Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:55:11 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:57:23 -0700, "Bill McKee"


and what happened to the stock market when lehman bros went under?

it collapsed

remember 1929? they tried your method.



It did not collapse because Lehman Bros went under. It collapsed when the
first couple people with stated income loans could not pay the mortgage.

which, of course, is nonsense

CDO's were 1 trillion in 96

62 trillion in 2006.

tell me again how the middle class is responsible for that.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On 4/29/2010 1:31 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:55:11 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:57:23 -0700, "Bill McKee"


and what happened to the stock market when lehman bros went under?

it collapsed

remember 1929? they tried your method.



It did not collapse because Lehman Bros went under. It collapsed when the
first couple people with stated income loans could not pay the mortgage.

which, of course, is nonsense

CDO's were 1 trillion in 96

62 trillion in 2006.

tell me again how the middle class is responsible for that.


They bought houses that they could not afford to pay for. Those CDO's
are a disaster, but they were based on home loans. Bad home loans. If
the homeowners would have been able to pay the loans, the CDO's would be
covered from defaulting. someone got the 62 trillion in created money.
Who should be your question. Is the way the economy works.

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:10:49 -0700, Califbill
wrote:

On 4/29/2010 1:31 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:55:11 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:



which, of course, is nonsense

CDO's were 1 trillion in 96

62 trillion in 2006.

tell me again how the middle class is responsible for that.


They bought houses that they could not afford to pay for.

and, given the fact that home ownership has run at about 65% for 40
years, the difference in the number of people who defaulted in2007 vs
1997 should have had a MINOR effect on our economy EXCEPT FOR:

hose CDO's
are a disaster,

this. the CDO's leveraged a MINOR problem into a MAJOR one. wall
street took a minor economic bump and found a way to amplify it so it
crashed the economy. we simply can not survive with 62 trillion
dollars worth of a useless financial instrument.

but wall street didn't care. they made billions. and they took it from
us. they took it from hard working, honest people.


but they were based on home loans. Bad home loans. If
the homeowners would have been able to pay the loans, the CDO's would be
covered from defaulting.

nope. the scale was too big. there is no way we can recover from the
trillions that wall street gambled on failure

Dems in Wall Street Pocket
 

On Sat, 01 May 2010 23:28:52 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:26:12 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

They bought houses that they could not afford to pay for.

and, given the fact that home ownership has run at about 65% for 40
years, the difference in the number of people who defaulted in2007 vs
1997 should have had a MINOR effect on our economy EXCEPT FOR:

You are talking about "need" houses and ignoring the huge number of
"want" houses that were sold. There were a significant part of that
65% who owned 2 or 3 houses, hoping they could flip them for big
bucks. The tax code actually encouraged buying 2.

which is alot of words about nothing. again, the problem isn't the
middle class.

it's people like fab tourre inventing financial instruments that draw
money out of the economy by the TRILLIONS but do nothin productive.