Obama Bought And Paid For!

[UNTFan23]

Well, how about we go back to the regulations that were in place when I first entered the housing market (late 70's). 20% down and a loan that was well within the income of the person trying to take out the loans.

BTW Kram, I'm no more a revisionist than you are a shill for the rich........or are you?

$30,000 for a $150,000 home ... there are a lot of people that don't have the dry powder to drop that much into a house (myself included although I might be able to wing 10% later this year if I were to be in the market to buy a house at the end of 2010). You think the housing market is bad now, how about requiring 20% to buy a house and see what that does to our real estate market. I think you'd have to see housing prices tank in an effort to get people into more homes if you raise the minimum down payment that high.

[KRAM1]

Well, how about we go back to the regulations that were in place when I first entered the housing market (late 70's). 20% down and a loan that was well within the income of the person trying to take out the loans.

BTW Kram, I'm no more a revisionist than you are a shill for the rich........or are you?

A "shill for the rich"...now that's laughable. Just where do you come up with this stuff? Comedy Central perhaps?????

BTW...the banks were all for your idea, but then that pesky Community Reinvestment Act I mentioned was enacted. You can trace the "risky" loans and housing lending practices right back to that legislation. AS "good" of intentions as it might have had in its conception, the reality and its use became something much different in reality. Much of government regulation turns this way...check out that masterpiece called Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that folks were so quick to pass after Enron, etc. Nice in theory, but in reality has cost lots of jobs, increased prices for the consumer and put lots of folks "at risk" for jail time who are far removed from any real decision making. Interestingly enough, Congress is looking at a repeal/revision of this ill-conceived and ill-executed regulation. There Congress goes again, in Silver's definition, "shilling for the rich". Never mind that all these bad "rich folks" (man, how I do wish I was actually in that catagory) pay the vast majority of taxes in this country and employ the vast majority of workers...shame on them for working hard and actually hiring folks...Shame, shame...

[yyz28]

Well, how about we go back to the regulations that were in place when I first entered the housing market (late 70's). 20% down and a loan that was well within the income of the person trying to take out the loans.

BTW Kram, I'm no more a revisionist than you are a shill for the rich........or are you?

I'm all for it. ...now, do you ACTUALLY THINK that the people who are in power now would ACTUALLY push for that type of regulation? Do you think they would push for regulation that would impact the lower middle class, poor, and the minorities the hardest?

I'd like to see the Democrats do that. Let's see how long LULAC, NAACP and every other minority group is up in ARMS calling racisim and everything else, making it virtually impossible for those who haven't "won life's lottery" (their words, not mine) to get a home?

You ARE Revisionist if you're going to argue that there was no enfluence by all levels of government and the fed that led to the policies that led to the housing disaster. ...you're either revisionist or you don't know the facts. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that wallstreet was clean, but to pretend that the fannie and freddie mess wan't coming years ago, and that Republicans including Bush and McCain tried to get congress to do something about it while the Democrats (Dodd and Frank most specifically) did nothing about it simply IS revisionist history. To pretend that all levels of government and pac meddling isn't what led to the bad policy being set in the first place IS revisionist history. Even to secure competitive rates from the Fed banks had to have a certain precentage of specific types of loans, which is a big part of what led to all of this. Now, does that mean I think it should be a free for all for the banks? Not at all... ...but it IS government policy that was put in place with, I'm sure, the best intentions that caused this collapse in the first place.

I applaud your willingness to cost your party its base to put in regulation that might actually help stop another crisis. ...but your party certainly isn't going to suggest any such policy.

[KRAM1]

I'm all for it. ...now, do you ACTUALLY THINK that the people who are in power now would ACTUALLY push for that type of regulation? Do you think they would push for regulation that would impact the lower middle class, poor, and the minorities the hardest?

I applaud your willingness to cost your party its base to put in regulation that might actually help stop another crisis. ...but your party certainly isn't going to suggest any such policy.

THAT!

[HoustonEagle]

SE, you have to remember that the government "forced" banks to make these insane loans that you are talking about. The government forced these banks to make loans to individuals who did not qualify and to undocumented workers. I believe this happened under the Clinton Administration. No federal money comes without strings attached. It is almost paramont to asking the godfather for a favor. You just never get out of the quicksand.

