And before you nit it up over my misspelling of ellipsis: it’s meant to be ironic.

hey Kev you dope – that’s the not the correct usage of ironic – maybe you should admit your are an egotistical dimwit who types before you think. How dishonest of you to try and make it sound intentional – lefty wanker, correct?

It’s Barney Frank. Not Franks. There’s one weiner in Barney.

It’s Bwarney Fwank.

Really? Con-artists actually strong armed banks into making unqualified loans? Thousands of them? That’s quite a spin and the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Citation please.

It’s called “red-lining” and banks are forced by federal (law or regulation) to provide loans to a minimum % of applicants who don’t qualify, but who are “protected” based on ethnicity or other factors. Remember, “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” – Animal Farm

I’ve been advised by a credible source that Obama was one of the ACORN lawyers who’d go after banks that didn’t comply with the above-described ruse, again, all based in Federal Law (legal crime)

Barney’s Frank and Chris Dodd were instrumental in interspersing all those bad loans into virtually all areas of the now-digital financial sector, and the resulting Hindenburg-like plummeting inferno was so massive and convoluted that everyone with any investments paid for it and was simultaneously duped into believing it was all an accident. “It’s the big lies more likely to be believed” – Soundgarden

So here we all are, focusing as we’re told (by the media) to focus on a recovery that isn’t, when the perpetrators of the precipitants of this mess should be charged, tried, and thrown in jail per the same “Justice” system any of us would face for merely driving too fast.

Wake up people. Turn off the damn TV before we become an Idiocracy.

Obviously you’e never lived near a foreclosed home. It’s really, really frustrating when nobody takes care of it, and it just goes to hell.

@Dixon

This is false. Red-lining is where a business conspires to not offer service against a particular group of people based on some protected class characteristic, i.e. this neighborhood is black, therefore we won’t put a bank there. Ironically, the practice was put in place by the federal government to protect the value of government backed debt. Because the government would not back debt in certain “questionable” neighborhoods, banks would not locate branches there, therefore reducing the number of loans in said neighborhoods.

In 1968, red-lining based on protected class was outlawed. Those not protected by this are the poor. So if a neighborhood is poor, you are perfectly free to not put a bank there. Under red-lining laws you are also not allowed to discriminate against borrowers based on protected criteria (familial status, race, age, etc…)

Banks are never forced by law to make a certain % of “bad loans”. If they are required to do so, it is as part of a settlement with community organizers who threatened to sue under red-lining laws. In most cases the banks were justified in their business practices, but in terms of legal costs and damage to image it was better to just allow a certain % of bad loans and be done with it.

This crisis was one with many causes. To point at a fraction of the population and say they are to blame is blatant disregard for the facts. In order for the great charade to work, everyone had to turn a blind eye to the truth. Here are some of my favorite idiots in the whole deal.

If you truly thought that when inflation was 3% your home could rise in value sustainably for 15%, you turned a blind eye.

If you though you could make loans with no money down and have no financial risk because home values were never going to fall, you turned a blind eyet.

If you thought no-equity non-owner occupied loans were a good idea, you turned a blind eye.

If you thought it was a good idea to package loans together and sell them as high quality debt due to diversification, you turned a blind eye.

If you thought wholly unqualified buyers should have the opportunity to buy because at some point people like them were discriminated against, you turned a blind eye.

If you thought variable rate mortgages were a good idea when living on a COLA adjusted income, you turned a blind eye.

Lot’s of blind people, All of them claiming that they were the only ones who could see.

@Bowser:
You make some good points, and I respect your retention of dignified expression. Assume for a moment your facts are 100% correct, I still take issue with the notion that all parties in your list were equally aware of the big picture as it was unfolding and are thusly equally responsible for turning said blind eye.

My view is that the puppetmasters, to some degree (any is too much) engineered this mess and obfuscated the truth while blaming others. Myself and countless other victims, who are still paying BTW, are not guilty of the same; in fact nothing close.

This whole process has been one ugly course of education, and to learn in the process that banks are essentially shaken down by those pushing “equality” is distressing, unjust, and conflicts with the ideals the USA was founded upon.

Perhaps your experiences and views differ, but I see no valid argument surmounting “no free lunch”. I’ve been poor, I know poor people, and I’ve earned my street smarts firsthand and busted my a$$ since age 9 to be a spider that climbed out of the sink. I have little sympathy for many (not all) who do not achieve, let alone aspire, to do the same.

The whole system of handouts, for those who genuinely qualify, has a noble goal, but has run amok with corrupted and imbalanced means. These are not insignificant truths and to ignore them or diminish their requisite impact is, indeed, turning a blind eye.

Regards,

Dixon

@Bowser
Ack. I missed this specific bit the first time through; Perhaps we agree more than I initially realized:

“If you thought wholly unqualified buyers should have the opportunity to buy because at some point people like them were discriminated against, you turned a blind eye.”

Cheers,

Dixon