Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Be thankful to banks

Posted 7 years ago on March 24, 2013, 11:31 p.m. EST by grateful (259)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Banks take the excess money from one person who doesn't need the money right now, and gives it to someone who does need it now. Because of the banks, you can buy a house that you would otherwise take years to save enough cash to buy. Then over time you can pay back the debt and own it outright. Then when you retire, you can reverse mortgage your home back to the bank, where the bank will pay you monthly, even while you live in your own home. Without banks, only the very rich could afford to own your own home. So all you 99%'ers, you should be thankful that Banks are on your side lending you money so you can buy your house.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by elf3 (4203) 7 years ago

What is the precise interest rate on your thirty year mortgage ? Go look at your paperwork add up your amortized payments.

  • I estimate I will pay them twice the market value at the end of the thirty years - that's a hundred percent profit !! BECAUSE drumroll - amortization is a scam. Without banks to inflate the cost of a home, without banks taking your tax money to bail themselves out of their gambling habits, without banks creating a credit system that tracks and spies on the citizenry for which we have no legal right to know how it works, and without banks telling our government what we will all pay for interest, we wouldn't all have to pay for a house for 30 years to be able to afford it. Prices would never be this high. The name of the game is lease lease it all until you die, and that's what we all do we can't afford to do otherwise because of the banks. So be in debt service a bank today - you want to live in this world don't you? - because there is a nice cardboard box under the bridge if you don't want to play by their rules.
[-] 1 points by gsw (3346) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago

Right. See my example above, I've been paying 160, 000 in interest and fees, and maybe have 50,000 equity, then subtract realtors sales fees and taxes so I have 25,000 value after 20 years, and bank has 160,000, which they have invested and multiplied many times.

In Mexico they just pay cash for home, or build it as slow a it takes. We aren't really permitted to do that here.

Maybe the young ones will save money, not buy home, hopefully inherit someday, or well have more multi generations in a home, which has perks.

It's nice to be in one place, but then there are also property taxes, maintainance, the dream takes more than 30 years, as the values are inflated due to credit.

[-] 3 points by gsw (3346) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago

banks give money to me. ha

banks have received great profits from the economy, directly from the middle class over the last 35 years, sucking it up to the 1 percent.

in 20 years about 140,000 in interest payments have been received from me to banks, just on home, not to mention cars, not to mention refinance fees, which would add another $25,000.00

people should receive more back from banks.

oh yeah, from all the above interest my assets have not grown in value over this time, not has middle class family paycheck

free yourselves from banks, or they will rule you.

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Which if you are on this website hen you are certainly exercising your freedom of speech

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Yes Banks are actually a good thing. Unfortunately, too many people get banks mixed up with these troublemaking entities which I'll call Finance institutions, i.e. entities like Goldman Sachs et al. Unlike banks, the finance industry specializes in making "investments", trading and selling securities like on the stock market, and generally shuffling money around for the purposes of making money on the shuffles. This industry has grown larger than the banking industry, and is in fact driving the banking industry out of business. The finance sector of the U.S. economy is now the largest sector in the U.S. economy. It is larger than our industrial sector which actually makes things. Until recently, banks were not allowed to engage in the Finance business (banking and finance were separate), but the laws were changed (if memory serves me correctly I want to say beginning sometime in the 1960s with the Glass-Siegal act and culminating with the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999.) So now a number of Banks also engage in finance (and so the mix up.) Make a long complex story short, it is the finance industry which is causing all the trouble to our economy these days, and not really the banks solely engaged in banking. Technically, the lot we are all up in arms about ought not be rightly called "Banksters", but we ought be calling them "Financesters."

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Yes it is true the 'investment banks' or 'merchant banks' have caused a lot of financial chaos by lending too much money to people who cannot afford it. Then when they failed, they required bail outs. But that was years ago. These merchant banks have paid back the bail outs:


So I think time to move on. The US merchant banks have collected billions in profits from around the world and these profits are the fuel in a vibrant economy that leads the word in innovation and produce. I think its time to be proud of the US economy.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

There are maybe only two types of people that put out pro-capitalism messages, but maybe more...

1) People that shill for Financial and Military Interests. Which strangely represents a lot of corporate people through lines of authority and lines of legal ownership.