I see nothing wrong with the people determinining our own options in a capitalistic state. I see nothing wrong with people becoming super rich because of achievement as long as people determine if they want to purchase those goods and services for the prices offered. What I do see wrong is having the government say that you are making too much and you have to be penalized for your achievement. I would much rather have that option than surrender my freedoms to let government make all my decisions for me in a facist or socialistic state. Would you not prefer to do your own thinking and acting than have the government take over that responsibility for you? Obama, Pelosi, Reid.....and others in the democratic part want government to control your lives.......that is socialist. Look at "hell-th" care. IMHO, it is not constitutional for the federal government to force this upon its citizens ..... it is not self determination of a democratic government and these measures go against the self determination of a free democratic state.

EE this simply is not true. If you can find credible information to prove otherwise please post it here as I would love to read what you find. The government created incentives but the banks were not "forced" to do anything. In a nut shell the use of mark to market accounting and the creation of Credit Default Swaps created a self-inflicted environment where banks were taking on an exorbitant amount of risk because their traders up through the CEO would make huge bonuses simply buying up the commoditized packaged loans and supposedly laying off risk through the purchase of Credit Default Swaps. Housing values increase and you mark your profits at the end of your fiscal year. Everyone receives their bonus and the loans stay on the books. Housing is a methodical beast of a market that can rise in value for years before a correction occurs, especially with the banks loaning money to anyone with a pulse. So you rinse and repeat. The problem becomes when you do this long enough the risk profile of your institution becomes entirely too large to one side of the banking portfolio. The CEO's knew that too much of their revenue stream was coming from this side of their business but they would still allow more risk to be loaded on to keep stock prices headed higher and their own bonuses large. They would justify this by saying they had laid off risk in the CDS markets. What is the problem with that? The same CDS they were buying were also being sold into the market by all their own separate CDS desk and the desk of their peers. Why would traders and executives allow this to happen? Why not? The only personal downside is you lose your job and when traders and executives are making millions in bonus money each and every year losing your job is not exactly a huge fear. Instead they rode the horse until it kicked them off and they did this for the better part of two decades not just a few years. All of this created an environment where systemic risk was immense. As with any other market when too many people get on one side of the boat it will eventually tip. Unfortunately when this boat tipped it was so large it took the world economy down with it. Say what you want about the government did and did not do. In the end no one forced the banks to take on as much risk as they did. They did it becomes the system rewards short term gains not the long term picture.

[SilverEagle]

I'm all for it. ...now, do you ACTUALLY THINK that the people who are in power now would ACTUALLY push for that type of regulation? Do you think they would push for regulation that would impact the lower middle class, poor, and the minorities the hardest?

I'd like to see the Democrats do that. Let's see how long LULAC, NAACP and every other minority group is up in ARMS calling racisim and everything else, making it virtually impossible for those who haven't "won life's lottery" (their words, not mine) to get a home?

You ARE Revisionist if you're going to argue that there was no enfluence by all levels of government and the fed that led to the policies that led to the housing disaster. ...you're either revisionist or you don't know the facts. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that wallstreet was clean, but to pretend that the fannie and freddie mess wan't coming years ago, and that Republicans including Bush and McCain tried to get congress to do something about it while the Democrats (Dodd and Frank most specifically) did nothing about it simply IS revisionist history. To pretend that all levels of government and pac meddling isn't what led to the bad policy being set in the first place IS revisionist history. Even to secure competitive rates from the Fed banks had to have a certain precentage of specific types of loans, which is a big part of what led to all of this. Now, does that mean I think it should be a free for all for the banks? Not at all... ...but it IS government policy that was put in place with, I'm sure, the best intentions that caused this collapse in the first place.

I applaud your willingness to cost your party its base to put in regulation that might actually help stop another crisis. ...but your party certainly isn't going to suggest any such policy.

My party? If my party brought about this regulation (or de-regulation) then why didn't the Bush administration get rid of it? It certainly wasn't because congress was in the hands of the democrats during his administration.

[SilverEagle]

A "shill for the rich"...now that's laughable. Just where do you come up with this stuff? Comedy Central perhaps?????

