Struggling Banks Paid President Clinton $2.1 million for ‘Speeches

Just more reason we need to tie those CEO's hands, these are the decisions they make with investors money? Where was the board of directors when these decisions were made?

 

How else will we tie their hands and make them accountable for this waste? Print articles exposing their wasteful stewardship long after the deed was done and the company has failed?

 

So all you have is criticism of those trying but no solution to propose?

I'm thinking the "do nothing" philosophy isn't working so well and it certainly won't bring us out of this economic crises. I'm glad I went Dem this election because at least they are willing to try. Even a failed attempt is better than siting idle while the country self-destructs.

 

Do you have a solution or just more liberal-bashing?

 

This is only a contributer that got us here, the government didn't come up with ARMS, Balloon loans, stated income and 125% to value. The list really goes on...

Now on the other hand, the regulation you cite also lead to the housing industry growing and booming. We built and sold more properties because of that risk than any other time in our history. I'm not saying it was all good but it also wasn't all bad. Now I don't want to upset you, but suppose we had of regulated how that legislation was implemented???

 

The payments in the OP were paid before the bail-out. It is an indicator of some of the poor management decisions that got them in trouble, but there is nothing we can do about it now. The real problem is that they are still wasting money and paying huge bonuses.

If they had to be bailed out, why are the salaries not reduced and bonuses not stopped? And why do they still get to spend incredible amounts on retreats for upper managment?

Lest we forget, the government can give away nothing unless they take it from someone. In this case It has been taken from us and the next generation.

 

It was just sarcasm about regulating the regulation...

I still think it was a good idea that was taken to extreme by bankers. I think had we of stayed with the basic premise instead of going to this creative financing we'd of been much better off. I can see your point and can't argue against it. I don't think it's 100% complete but I can't argue against it.

 

It depends on why they are perceived not credit worthy. I agree with you if they are people who just don't pay bills but there are some people who just hit hard times. Also look at the credit rating system, you are penalized by people checking your credit. I wouldn't say it is the most fair system in the world.

I still say it is more than a coincidence that the defaulted mortgage rate is about 7% which is very close to the rate of unemployment. I know I have no proof so I stopped making my allegation but that is a strange set of facts.

 

Yes, let's "tie businessess hands" since that's so Constitutional and all. Government knows best, after all, since Govt run companies like Fannnie and Freddie and FEMA do so well

 

Working in the industry, when you have credit scores in the 500s, you should not be pressured to give mortgages. Even low 600s can have BKs.

Credit worthiness is based on payment history, amount of credit used compared to what is available, assets, income, and the ratio of debt to income available. When govt regulations were that you could raise the debt to income levels to 55-60%% (that is, for every $1 in debt payments each month, you have to have less than $2 in income, and those debts are debts that show up on a credit report only - not utilities, necessities, etc. don't count) - you're begging for a catastrophe.

Why are you penalized for people checking your credit? you aren't unless there are a string of looks. Everytime you apply for credit, you are acknowledging a credit deficiency - you currently do not have the means or the credit assumed to purchase something. Fair or unfair, it is logical.

As to the correlation between defaults and unemployment, I have not seen default rate info that high so I'd like to see the source. That said, historically I'm not aware of any correlation between the two numbers so I'd say it is coincidence. You can't have people out there who are portrayed as working poor (employed) who are losing their homes as the media portrays and have this correlation.

 

"We" ?

Do you own stock in those banks?