2) People that just repeat simple messages they heard from people that they trusted or considered authorities figures. These tend to be people that state unequivocally that they are Republicans, Tea partiers, Libertarians, players in the Stock Market, or government Economist.

Solution: Question Authority. Learn about banking History. Learn about Accounting Scandals in the USA. Learn about Con artists in the USA. Learn about Lobbying History in the USA.

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Yes military and finance industries tend to be very powerful in society. Makes sense. They control the money and the guns. Two of the most simple ways to motivate people, give them something, or threaten to hurt them. I personally like being motivated positively rather than being threatened. So thats why I like capitalism, people motivate me through money rather than threaten to hurt me (as per communisim / dictatorships).

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 7 years ago

My experience in the USA is that I got threatened, people tried to intimidate me, people saw me as an outsider that had to be shut dow politically or through manipulation.

I don't see a great difference between communism... in the USA we see a police state like East Germany that was always there.

Look if we really protected free speech and democracy ... we wouldn't have the Bully problem in the USA that we have.

The fact is that intellectuals are spit on in the USA... there is little free debate and freedom. And on the other side people spit on Vietnam Vets. This not only points to a problem in debate that is a crisis, but also a deep intolerance that is centuries old.

The many years or age of intolerance in the USA is a Protest point,... We cant protest and publish,... and we cant exist in our America with the thugs on either side. And it might be that white people suffer the same under the logic in MSM and government.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

The Bailout Scorecard

Last update: Mar. 14, 2013

Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $606B has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $361B has been returned.

The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $102B. When those revenues are taken into account, $143B is the net still outstanding as of Mar. 14, 2013.


[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Its been 5 yrs. The average mortgage is 30 yrs. So if we are as patient as the banks are with our home-loans, then we should give the bail outs 30 yrs.. Still plenty of time.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

YOU ???

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

If I paid back most of my home loan in just 5 yrs, I'd be very proud of myself. I think we should be praising the banking and auto industries for bouncing back so fast.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

YOU ??? Or are you in this picture?

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

In fact, according to your website there (http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/), so far the treaasury has earned 102 Billion for bailing out the banks and the auto industry. Not bad for a loan that was mostly paid back in just 5 yrs. I wish we all could make such wise investments that earn 102 Billion and get paid back almost 75% in just 5 yrs. Well done US banks and autos!

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Funny how none of the bailouts have helped the average person - just the very few individuals at the top of those corpoRATions - and yes - some of their employees got to keep their jobs. But that huge and ongoing infusion of money - and no growth - NOT ON THE STREET - just that smoke and mirrors BS of wallstreet. And now since things are so peachy keen - we have increasing austerity measures being pushed. Yep - U R in both of these pictures. Head in the sand rather then face reality while you also like to suckle on the teet of the PIG.

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

I think the thousands of auto industry employees in detroit would probably disagree. Im sure they benefited immensely from the bail outs as they kept their jobs.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Poor reading comprehension - HEY ? Is that from methane poisoning? Ya know from your head being stuck up your butt.

Note : ( from my comment above )

Funny how none of the bailouts have helped the average person - just the very few individuals at the top of those corpoRATions - and yes - some of their employees got to keep their jobs

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

The employees in the auto industry who kept their jobs are average Americans doing good honest work. Do you honestly work?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Yep - everyday. Working for the health and prosperity of all people and our environment. That is what I call GOOD and Honest work.

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Well then without the health industry companies listed in wallstreet then no medicines to keep people healthy. You must be thanking those pharmaceutical companies everyday for researching wonderful medicines that keep us healthy and give you a job

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Down with Profits over People. You know anything about big pharma? Don't sound like it - as many of their products are toxic and can be worse then the ailment they are prescribed to treat. Obviously - you have MUCH to learn.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

No, with all respect I feel you're a bit off. Though the bailout monies may have been paid back to the U.S. government (not to be seen by the common man), these finance institutions are still sucking the lifeblood out of the economy for common folk by funneling money to a small group of ever richer few. The economic numbers do not reflect the ever greater disparity of incomes and the increasing poverty of the regular American. Nothing to be proud of.