BTW...the banks were all for your idea, but then that pesky Community Reinvestment Act I mentioned was enacted. You can trace the "risky" loans and housing lending practices right back to that legislation. AS "good" of intentions as it might have had in its conception, the reality and its use became something much different in reality. Much of government regulation turns this way...check out that masterpiece called Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that folks were so quick to pass after Enron, etc. Nice in theory, but in reality has cost lots of jobs, increased prices for the consumer and put lots of folks "at risk" for jail time who are far removed from any real decision making. Interestingly enough, Congress is looking at a repeal/revision of this ill-conceived and ill-executed regulation. There Congress goes again, in Silver's definition, "shilling for the rich". Never mind that all these bad "rich folks" (man, how I do wish I was actually in that catagory) pay the vast majority of taxes in this country and employ the vast majority of workers...shame on them for working hard and actually hiring folks...Shame, shame...

Because anything having to do with the Banking industry (however sleezy) is just fine with you. And your cover commet is "let the buyer beware".....you know, like a shill.

[yyz28]

My party? If my party brought about this regulation (or de-regulation) then why didn't the Bush administration get rid of it? It certainly wasn't because congress was in the hands of the democrats during his administration.

That's right, blame Bush, and way to dodge the actual issue.

Why did Bush and the Republicans not do anything about it while they had control? Well, I'm not a shill, so I'm happy to admit when politics are politics. I think they didn't do it for two reasons. 1. it wasn't a crisis yet (2006 was really the first time that there was any sign to anyone outside of FMFM that there was a big problem within.) and 2. Politics. It isn't good politics, especially when you're already unpoplular, to stand up and say "Hey, this is bad, we need to quit giving these people with bad credit (which accounts for a HUGE part of the voting block) loans to get houses." ...it's the same problem the Democrats have right now. You're right, the policy you suggested would keep the problem from happening again, but it would destroy a huge portion of your party's base, which is why your party will place blame on everyone else (even though it is their policies that caused the problem in the first place) but do nothing to fix it. No inquiries. No committee meetings. No legilsation. No NOTHING. Do you HONESTLY believe that if they could legitimately pin this on Republicans and their policies and that it wouldn't end up with egg on their faces that we wouldn't have the investigation of a lifetime on CSPAN 24x7 right now? You and I both really know the answer to that in today's environment. The lack of hearings is proof enough that the party in power has as much to lose if not more than they party they would try and take down.

I find it amusing that you attack Republicans for not doing something about it, but you give a pass to the people who put the problem in motion in the first place. It sort of takes away your ability to play the Shill card.

[KRAM1]

Because anything having to do with the Banking industry (however sleezy) is just fine with you. And your cover commet is "let the buyer beware".....you know, like a shill.

You crack me up. You really should be a star performer at Comedy Central. I'll make no apologies for believing that people hold personal responsibility for their own actions, that the smaller the federal government the better and that it is private and free enterprise not the government that built this great nation of ours. Sorry those ideas offend you so much. We will simply continue to agree to disagree.

[SilverEagle]

You crack me up. You really should be a star performer at Comedy Central. I'll make no apologies for believing that people hold personal responsibility for their own actions, that the smaller the federal government the better and that it is private and free enterprise not the government that built this great nation of ours. Sorry those ideas offend you so much. We will simply continue to agree to disagree.

Thank you J.P. Morgan, or is it John D. Rockefeller. Their unfettered industries kept the poor....well, poor, and the rich....richer. And please tell me about one Banker/Financial CO who has stood up and taken any sort of responsibility for this financial mess that occured......on Bush's watch. We could always go back to those glorious days and when your kids and grandkids worked from dawn to dusk in a factory......without any safety regulations of course.

[untbowler]

Thank you J.P. Morgan, or is it John D. Rockefeller. Their unfettered industries kept the poor....well, poor, and the rich....richer. And please tell me about one Banker/Financial CO who has stood up and taken any sort of responsibility for this financial mess that occured......on Bush's watch. We could always go back to those glorious days and when your kids and grandkids worked from dawn to dusk in a factory......without any safety regulations of course.

Your hatred for Bush is so childish, so lets forget while on the watch of Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, and lets not forget the Libs favorite president Carter who initiated the Community Reinvestment Act. Also when did the Repuglicans ever have a Super Majority like the Dems have had for the past year?

Lets forget that Maxine Waters and Barnie Frank (who was dating a high ranking official with Fannie Mae) that there was nothing to worry about as recent as 2003.

Why are the CEOs of Banks being targeted as the evil filthy rich, yet Hollywood is great to the Libs with their American hating ilk (screw you Danny Glover).

