There were major banks that didn’t need or want to be bailed out by the government, and they were playing by the same rules as everyone else. The people who lost equity and homes through no fault of their own are the people that might have been protected if the banks had been either forced to take their losses or forbear from foreclosing to an extent. The people who bought houses they couldn’t afford would not be saved by any amount of forebearance.
Making it personal about me is sort of silly. I have marketable skills and I’ve been conservative in my finances — I’m doing fine for now, as is my immediately family. The future does look bleak, as it does for all Americans, in my opinion.
If you’re talking about “illegal machinations”, then no, no amount of being better off can compensate for the loss of our rights under the Constitution. As I tried to explain to my father in law, if we do not have the Constitution and the rule of law in force, then we are not free. We might be more comfortable as slaves/serfs, or not, but I’d certainly rather be poor but free, than “comfortable” in a state of slavery.
But yes, if Obama had put into place a set of free market policies, based on the Constitution, that had the effect of bringing about a growing and prosperous economy, and black Americans were participating in that growth and prosperity, then I’d have certainly not opposed him on that basis. I suppose you could say that if his socialist policies had succeeded in the same, then I also would still support him, but I now understand that to be an impossibility.
That's rich. The government forces the banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers based on "communities of color" not sound economics and when these banks try to protect themselves and cover the very predictable losses with insurance derivatives it becomes their fault and they need to take "their" losses. Not theft by ACORN but "their" losses.
There were major banks that didn’t need or want to be bailed out by the government
So? That does not mean that they didn't lose money on these same bad loans. It just means either they didn't want anything to do with the government after the fact or didn't go hog wild with derivatives. Have you seen the books for these banks? Maybe they just ate the losses that were forced upon them.
Do you not see that it was the intervention of government and CRA that set this whole thing in motion?