On Jun 30, 7:16 pm, "Datesfat Chicks"
wrote:

And win, because I don't argue unless I know what I'm talking about.

You STILL haven't provided any credible evidence that minorities were
responsible for the financial crisis. Most experts seem to believe they
were not ...

"most experts"? Prove that please!

Most experts I've talked too tell me the issue is quite complex but
certainly government-caused. But there is more than enough blame to go
around to everyone.

To say that the bad loans were "all" from minorities is obviously an
over-simplification for a political agenda. However, minorities did
indeed play a role because they do tend to be disproportionately
represented in the poor segments of society. But the problem wasn't
"minorities" but loans made to persons who could not really afford
them. And part of the reason this was done was regulations encouraging
loans to the poor (of all situations). So banks and others began to
make loans to person who could in no way pay for them. And to cover
the facts of this, they made the loans in such a way that the major
payments and interest did not come due for a time. There was a period
of low payments which only covered interest or less and would step up
to realistic values later. Thus, the poor were lulled into thinking
they could afford that the "dream house" until the hammer fell. In the
mean time, the banks knowing the loans were going to crash and burn
once the real payment schedule kicked in tried to get out from under
the bad loans. They did this by trying to cover these loans with
insurance known as "credit default swaps". Once covered from losses
the loans that were sure to crash and burn one day were packaged into
bundles and sold as quality securities because they were in essence
insured. Wall street seeing huge commissions in the offing jumped in
hyping the whole scheme and making a fortune. And even worse, the
banking regulators changed the rules on how loans were carried on the
bank books. The new rule was that a property had to be carried at it's
"current value" rather than it's value at the time of the loan. It's
complex stuff, but the end result was that as the housing market
crashed the rule meant that the banks "assets" were disappearing,
which meant that it needed to produce the cash difference under
banking rules to stay open. It was money the banks didn't have and
couldn't get. So when the housing "bubble" burst everybody was on the
hook and ready to be taken down. Everybody was too smart for their own
good and were too happy raking in the profits off the bubble to have
made arrangements for the day when it all fell apart. At this point
the government had to step in and of course the private Federal
Reserve made sure that ownership or at least control of all these
banks fell to their stockholders. Money pretty much is coming from
taxpayers and everyone else (including minorities) by the huge
inflation sure to result from trillion or so dollars being 'spent" to
try to keep various outfits afloat.

So did minorities (or more exactly the poor) cause the problem:? Yes
they did. And what they did was to assume that those in power and in
Congress were actually trying to give them a break and a helping hand
so that they might find a way to lift themselves out of the lives
they've had for so long. Needless to say it was all a very clever scam
designed to funnel money and power to the few at the expense of the
many. And that really is what it's all about.

The real problem is that many of you reading this think you are doing
OK, when in fact you are already part of the "poor" but just don't
know it yet! The entire financial structure is a house of cards which
has been once again taped together with duct tape. The question isn't
"will it ever recover?" The Question is "What in hell is STILL keeping
it up?"