[KRAM1]

Thank you J.P. Morgan, or is it John D. Rockefeller. Their unfettered industries kept the poor....well, poor, and the rich....richer. And please tell me about one Banker/Financial CO who has stood up and taken any sort of responsibility for this financial mess that occured......on Bush's watch. We could always go back to those glorious days and when your kids and grandkids worked from dawn to dusk in a factory......without any safety regulations of course.

Wow...still mad at J D Rockefeller and J P Morgan! I knew you had a few years on you, but I had no idea you can hold a grudge THAT long. Most dems only go back as far as Bush to place blame for everything. That certainly and conviently overlooks, of course, the role that more current dems (Dodd, etc.) played in the whole mess. You went way past that (of course you got around to Bush too, gee, so very surprising of you, and so original too) and went back to the days of JP and JD. You might want to consider writing speeches for Martha Cokely...better hurry though...using such "shilling" phrases as "their unfetterd industries kept the poor, poor and the rich, rich". You know sort of like..."only lottery winners would be able to buy houses" stuff. I can hear the music playing in the backround now...."Mine eyes have seen the glory..........".

Please, give that Comedy Central thing a try. I do think you'd be a big hit! But, don't tell any of your dem and union buddies that you favor folks actually having to qualify for a mortgage before being granted one, have 20% down in cash and pass a credit check and actually make enough in the way of income to make the payments. Really radical right wing stuff like that that will "keep the poor, poor and out of homes and let the rich get richer" might get you thrown out of the "all emotion no thinking club".

You are just too funny. Come on in to the 21st century at least. My kids and grandkids never worked in a factory "from dusk until dawn without any safety regulations", but if they had, they would probably would have found a way to find a better job...moved to Texas perhaps and start their own business, ranch or farm...oh, that's right...that's what my great granparents did when they got tired of "working for the man". You know, they took a little responsibility for their own well being and tried to do something about it. Not saying everyone could do that, but plenty of folks did and that's what helped create the great opportunities we have today to work for "the man" or work for ourselves. Tough days back in the days of the "industrial revolution" that's for sure, but the last time I looked...they were over here in the good ole U S of A. Haven't you noticed or have you just been too busy bashing Bush for everything? Too funny!

[yyz28]

Thank you J.P. Morgan, or is it John D. Rockefeller. Their unfettered industries kept the poor....well, poor, and the rich....richer. We could always go back to those glorious days and when your kids and grandkids worked from dawn to dusk in a factory......without any safety regulations of course.

Wow...

[SilverEagle]

Wow...still mad at J D Rockefeller and J P Morgan! I knew you had a few years on you, but I had no idea you can hold a grudge THAT long. Most dems only go back as far as Bush to place blame for everything. That certainly and conviently overlooks, of course, the role that more current dems (Dodd, etc.) played in the whole mess. You went way past that (of course you got around to Bush too, gee, so very surprising of you, and so original too) and went back to the days of JP and JD. You might want to consider writing speeches for Martha Cokely...better hurry though...using such "shilling" phrases as "their unfetterd industries kept the poor, poor and the rich, rich". You know sort of like..."only lottery winners would be able to buy houses" stuff. I can hear the music playing in the backround now...."Mine eyes have seen the glory..........".

Please, give that Comedy Central thing a try. I do think you'd be a big hit! But, don't tell any of your dem and union buddies that you favor folks actually having to qualify for a mortgage before being granted one, have 20% down in cash and pass a credit check and actually make enough in the way of income to make the payments. Really radical right wing stuff like that that will "keep the poor, poor and out of homes and let the rich get richer" might get you thrown out of the "all emotion no thinking club".

You are just too funny. Come on in to the 21st century at least. My kids and grandkids never worked in a factory "from dusk until dawn without any safety regulations", but if they had, they would probably would have found a way to find a better job...moved to Texas perhaps and start their own business, ranch or farm...oh, that's right...that's what my great granparents did when they got tired of "working for the man". You know, they took a little responsibility for their own well being and tried to do something about it. Not saying everyone could do that, but plenty of folks did and that's what helped create the great opportunities we have today to work for "the man" or work for ourselves. Tough days back in the days of the "industrial revolution" that's for sure, but the last time I looked...they were over here in the good ole U S of A. Haven't you noticed or have you just been too busy bashing Bush for everything? Too funny!

