Did they also lose 40% of their wealth?

I'm sure sure they also suffered right along with us..

Right?

Everyone should read this book.

The theft (and let's call it what it is) didn't just happen; it was planned for decades as a response to things getting a bit more leveled out post-Great Depression.

All of the wealth went SOMEwhere . . . just not to your pockets.

The biggest investment that most people have is their home. When the housing bubble burst and a lot of people were upside down on their homes (or whatever it's called when you owe more on it than it's worth) that was not an example of wealth going somewhere else; it literally dissipated.

I'm not saying that the banks aren't evil or anything; I'm just saying that they didn't financially benefit every time a homeowner lost equity in their home.

I like the cartoon. What really sucks about the entire thing is that the $7.7 trillion sweetheart loan program between the FED and the banks is construed as Obama's fault even though it happened on Dubya's watch.

I'm not sure why more attention isn't given to that.

as in, 'they will take it out of'
misplaced blame is not what really sucks, partisans

The debt was taken on when the loan was made. There are no guarentees that something you buy today will be worth what you paid for it tomorrow.

We just don't expect it to happen to our homes. It happens to our vehicles all the time.

Some people took out equity loans on their "above water " homes and then spent the money on lavish vacations etc.I personally know two people who did this.One got $90,000 and one $60,000.The first one had her house foreclosed ,the second one is way underwater.That is where some of the money went.

Sure they did. Not only did they get paid for it through Bush's bailout but it turns out they got enough to buy every home in America, then they STILL went to the homeowners and acted like they never got paid a dime and want their money.

However, they stood to lose money every time a loan defaulted. They didn't benefit every time a homeowner's home value decreased.

Their ass was on the line too. However, congress and the white house had their back, but that's not the same as saying they benefitted every time someone lost value in their home.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the bankers took advantage, the real problem was with the behavior of the people in the government. From the financial institutions deregulations up to the bailout.

No, because they took out bets the instruments linked to them would fail. Even with an S&P AAA rating.

So they traded on future failed foreclosures and were making money by signing people up for low interest loans and then ballooning the payments to unpayable amounts so they could steal their homes and resell them at inflated amounts which were also designed to fail. This drove up local real estate values allowing them to justify higher loans linked to instruments they sold which led to higher commissions.

This is why banks that lend money were barred under Glass Steagall from futures tradings the way investment banks operate. They gamed the system for the commissions alone, passing on the debt to the whole damn planet.

Obviously not everyone was involved in such an elaborate scheme.

How many people do you think we're involved in this? Who are they? Are the names of these people actually available information?

Oh sure. Just get a list of who got raises.

I guess everyone has bought into this whole 'corporations are people too (my friend)' philosophy and so people can't even be a minor nuisance to the individual people who caused the meltdown.

Or at least publish a list of these people's names and home addresses so that everyone can visit their houses on google earth. Find out what political donations they've made etc.

If we're all so pissed off at them, and they can be identified why aren't we picking on them at least a little? The specific people; if we can easily figure out who they are.

Many live on estates or in highrises where you can't even get past the doorman.

It's kind of like dealing with serial killers. You say the victims name, try to build sympathy in the heart of the serial killer....

OK, it's the opposite of dealing with a serial killer. We expect for corporations to be faceless and while some despise them; others admire them and yearn to be a part of them. Everyone wants to distance themself from a scumbag.

I think if you could feature a fat cat a week, show where they live on google earth, illustrate how they have benefitted from the meltdown, highlight how much they have given, and to whom, in political contributions.

You've created an image that you can point to. Think Glen Beck and George Soros. So you create this image (actually several images) and say how much the conservatives love him etc.

There just isn't as much emotion stirred up toward Bank of America (or any other entity that is represented by a logo) as can be stirred up toward something with a face.

But the accusation by posting specific info would be that it's like publishing the private addresses of abortion doctors.

I don't need to know where they live.

I want to see them frogmarched through the NYSE in front of their fellow travellers who admire them.

But then, I'm the type that thinks it would be really cool to have a bunch of guys burst in on the NYSE like the Untouchables and say, "This is a raid!"

Let me know when it happens.

Bush and Obama spent $29 Trillion bailing out the banks.

The banks are now flush with cash so they can swoop in and repurchase assets at pennies on the dollar. This is the same scam the rentier class has perpetuated for centuries now. Load up the masses with debts that can never be repaid, creating a bubble as excess bank credit creation drives asset inflation and speculation. Once the bubble pops due to lack of currency in the real economy to cover these bank bubble debts, shift the losses onto the public balance sheet. When everyone is broke from the recession caused by the reckless financial sector, the banks are positioned to start the cycle again.

The only way to stop it is to rein in the banks and have the government spend sufficient amounts of currency into the economy to sustain healthy levels of economic activity.

of the GAINS they made on derivatives. The mortgage bubble was bad, but it's almost a red herring.

The real crime consists in that Goldman Sachs et al. were buying insurance policies -- credit derivatives -- against losses on mortgages they didn't own and knew would go bad. AIG issued those policies and didn't have the money to pay on them when the bubble burst; but we bailed out AIG, so Goldman got paid, when it should have had to eat its losses.

This is simple fact; and the same basic thing went on – and is still going on – all over the world.

So yes, the money did not go poof. The losses on mortgages, and the premiums paid for the derivatives, were just a small price paid by certain players to win big on "bets" they knew would go bad. Which the US gov't made good on, at your and my expense.

They made a lot of money shorting those same derivatives. They were bundling toxic assets, selling them, then betting against them. They made a freaking killing.

I've tried to tell people a tiny percentage on this is huge incentive by pointing out that in the days when regular savings accounts actually paid 4% that meant a million dollar deposit would pay you $40,000 a year in interest. That's what Republicans are fighting to make tax free. Capital Gains. Money from money. The main revenue of the idle rich.

These people know the math and were skimming from billions. Every transaction gave them a cut.

and are expecting a return on the investment.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/08/news/companies/aig-treasury-bailout/index.htm

Of course that was last month.

And then sold that stock at a profit (regardless of the sleaziness of the company where they bought the stock) doesn't the government then make a little profit?

And when their name came up over and over as having taken money to provide AAA ratings they decided to head off criminal proceedings by lowering the credit rating of the entire United States so any attempt to expose them could be called a retaliation for their lowering the credit rating of the United States.

To quote Malloy, Have I said yet tonight how much I hate these people?

Toons is s'posed to be funny. Toons is s'posed to make us laugh.

mission accomplished, indeed. You read my mind.

Bush was actually a good president in that he sought to bring Republican policies to fruition. The problem was not in the execution of these policies, but the actual policies themselves; Republican policies produce Global Wars AND Global Recessions!!

NOTE: According to economist Mike Kimel, the 5 former Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last 4 Republican Presidents (H. Bush, G. Bush, Reagan, and Ford), all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.

Summary: Democratic policies are far better for the overall economy than Republican policies.

If I infiltrated freerepublic, I like to think I could, for a short time, keep up the ruse. But, for some reason, they cannot stop themselves from saying "democrat" party, no matter how many times they are corrected.

the booj-wah-zee