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Every company does that. The owner receives most of the profit from the company, while the employees receive a salary. Does this seem unfair? Well, no. The owner took the risk to start the business, and if it is not profitable, then the owner makes no money, while the employees still get paid a salary until the business goes bust. This is why businesses can lose money for a few years and still pay salaries, the owner makes no money during those periods. So yes when times are good, it looks like the owner is getting a free ride, but when times are bad, businesses lose money and the one who loses the most is the owner.

Besides, if you are an employee, you are free to start a business when you have enough knowledge, experience, and capital.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

There is something called slave labor, and there is something called getting ripped off.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

really ??? .... don't you think that maybe... if the banks didn't have their greedy little hands in the pot.... that maybe... houses wouldn't cost $500,000 + ... and rent wouldn't be $1500 month + for a single bedroom....

If the banks were REALLY on the people's side they would take a little risk and invest in business... but they won't they want the sure bet.... and that is why they will ultimately fail ....

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Banks do invest in businesses. They lend money to companies and small businesses all the time. They do make money when they lend money from you, but then that is because they are not a charity. They lend money so that they can earn money too. In Australia, the deposit rate is about 5%, the loan rate is about 6%, so that means the bank is charging just 1% to lend you money. Do you think your friends would lend you Thousands of dollars and only charge 1% above the deposit rate?

House prices are high because people want to buy houses. Banks don;t control house prices, they lend money to people. People buy houses, banks dont.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

well... maybe in Australia ... here in America the banks... almost ALL the banks have become greedy fucking crooks

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

What is the home loan rate there?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

in the DC area ... which is starting to rebuild... if you do not need a loan... and can pay cash... you can get a little over 3% financing....otherwise you will not get financing.... if you own property outright (to be used as collateral) it is still almost impossible to get a construction loan... Banks here... do not make money making loans to the public any more... they make money making short term (24 hr) loans to other banks so they can keep their balance sheets legal... and forget about getting financing for any business related venture... even if you have signed contracts and orders...

[-] 1 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 7 years ago

Bank loans for housing are based on credit rating - not on where you live. You don't need to go to a local bank to get a loan -

I did an extensive search on the internet and found a bank in another state - contacted them and got a 30 year loan at 2.85%.

As a matter of fact their rate and payment was a lot better then in the state I live.

So - if a person has a great credit rating getting a loan isn't a problem regardless of where that person lives.

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Well, looking at:


The rate seems to be about 2.89% for a 15 yr. This compares quite well with the treasury bond yield of 2.68% for a 20 yr bond. So the banks are charging you about the same as what the government pays its creditors. They don't seem that greedy to me. They are the same level of greedy as anyone who lends money to the US government.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

you really don't get it do you ?.... that is smoke and mirrors.... the banks are not making those loans... because no one can qualify.... the banks do not want to make those loans,,, they want zero risk, guaranteed high returns...

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago



"According to home loan origination software provider Ellie Mae, handler of more than 2 million mortgage applications in 2011, more than half of all mortgage applicants were approved in November 2012 -- the third straight month for which approvals outnumbered denials."

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

that was all a result of Obama's Relief Agreement w/ the Fed ... it had nothing to do with the interests of the banks

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Sometimes the banks need some encouragement to make loans. Thats fine. As long as they make the loans to those who need them when pushed to do so. Afterall, they aren't perfect, I know sometimes I need someone to tell me what to do yo be productive sometimes or else I may sit there watching TV.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Wallstreet apologist? Ooops - My bad. Propagandist?


[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

No. Just realist. Everything you use, anything you buy is there because either wallstreet company made it, designed it, built it, or transported it to you (unless you are Amish and live in a village). So instead of being indignant, be thankful.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

hehehe... I think you really believe that ????

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

So - what are you grateful for? That the bubble popping didn't toss you out on the street? (yet) Or are you grateful that your masters are allowing you to keep breathing at this point in time?

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Unemployment rate at 8% means 92% have jobs. Yes the great financial crisis was tough, but most people have jobs and are putting food on the table. My boss pays me, and allows me to have a home, and afford a family. So yes, I am thankful for that. Funny thing is, the 92% of people that are employed also have homes and also can afford to have a family... So its not just me..

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

The unemployment rate - reported rate - IS - BS. More people lost their business and their jobs - then have been recreated since the meltdown - and a lot of those created jobs are minimum wage = not a living wage - so we are still a long long ways down the sewer.

