nebulous entity, a vast repository of wealth and not a safeguard of people's money. I see a bank and I see people's 401(k), I see College savings, I see Annuities and Pensions and a vision of the future for all who do business in good faith.

What do you see? Do you see Ebeneezer Scrooge? Do you see villainous raiders of the poor? Big scary men in suits, like Boss Hogg from the Dukes of Hazzard? I don't share that vision or that attitude. I fear no bank. If I did, then I wouldn't put any money in them.

Only if you are suggesting that Republicans truly are only for big business. You seem to cut that off when speaking of the banks. Why do you not hold them to the same standard? You are asking me to cry for them....nothing personal, just business.

"Them" is how you refer to banks? Where's your money? In a mattress? If you've got money in the bank, then banks aren't "them", they're "us" and we're all shareholders getting interest, interest which is paid for, incidentally, by the profits you suggest banks shouldn't be making.

Absolutely...hold them to business standards, don't cry for them for emotional reasons.....nothing personal, just business.

They are held to business standards. Same goes for the deadbeats thrown out of houses. Deadbeats aren't worth crying over either. They're the jerks who caused the mess, damned thieves.

Let's assume...for a second...that they were "robbed", I don't remember the government coming to my assistance after being "robbed". Sounds like a double standard to me. Sometimes things happen, and, as I believe you've suggested, you need to take it like a man.

Let's assume...for a second...that they were "robbed", I don't remember the government coming to my assistance after being "robbed". Sounds like a double standard to me. Sometimes things happen, and, as I believe you've suggested, you need to take it like a man.

I was a victim of a hit and run, and the government came to my assistance. The perp was lucky they did because I chased him down like a dog on a fox and I was seriously ticked off about the dent on my bumper. I'm not a vigilante, nor do I believe in taking the law into my own hands, but that belief must be backed by authoritative action. The kid who hit me was a lot more scared of me than he was the cops. He melted in their hands. He trusted their justice more than mine, because I was ticked off. He did $3,000 in damage to my truck and of course he had no insurance. I did because I'm a better man than the likes of him.

The reason we don't live in a vigilante society is because it's expected that government will come to your assistance. If such expectations are not met, then there will be vigilantism and anarchy, basically like living in Somalia.

If the government won't come to the assistance of banks, then there will be vigilante banking.

Don't believe me? How about if I rephrase vigilante banking to read loan sharking? Would you believe me then?

Banks are not the bad guys. I can take you on a tour of loan predators far worse than banks. Payday lenders. Rent to Own shops. Buy-here-pay-here used car dealers. Pawn shops.

We've got loan sharks charging 150% APR to the poor, and we're going after the banksters for making loans with single-digit interest rates?

The only reason for banks being made the bad guy is because it looks good in the press.

I can understand hunting the loan sharks, and even agree with it. What I don't agree with is hunting tuna and pretending like the harmless fishes are the sharks.

Hmmm...............I can see this conversation will have little effect on either of us. We've both stated our positions, and for me, that's about enough.

Hmmm...............I can see this conversation will have little effect on either of us. We've both stated our positions, and for me, that's about enough.

The bottom line is that I'm going to continue doing business with "banksters" because I've never been wronged by them. In fact, the only people I've heard claim that they've been wronged were well in the wrong themselves.

I got my annual credit card statement and I really don't know why the "banksters" like me at all because even though I made thousands of dollars in purchases, I didn't pay one single dime in interest. I treat my credit card like money. If I don't have the money, then I simply don't use the card. I often pay it off the same day I use it. I go home, I fire up the computer and then blast that debt out of existence with a mouse click. Bye-bye, credit card debt!

A savvy consumer can take the banks for a ride. It's only when consumers get credit crazy and buy crap they can't afford that they get ground beneath the wheels of debt. The solution is to live within your means. If you can't afford a 52" HDTV then don't buy one. It's not rocket science, it's called budgeting.

