This was a setup folks. Started with CRA’s and mortgages started by lawyers like Obama who di it as a community organzier. Virus was placed in banks through fellow travelers working at Fannie & Freddie. Pelosi and Reid NO Energy Policy drives oil abd gas prices to $4+ a gallon.
Bear market raids by Soros, Flower and John Paulson leading up to october. Bush and Paulson panic etc etc. TV News and MSM newspaper media 100% behind Obama.
Obama keeps pushing panic to push socialism. I wonder if this is what really happened in 1929 and FDR.
The newspapers are dying but the TV news media will lead us to serfdom and Islamification. ACORN and their sister group SEIU will keep the Dems in power forever. The GOP has it’s hopes on 2010 but ACORN may throw monkey wrenh into that plan.
We need to boycott and cancel cable and sat TV unless someone has another idea.
The tough part is when you boycott it all, your boycott becomes 100% ineffective. (Which is not to say that youre boycott wouldn’t have personal benefits.) But if you punish the decent programming with the bad programming, they just decide you’re unreachable and give up on you.
(IOW: The Amish never affected a programming decision.)
The problem: Is there any good TV?
Already done years ago. Man the lifeboats.
European finance melted down October 5th when Germany threw in the towel and went financially protectionist. That spread here the next day. Whether these other bit players had anything to do with that timing is kind of irrelevant. Their money is small potatoes compared to the trillions owed by insolvent players like Eastern Europeans.
The bottom line is the whole credit charade was doomed. The most the people you mention could have done is affect the timing a little. Had the timing been different, we would now have an ineffective, although not malicious, President McCain. The financial meltdown would be just as real and deep, but at least McCain might have spared the job creators a bit.
If I understand what you are saying, your scenario doesn't seem to take into account the facts of the matter.
Are you saying that banks were somehow forced to make high-risk loans?
If so, why aren't all banks in trouble? I live in Colorado, where there is a tremendously high rate of default on mortgages, yet my bank (a local bank) is in excellent health, and my state have not had a single bank default. Add to that the fact that we've had an ever-growing illegal population for close to the last decade or so, which has been shown to directly feed the mortgage default rate, and you have a real puzzler on your hands.
ILLEGAL ALIENS & THE MORTGAGE MESS(^), Michelle Malkin, September 24, 2008, New York Post
Where the banks are failing(^)CNN
2008 Foreclosure Rates(^)CBSNews
If banks were unilaterally forced to make bad loans, why aren't they all failing? We actually checked to see the mortgage default rate at our own bank, and it is a tiny fraction of 1%, about as good as it gets.
So, some (in fact, probably most) banks did not dive head first into the shallow end of the mortgage pool, and are doing just fine, given the failure around them.
Why is that?