I AM in the 21st century, but the right wing keeps trying to drag us back to the late 19th century. THATS what I'm angry about.

[UNTFan23]

I AM in the 21st century, but the right wing keeps trying to drag us back to the late 19th century. THATS what I'm angry about.

You're taking hyperbole to a whole, new level.

[eulesseagle]

I AM in the 21st century, but the right wing keeps trying to drag us back to the late 19th century. THATS what I'm angry about.

Wow SE.....that is bizzzzzzzzare! Funny, but bizzzzzzzzare. 19th centruy......

HoustonEagle.....as far as your retort I refer to Kram1's excellent post on the subject. He said it all.

[HoustonEagle]

That's right, blame Bush, and way to dodge the actual issue.

Why did Bush and the Republicans not do anything about it while they had control? Well, I'm not a shill, so I'm happy to admit when politics are politics. I think they didn't do it for two reasons. 1. it wasn't a crisis yet (2006 was really the first time that there was any sign to anyone outside of FMFM that there was a big problem within.) and 2. Politics. It isn't good politics, especially when you're already unpoplular, to stand up and say "Hey, this is bad, we need to quit giving these people with bad credit (which accounts for a HUGE part of the voting block) loans to get houses." ...it's the same problem the Democrats have right now. You're right, the policy you suggested would keep the problem from happening again, but it would destroy a huge portion of your party's base, which is why your party will place blame on everyone else (even though it is their policies that caused the problem in the first place) but do nothing to fix it. No inquiries. No committee meetings. No legilsation. No NOTHING. Do you HONESTLY believe that if they could legitimately pin this on Republicans and their policies and that it wouldn't end up with egg on their faces that we wouldn't have the investigation of a lifetime on CSPAN 24x7 right now? You and I both really know the answer to that in today's environment. The lack of hearings is proof enough that the party in power has as much to lose if not more than they party they would try and take down.

I find it amusing that you attack Republicans for not doing something about it, but you give a pass to the people who put the problem in motion in the first place. It sort of takes away your ability to play the Shill card.

Inquiries: Nonetheless, on Wednesday, in front of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), the bank executives tried to paint a picture that the failures that caused the crisis were missteps by management, sometimes even themselves, but not the result of faulty regulation.

Committee Meetings: Both the House and Senate have had committee meetings and continue to do so.

Legislation: You are correct, no legislation has been passed. But, "Senate banking committee leaders close to a deal on financial regulatory reform"

I find it amusing that you did not do five minutes of research on the Internet before you spouted off. That was very Glenn Beckian of you and we all expect better from our far right GoMeanGreen rabble-rousers.

No one commented on my previous post but again I would like to contend that the Government bares only a very small portion of the responsibility for the crisis. Of that portion, the blame can truly be handed out equally to each party. Hey, it's the most bipartisan thing to come out of Washington in decades!

Edited January 19, 2010 by HoustonEagle

[HoustonEagle]

Wow SE.....that is bizzzzzzzzare! Funny, but bizzzzzzzzare. 19th centruy......

HoustonEagle.....as far as your retort I refer to Kram1's excellent post on the subject. He said it all.

Actually he did not say it all. For instance he did not say that taken as a whole only a small portion of sub-prime loans were made by CRA regulated institutions. I will not pretend there was not strong arm techniques done by some community groups but the CRA in itself did not force banks to lend. It simply did not. I will not argue that the program had it's problems and quite frankly was never necessary in the first place. Still the CRA did not cause the financial crisis. Banks have a business to run and it is on them to manage risk while maintaining profitability. Eventually they became too focused on the profits and turned a blind eye to their risk profile.

Edited January 19, 2010 by HoustonEagle

[UNTFan23]

So taxing the banks is a means to fix the situation the banks caused?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Wow...still mad at J D Rockefeller and J P Morgan! I knew you had a few years on you, but I had no idea you can hold a grudge THAT long. Most dems only go back as far as Bush to place blame for everything.

---Again you making things up.... I detest calling any of our leaders Marxists or even the opposite-- Facists. I just mentioned that to indicate business can't not be trusted to do what is best for everyone. ...of the same is true of government as well.