No problem....as I said we see things differently, and I see no consistency in your position, other than.....if it didn't happen to you, you don't really care.....something along the lines if I saw somebody stealing from you, why should I report it? After all it didn't have any effect on me.

The bankers, in partnership with Wall Street, constructed a system where they marketed mortgages to people who could not afford them.

None of that matters because the job of a salesman is marketing. It's 100% the duty of the consumer to know what the consumer can afford. If a consumer goes onto a car lot with a Chevy budget and drives of with a Cadillac, then that's on him when he can't make the note and it gets repossessed. The salesman has no fiduciary responsibility concerning what the buyer can or cannot afford.

The buyers wouldn't take "no" for an answer. Any bank denying a loan would get complaints that they're denying loans because the buyer is (pick one or more) Black, Hispanic, Female, Elderly, Homosexual, Handicapped or a Protestant.

Between insane "fairness in lending" laws and laws against "redlining" the banks were at the mercy of any deadbeat coming in to apply for a loan.

When it all came crashing down, we made the banks whole.

That's a joke, right? No, we didn't make the banks whole. Over 140 banks failed in 2009 alone. Washington Mutual is dead and gone. Countrywide is no more. That's not being made whole, that's out of business. We've already got three banks dead this year and more are dying all the time. We've been losing an average of 2 banks per week in this nation since the awful day that Obama took office.

I drive by empty dead buildings that used to be banks every day. They're useless for most any other business, as three drive through lanes and bulletproof glass aren't good for restaurants or convenience stores or daycare centers. Those banks weren't bailed out.

The Federal Government played favorites, and decided which banks lived and which banks died. It was a pure power trip for the Obama administration, acting all high and mighty like some freakish Roman Emperor giving thumbs up and thumbs down for life or death.

A good deal of the rest of the economy is still paralyzed with underground mortgages.

Assuming that you mean underwater mortgages (not mortgages on cavemen), those aren't a cause of any problem. People owe money on things that are underwater all the time. It's commonplace in most auto loans that at some point during the loan, the asset (the vehicle) will be valued at less than the debt. When the loan is upside down, it generally doesn't make any difference unless the asset needs to be replaced (total loss due to accident, theft, etc.) so long as the payments are being made and the contract is being honored.

Nobody complains about car loans being upside down, do they? There's not a whole lot of difference between a home loan and a car loan. They're both secured by assets which are forfeit if the payments are not made. If there's any difference at all, then it's merely one of scale.

Cleaning up what is left of the mess should involve some solutions that help out regular people and not just bankers.

When the government helps, they always make things worse, all the time, every time. I don't want them to help anybody for any reason. Their "help" has put nearly 400 banks out of business and one can only imagine the unspeakable horrors which would result if the incompetent Federal government tried to help out "regular people".

The people who have survived thus far have done so in spite of government "help", and not because of it.

The bankers, in partnership with Wall Street

What? Can you please explain to me how do you differentiate them? I was under a silly impression that bankers were the Wall Street and have laways been one and the same, all the electoral bankroll of the Democrats and Obama personally.

BTW does anyone but me finds the silence of the Trial Lawyers Association deafening? I mean I understand that these are also Obama's people, but to quietly wait while the immunity from future suites is granted?

What do you believe the job of a salesman is then? To mollycoddle the buyer and make sure that the buyer gets just what he needs? That's ridiculous, if that were true then there wouldn't be a single fast food restaurant on the planet because fast food is bad for people.

The buyer holds all the cards and all the responsibility. The buyer is the only one with the power to say "yes". The salesman has no obligation in a Caveat Emptor society.

Do you even know what's in Dodd/Frank?

yes ron paul would repeal these things, so would every republican. SPIN FOR ME why it is a good thing to let banks cash checks in a way to maximize bounced checks.

People have a right to write bad checks? Huh?

Well - we seem to be headed that way. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united banks of China or I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Koch brothers.