This poll cleary shows why the economy is in the tank

Who is most responsible for the current economic slump?




I really think this says it all. The media has obviously been incredibly successful at getting partisans to blame each other instead of the real cause of the problem, the Banks.

It's really simple, you can't solve a problem if you don't understand the cause. In this case the problem is sickening levels of fraud, theft, bribery and blackmail. The correct answer is 90% the banks 8% congress 1% Bush 1% Obama.

The only reason it isn't 100% the banks is because our wonderful federal government has perpetuated the theft by removing several laws that let them push it to the absurd levels it has gotten to. They have refused to stop the banks when it is clear to anyone that has looked into foreclosuregate, even congress critters, that the entire housing crisis was intentionally caused for giant banker bonuses.

The entire poll can be found at Poll

Yes this poll does clearly show why the economy is in the tank. It does not include the roll the American citizen played in this whole economic slump. Everyone seems to ignore the roll that people played in this economic meltdown. No one held a gun to anyone’s head and told them to buy over priced homes that they did not have the income to purchase in the first place. No one held a gun to anyone’s head and told them to borrow more money than they make in a year to a point where people are in debt 150% of their income. It’s funny, people rail on the government for being in debt up to their eye balls, but people are just as bad with their finances as the government.

No one held a gun to anyone’s head and told them to invest in complicated investments. If you don’t understand something, why would you invest in it? People over the years have learned that used car salesmen want to sell you the car no matter what, well that’s not just used car salesmen, it’s all salesmen. They are there to sell you a product. Why would anyone totally buy hook line and sinker what someone who has no skin in the game is telling you to do? Where is the personal responsibility that everyone always talks about? Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

reply to post by proximo


The problem was never the banks.

The problem was the policies that allowed the banks to, effectively, print money by relieving them of financial responsibility for the loans they issued to the 'underprivileged' demographics.

Banks were given incentives to lend to demographics that have high rates of defaulting on loans - some of these even included FHA insured loans - that amount to the government paying the bank should the loan default. Keep in mind - this is a demographic the banks would generally never lend to if they were required to be financially responsible for the loan.

This has been going on since the 50s - but really took off in the 80s and 90s - reaching a head at the turn of the century. Housing costs inflated because of the unprecedented number of people who would be approved for loans. Supply and demand. As housing costs skyrocketed, it created an economic 'bubble' of apparent wealth and prosperity. However, as these loans began to default and demand for housing stabilized, the housing market began to lose value. Investors started to sell their holdings, which triggered a land-slide within the stock exchange that saw the housing market virtually collapse.

Now, there are two ways to look at the cause of the problem. You can say there was not enough regulation because the banks were lending to groups in an irresponsible manner. Or, you can say that the banks would have never issued loans to those high-risk populations if the government wasn't giving tax and monetary incentives for doing so (thus they would have behaved in a more responsible manner sans government aid program).

In my opinion, there is only one correct answer and only one practical/functional solution - to get rid of the financial incentives for lending to high-risk sectors of the market. I'm sure others will disagree.

In the end - it's the whole idea that a problem is all caused by one specific thing that makes it worse. The banks were lending irresponsibly - but not without a very logical reason to do so (the government gives them a cookie if they do). It was a policy that had economic consequences that extended well beyond the original scope of those policies. It was short-sighted legislation and allowing it to persist that most heavily contributed to the problem.

To that end, rushing off to make more legislation to fix the problem doesn't sound like a very wise idea, seeing as it was rushed and short-sighted legislation that got us into this mess.

reply to post by proximo


wrong its the biggest bank and corporation in this countrry

it sets the value of the dollar
it manipulates the dollar
it sets the rates of all securities in this country
it sets the rates of your home loans
it sets the rates of your car loans
it sets the rates of all your credit cards.

the reason this economy is in the tank is by the manipulation of the FEDERAL RESERVE.

While I agree there were a lot of dumb, and greedy people who took loans they could not afford, ultimately if the banks really cared about making money off of the borrowers they would have never have made the loans. In other words the bankers knew better than to make the loans while often the borrowers did not. They intentionally ignored their longstanding guidelines proven to work over hundreds of years. The banks knew what they were doing period. I am not trying to say that excuses the borrowers, it doesn't but if these were just simply bad mortgages the problem would not be nearly as serious, and would not threaten the destruction of the entire world economy.

The goal was never to make money off of the borrowers, it was to make quick money off of the MBS sales, pledging the same mortgages multiple times as collateral, and worst of all creating enough CDS to blow up themselves and ultimately the entire world's economy all to get huge bonuses they could siphon off immediately, even though it was on profit they knew would never be earned when the loans started detonating. They leveraged themselves to such obscene levels their survival is seen as required by the fed as the alternative to total economic collapse.

The leverage is the difference - the banks are levered up 30 times or more their assets, this is why we have already given them 700 billion, and are about to give them trillions more.

reply to post by neo96


Who owns the federal reserve? The banks - you are agreeing with me and don't even realize it.

reply to post by proximo


i thought the federal reserve was a corporation who controls all banks in this country

and since i cant invest in the federal reserve and i can not see its assests or liabilities

but i can see the assest and liabilities of those other banks leade me to believe

the federal reserve owns all other banking and financial institutions in this country

maybe i am agreeing with you

reply to post by proximo

While I agree there were a lot of dumb, and greedy people who took loans they could not afford, ultimately if the banks really cared about making money off of the borrowers they would have never have made the loans. In other words the bankers knew better than to make the loans while often the borrowers did not. They intentionally ignored their longstanding guidelines proven to work over hundreds of years.

Now, being a clearly reasonable person, you can't seriously believe that, suddenly, in dawn of the 21s century, human banking institutions suddenly had a mass-brain-fart coupled with tendencies of financial suicide, now do you?

For something to be so widespread and to have no historic precedent - some other underlying factor must be at work.

It's called the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Reserve, and manipulation of both of those institutions. Those are the most relevant and new factors that are almost exclusive to the lending market in the U.S. (the origin of the economic collapse).

Banks have been around for thousands of years and there exists no historical precedent for the type of collapse we have seen. We must ask ourselves "what changed" - either you believe human beings suddenly changed and started lending to high-risk demographics out of a species-wide gravitation to greed, or you believe it was the FHA and Federal Reserve trying to "improve the quality of life" for certain demographics.