---I repeat this as well... countries that have the least government tend to be very corrupt and not anywhere most of us would want to live because of the extremes in wealth and poverty. Do not twist that to mean I want a USSR either where government controls everything... They are not a lot different that an absolute monarchy either.. one or a few run everything.

---Bush: Was the economy this bad when he took office..?? Even the Dow was several thousand better and the rate of unemployment was better as well. Just face the reality of the situation. I swear some would defend the fact their house burning down was would be a good thing... after they have less stuff to take care of. ...Crazy..

[yyz28]

I find it amusing that you did not do five minutes of research on the Internet before you spouted off. That was very Glenn Beckian of you and we all expect better from our far right GoMeanGreen rabble-rousers.

Eagle - it's the typical name calling instead of actual debate that "we all expect" from our far left "GoMeanGreen rabble-rousers". Glenn Beck sucks.

I didn't say there were no investigations of the banking industry. I didn't say there wasn't any committee meetings on what the private sector did wrong. You don't NEED research to know that has been going on and isn't in the least what I "spouted off" about. Before you attack, it is a good idea to know what someone is actually arguing.

Grilling bank execs to score political points is not in the least what I was asking for or expecting our government to do in order to avoid this mess in the future.

I'm looking for investigation into the government's handling of the banking, financial and mortgage industries and an assessment of what current policies and regulations worked and which ones didn't and why. I'd like someone other than the people who were in charge of these regulations (showing me an article about Chris Dodd conducting a serious investigation of this issue and then attacking me for not doing any research was about the funniest thing I've seen on this board since TY Sports was still funny) conducting these investigations and hearings. We need real answers about what our government and our leaders knew about what was going on in the mortgage industry and when they knew it, and we need to understand what went wrong, or else this will happen again and again and again, no matter how much you beat on banks and try and pass the next package of reform without bothering to figure out what in the last package of reforms didn't work.

All this government has done is conduct show trials and tried to point the finger at everyone else instead of taking a good look at what THEY were doing right AND wrong. ...and I'm SURE there are a good number of guilty Republicans who were at least asleep at the swtich.

Everything wrong with this country is NOT in the private sector.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Everything wrong with this country is NOT in the private sector.

Are you utilizing hyperbole to help make your point, or do you truly believe there is nothing wrong with the private sector?

[UNTFan23]

Are you utilizing hyperbole to help make your point, or do you truly believe there is nothing wrong with the private sector?

I took what he said as not all the problems with our country are rooted in the private sector. There are some problems dealing with our government that should be looked into as well.

[yyz28]

I took what he said as not all the problems with our country are rooted in the private sector. There are some problems dealing with our government that should be looked into as well.

that is exactly what I mean.

[HoustonEagle]

That's right, blame Bush, and way to dodge the actual issue.

Why did Bush and the Republicans not do anything about it while they had control? Well, I'm not a shill, so I'm happy to admit when politics are politics. I think they didn't do it for two reasons. 1. it wasn't a crisis yet (2006 was really the first time that there was any sign to anyone outside of FMFM that there was a big problem within.) and 2. Politics. It isn't good politics, especially when you're already unpoplular, to stand up and say "Hey, this is bad, we need to quit giving these people with bad credit (which accounts for a HUGE part of the voting block) loans to get houses." ...it's the same problem the Democrats have right now. You're right, the policy you suggested would keep the problem from happening again, but it would destroy a huge portion of your party's base, which is why your party will place blame on everyone else (even though it is their policies that caused the problem in the first place) but do nothing to fix it. No inquiries. No committee meetings. No legilsation. No NOTHING. Do you HONESTLY believe that if they could legitimately pin this on Republicans and their policies and that it wouldn't end up with egg on their faces that we wouldn't have the investigation of a lifetime on CSPAN 24x7 right now? You and I both really know the answer to that in today's environment. The lack of hearings is proof enough that the party in power has as much to lose if not more than they party they would try and take down.

I find it amusing that you attack Republicans for not doing something about it, but you give a pass to the people who put the problem in motion in the first place. It sort of takes away your ability to play the Shill card.

yyz28? It's in print for everyone to see. Also in the inquiries it was not the goverment that the banking CEO's were pointing the finger at. If you want debate on what caused the financial crisis then why did you not address my previous post on what I felt actually caused the financial crisis. I work in the financial industry. I would be more than happy to continue that discussion.

Edited January 20, 2010 by HoustonEagle