As editorial cartoonist for The Journal News in New York, Davies cuts to the chase on every major issue, deftly penetrating the spin and obfuscation to show readers what’s really at the heart. His caustic wit combines with a strong moral sensibility to render the complex comprehensible.
© Tribune Media Services, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.
Jeff Danziger by Jeff Danziger
John Deering by John Deering
Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)
sclark55
said, 3 months ago
The were the way lenders always did business, until govt got after them to start loaning money to people that … couldn’t afford the loan – in the name of fairness. (Reckless Endangerment, read it, and not just the dustcover.)
Jase99 said, 3 months ago
@sclark55
“The were the way lenders always did business, until govt got after them to start loaning money to people that … couldn’t afford the loan – in the name of fairness.”
Before the mortgage crunch, 3 different banks pre-approved unsolicited loans to me on multiple occasions. They literally sent me unsolicited loan checks for $5,000 to $10,000 in the mail. All I’d have to do is sign and cash the checks for the unsolicited loan to be approved. I didn’t even have accounts with two of the banks, but they sure did want me to loan money from them!
But you’re right, it must have been the government forcing them to hand out loans. It’s the government’s fault, not the banks.
BrassOrchid
said, 3 months ago
Predatory lenders pressing you to raise your debt limit?
Bruce4671 said, 3 months ago
@Jase99
Hahahahaha, did you read the fine print on that “check”? did you see that you still have to be approved after you sent in the loan paper?
No, you can NOT POSSIBLY be THAT ignorant.
Stipple said, 3 months ago
@Bruce4671
There are those that are, look at the state of our nation.
.
Party politics is any smarter?
Fuzzy Thinker (I)
said, 3 months ago
A big factor in the mess was the commission that originating banks got coupled with selling the loan right away. If the originating bank suffered an immediate penalty when the borrower failed to make payments, then the meltdown would have not been as large. Being able to sell a house when you cannot make payments has always been a way to prevent foreclosure. The banks blocked the ‘back door’ when they black-balled appraisers that refused to create ‘underwater’ conditions.
Vlad Taltos said, 3 months ago
@sclark55
It was more than that: when the banks (rightfully) complained, the government said, fine, don’t worry about people not paying it off, we’ll step in and cover those losses if they occur. So now the banks had heavy pressure to offer loans to everyone, and zero pressure not to…
motivemagus said, 3 months ago
@sclark55
Inaccurate and incorrect. Once the idea of derivatives took hold, banks packaged bad debt to resell. They were then encouraging their employees to sell bad debt. The government, far from being responsible, failed to legislate derivatives, thanks to GOP Senator Phil Gramm, protecting his big bank friends. It was this that took down the economy.
sclark55
said, 3 months ago
@motivemagus
Would they have come up with derivatives at all if they had not first been pressured to make loans to minorities who were unable to make the payments? I don’t honestly know, but I suspect they may not have.
Affirmative action (in any form) doesn’t change how people behave. Govt has to be careful trying to get businesses to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do, cuz there’s generally a good reason.
Vlad’s probably right too; things would go better if the originating lenders had to hold onto their mortgages.
The issue isn’t the color of people’s skin, it’s how INDIVIDUALS behave, and when it comes to money, I assure you, govt does NOT know best how people will spend their money, but as evil as you may think they are, businesses DO know how INDIVIDUALS behave.
The Democrats caused the housing crisis to a very large extent by pressuring banks to make bad loans, and then people just fall for it when they turn around and blame Republicans. Read Reckless Endangerment – nobody talks much about it, but there were Republicans who wanted to rein in Fannie and Freddie.
Bruce4671 said, 3 months ago
@Stipple
LOL, Did your parents – as did mine – teach you that polite conversation did NOT include the topics of religion OR politics?
They’re really the same topic, if you really think about it honestly.
no, party politics is not smart
BrassOrchid
said, 3 months ago
@motivemagus
The flaming bag of dog droppings on the porch was not a problem until somebody rang the doorbell. Yes, I can see that.
Newshound41 said, 3 months ago
@sclark55
-Did the government tell the banks to bundle these bad loans and sell them? The bundling made it impossible to keep track of the loans.
-Did the government tell S&P to give the debt bundles a triple A rating?
BrassOrchid
said, 3 months ago
@Newshound41
Did anybody tell you to vote against Bush in 2004? You do as you feel is necessary and appropriate and in your best interests for your survival, right or wrong as it turns out, as long as it isn’t overtly illegal, though it may be unpopular.
The government did tell S&P that the loans were guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. of A., though that no longer implies a triple A rating, oddly enough.
Zuhlamon said, 3 months ago
Private profits, public losses. Banks abandoned their fiduciary responsibility when it was apparent that the government was denied their oversight function, and everybody else was building the bubble.
Bruce4671 said, 3 months ago
@Newshound41
And here is something to chew on. I’ll take an argument much used in recent days only about another “tool”.
If no one sold people (bad mortgage loans) then the people would not have any (bad mortgage loans). Maybe we should introduce legislation to ban (bad mortgages). (Bad mortgages) lead to (foreclosures). Yes, we need a federal background check to insure that people are qualified to take out a mortgage and able to use that mortgage properly and even one day pay it off.