What Is It with Republicans and Bank Failures?

J

jamis359

The Republican Party is 3-for-3 on bank failures. It's an incredible string that dates back to the 1930's:

  • Herbert Hoover. 11,000 out of 26,000 banks failed during his term in office from 1929 to 1933. Little or no action was taken by the Hoover administration while many people lost their savings.
  • Ronald Reagan. 747 savings and loans failed under his watch, and he led the bailout effort which cost taxpayers $500 billion. Reagan's push for deregulation of S&L's is cited as a major cause of the crisis.
  • George W. Bush. As many as 150 banks are forecasted to fail in 2008 due to the subprime mortgage crisis. Again deregulation (loose lending standards) is a major cause.

I hope the nation learns from this. Banks and mortgage lenders need to be closely regulated. Always. An unregulated bank is a dangerous thing, they can't be trusted to make sound lending decisions without oversight.
 
What is it with Chuck Schumer and producing a bank run better than Running With The Bulls In Pamplona Spain. $1.3 billion in losses
 
Quote from jamis359:

The Republican Party is 3-for-3 on bank failures. It's an incredible string that dates back to the 1930's:

  • Herbert Hoover. 11,000 out of 26,000 banks failed during his term in office from 1929 to 1933. Little or no action was taken by the Hoover administration while many people lost their savings.
  • Ronald Reagan. 747 savings and loans failed under his watch, and he led the bailout effort which cost taxpayers $500 billion. Reagan's push for deregulation of S&L's is cited as a major cause of the crisis.
  • George W. Bush. As many as 150 banks are forecasted to fail in 2008 due to the subprime mortgage crisis. Again deregulation (loose lending standards) is a major cause.

I hope the nation learns from this. Banks and mortgage lenders need to be closely regulated. Always. An unregulated bank is a dangerous thing, they can't be trusted to make sound lending decisions without oversight.
More...

An unregulated bank is dangerous? They can't be trusted to make sound lending decisions? Yet banks are amongst the most regulated of institutions. LOL.

Perhaps what you should have said is that regulated banks can't be trusted to make sound lending decisions.

Or perhaps you could have said that government officials don't know how to regulate, nor do they know what is safe.

OldTrader
 
Quote from jamis359:

The Republican Party is 3-for-3 on bank failures. It's an incredible string that dates back to the 1930's:

  • Herbert Hoover. 11,000 out of 26,000 banks failed during his term in office from 1929 to 1933. Little or no action was taken by the Hoover administration while many people lost their savings.
  • Ronald Reagan. 747 savings and loans failed under his watch, and he led the bailout effort which cost taxpayers $500 billion. Reagan's push for deregulation of S&L's is cited as a major cause of the crisis.
  • George W. Bush. As many as 150 banks are forecasted to fail in 2008 due to the subprime mortgage crisis. Again deregulation (loose lending standards) is a major cause.

I hope the nation learns from this. Banks and mortgage lenders need to be closely regulated. Always. An unregulated bank is a dangerous thing, they can't be trusted to make sound lending decisions without oversight.
More...

The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 deregulated the S&L industry. The bill was widely supported in Congress with co-sponsors including Charles Schumer and Steny Hoyer. The bill passed by a veto proof margin of 272-91 in the House.

Well, my goodness! All by himself Democrat Charles Schumer is 2 for 2 on bank failures.
 
Quote from jeb9999:

The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 deregulated the S&L industry. The bill was widely supported in Congress with co-sponsors including Charles Schumer and Steny Hoyer. The bill passed by a veto proof margin of 272-91 in the House.

Well, my goodness! All by himself Democrat Charles Schumer is 2 for 2 on bank failures.
More...

Reagan happily signed that bill. He said in his remarks during the signing ceremony: "All in all, I think we hit the jackpot." Little did he know that later it was elements of organized crime and other fraudsters who hit the jackpot, ultimately at our expense.
 
Quote from OldTrader:

An unregulated bank is dangerous? They can't be trusted to make sound lending decisions? Yet banks are amongst the most regulated of institutions. LOL.
More...

Yes, banks and lenders are highly regulated -- NOT. They were so highly regulated that they were allowed to write mortgages without any documentation from the borrower. The fact that "liar loans" even came into existence and that subprime loans were allowed to be stuffed into CDOs without proper transparency is proof that banks and lenders are in truth highly unregulated.
 
Quote from jamis359:

Reagan happily signed that bill. He said in his remarks during the signing ceremony: "All in all, I think we hit the jackpot." Little did he know that later it was elements of organized crime and other fraudsters who hit the jackpot, ultimately at our expense.
More...

Oh, and everyone in Congress gets a free ride just because Reagan signed the bill? The bill passed by a veto proof margin of 272-91 in the House. How many bills pass the house by 3 to 1 margins? If the clowns in Congress had any sense there would have been no bill for Reagan to sign.

And not a peep out of you about the hot hand of Charles Schumer. The hero of S&L failures and IndyMac, all by himself Democrat Charles Schumer is 2 for 2 on bank failures.
 
Quote from jamis359:

Yes, banks and lenders are highly regulated -- NOT. They were so highly regulated that they were allowed to write mortgages without any documentation from the borrower. The fact that "liar loans" even came into existence and that subprime loans were allowed to be stuffed into CDOs without proper transparency is proof that banks and lenders are in truth highly unregulated.
More...

These types of loans have gone on for years....they didn't happen yesterday. Bank regulators were aware of them. They just didn't think they were a problem. Yet, you seem to believe that more regulators who didn't think there was a problem with the loan type, will solve any future problems? LOL.

Banks sold loans to Wall Street. Wall Street happily took them, understanding what type of loans they were, and then leveraged them 10-20 fold. By the way, lots of regulation on Wall Street too. People wanted them because they could buy the house of their dreams. Mortgage brokers wanted them because they could make more money.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that if we insure deposits, fully guarantee all the banks, further extend regulation, that all our problems will be solved. LOL. Take that hook out of your mouth son.

OldTrader
 
Quote from OldTrader:

An unregulated bank is dangerous? They can't be trusted to make sound lending decisions? Yet banks are amongst the most regulated of institutions. LOL.
More...

The Gummint is much to blame here. They encouraged and promoted "a house for everyone" (not because the Gummint really wanted everyone to have a house, but rather the concept promoted the appearance of "growth".. a politico favorite, even when it's reckless and a lie) to the degree that all prudence was thrown out the window.

We never used to have "no money down" or "liar" loans, or "securitized mortgages".... they are new developments of a greedy and dishonest Gummint.

And oh yeah... GreenScam was WAAYYYY in on this too! :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top