So once again how were these banks forced to take the steps they took, and how were they victims in all of this?
Again, you're still not listenin'. So let me start easy, miss it this time and you're just trollin'. EVERYONE is a victim to our own stupidity. The banks, the people, and even the government though be them to blame.
You seem to be under the influence that you're little Mah and Pah bank is like every other bank, i.e. works under the same guidelines, and that is not how it works. A lot of little banks can get by without much government assistance though they still have to abide by the rules, they don't necessarily have to abide by the "perks" rules to stay in business like a lot of other BIG banks.
Let me explain how that works. For the explanation I'll use the highway building system. Let's use Texas, a rather wealthy state, and use Alabama, a rather poor state, to get this done. The government sets rules up and offers aid to the states who adopt their rules, laws, etc. The better you cooperate the more funding you get. I forget what the government would like all highway speed limits to be but I think it is 60 MPH so we'll use that. A lot of the highways in Texas are/were 65-70 MPH, though now an increasing amount of mileage is at the 60MPH zone for some reason, probably more funding. In Alabama you're lucky to find a highway over 60MPH, the main one while I lived there was 55MPH. The reason for the difference is because Alabama needs more funding than the state of Texas does, to build their roads and keep them safe. The reverse of this is true for banks, the smaller the bank, the less government assistance they require. This fundin' is also why states have, now, the same drinking age and most states have the age limit on buyin' tobacco the same. Follow their rules, you get more money. The choice lies with the state to decide how much aid they need vs. how much money they could save/gain from their own rules.
Bigger banks, which rely more upon the government than you, and hell even I, realize, where actually under immense pressure when Clinton lowered the standards for loans. Here they are givin' out loans to people they knew were not good for them but their hands were tied to either that or to loose their government support. I'm not sure how big the hits where but gatherin' by how many banks collapsed under all of this, it was obviously a lot. You can easily Google these things for a more clear answer than mine. Now, banks major way to make money is interest. Take away their interest from loans, which is how most big banks make the majority of their money off of, and they have to find other means to make their money to stay afloat. Now, here is where you need to pay extreme attention again, I never said they were doin' the right thing. Just like idiots who borrowed money outside their range, there are a lot of banks with terrible solutions to their problems. Even banks like Wells Fargo aren't to terribly well off, they are better off than most though. I'm not sure how Wells does it, they seem to be a freak of nature, I really don't know how they work but my only guess is that a lot of your lower income people lookin' for higher loans are not goin' to go to a fancy institution like Wells Fargo who don't advertise their loans out like a lot of bigger, yet less "elite" banks like WaMu, SouthTrust, etc. Again, somethin' they shouldn't have advertised on, but did, for whatever reason.
So I never said banks aren't to blame as well. They're in the same boat we the people are. Like us, they are in this mess because of bad decisions. My whole reason for even postin' here to begin with though is this; NONE of this, absolutely none of this "crisis" would be goin' on if Clinton hadn't lowered the standards for how much a person can get from a loan. While it is still our, the people, fault and the banks' fault, the catalyst was a dumb decision by the Clinton administration and Bush administration for bein' to pre-occupied with jerkin off rather than revertin' it. This whole mess could have been prevented which would have kept the banks from makin' bad decisions and the people from people able to answer their need for greed.
So to summarize, we're all to blame but the people who should shoulder most of the blame aren't even bein' brought up properly. Right now its "poor man who's about to loose his home" or "poor WaMu is shut down", etc. Not, "wtf was those idiots in the Clinton administration thinking." It's just like us to do this and it pisses me off. Just like how video games, music, and movies are to blame for bad kids rather than bad parentin' YET a kid gettin' a good ol' ass whippin' is almost a sin these days.
In closin', just like Clinton's big idea of subprime loans, Obamas stimulus plans are the same, but, imo, far worse. The stimulus plans are akin to the peoples blame for our current situation, usin' money we don't have to cover more money we don't have. It's exactly, to the "T", like someone payin' off a credit card with ANOTHER credit card. We can't keep "patchin'" these things, we need to fix them or before you know it we will be in a situation we can no longer climb out of. Which is a huge problem with our government to begin with, nothin' is ever for the future, though they like to say it is. Everything is "how can we fix it for the time being, just to get by a little longer."
I know you're probably so adamant because you're a big Clinton fan and honestly so am I, despite votin' Republican most of the time. I like the man, I enjoyed his term, and we had a lot of benefit out of him, and also a lot of entertainment. I like Bill Clinton, but he made a bad decision that is costin' a lot of people, especially the ones he was out to help to begin with, dearly and the last time I saw it brought up was around early 2008.