You live in a fantasy world - SO - you must be grateful that you are still out and about.

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Yes a lot of people lost their businesses because of the slow-down. But when financial conditions pick up, these are the people that will go to banks and ask for loans and they will get loans to start new businesses and the cycle continues. It is tough, but recessions hurt. Better than eating bark of the trees, just ask any North Korean if you prefer communism. Or perhaps you prefer the Chinese style communism where the air is so polluted you cannot breath?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

slow down???? R U serious???? what a shill U R.

You mean there is no such thing as clean coal? How shocking. Have you shared this news with the fossil fuel industry that is exporting coal to China?

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Of course there is clean coal. You put a big smoke collector at the top of the exhaust pipe and catch it. Then treat it, and bury it underground. Real clean that.

Oh the chinese don't do it because its too expensive. Think about that. They have the largest reserves of currency in the world, and its too expensive for them to do it. They'd rather have polluted air.

Do you live with air so polluted babies have to go to hospital?


Nope. Why? Because your government and your people care about clean air and are willing to pay for clean ways to produce energy. It may not be 100% clean, but its way better than Chinese air.

Be thankful your air isnt Beijing air.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

IDIOT = Then treat it, and bury it underground.

In the 1st place how do you treat coal ash?

In the 2nd place - if coal ash can be treated to remove heavy metal toxins - why is this not being done?

In the 3rd place - Bury it? Ummmmmmmmm then why all of the open air ash dumps? BTW - open air toxic ash dumps. ( if you were unsure )

In the 4th place - how come coal fired power plants are still belching out UN-scrubbed exhaust?

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Please read widely before commenting:


[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

From your wiki article : Note this sort of operation is not ( NOT ) how coal fired power plants are operating. NOTE that a pilot operation was to be set up in GERMANY in 2008. NOTE there is still concern about sequestration leaks.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) (or carbon capture and sequestration), is the process of capturing waste carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources, such as fossil fuel power plants, transporting it to a storage site, and depositing it where it will not enter the atmosphere, normally an underground geological formation. The aim is to prevent the release of large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere (from fossil fuel use in power generation and other industries). It is a potential means of mitigating the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming[1] and ocean acidification. Although CO2 has been injected into geological formations for several decades for various purposes, including enhanced oil recovery, the long term storage of CO2 is a relatively new concept. The first commercial example was Weyburn in 2000.[2] 'CCS' can also be used to describe the scrubbing of CO2 from ambient air as a geoengineering technique.

An integrated pilot-scale CCS power plant was to begin operating in September 2008 in the eastern German power plant Schwarze Pumpe run by utility Vattenfall, in the hope of answering questions about technological feasibility and economic efficiency. CCS applied to a modern conventional power plant could reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by approximately 80–90% compared to a plant without CCS.[3] The IPCC estimates that the economic potential of CCS could be between 10% and 55% of the total carbon mitigation effort until year 2100.[3]

Capturing and compressing CO2 may increase the fuel needs of a coal-fired CCS plant by 25–40%.[3] These and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost of the energy produced by 21–91% for purpose built plants.[3] Applying the technology to existing plants would be more expensive especially if they are far from a sequestration site. Recent industry reports suggest that with successful research, development and deployment (RD&D), sequestered coal-based electricity generation in 2025 may cost less than unsequestered coal-based electricity generation today.[4]

Storage of the CO2 is envisaged either in deep geological formations, or in the form of mineral carbonates. Deep ocean storage is no longer considered feasible because it greatly increases the problem of ocean acidification.[5] Geological formations are currently considered the most promising sequestration sites. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) reported that North America has enough storage capacity for more than 900 years worth of carbon dioxide at current production rates.[6] A general problem is that long term predictions about submarine or underground storage security are very difficult and uncertain, and there is still the risk that CO2 might leak into the atmosphere.

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Of course this is not how all coal power plants operate, and of course there are concerns. Its experimental technology. But thats the great thing about technology, what is experimental today, is standard tomorrow. We all want clean air, so smart people are working out how to do it. If not coal burn and storage, it will be some other method. But I bet you whatever method it is, it will require the finance industry and Banks to fund it.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

what is experimental today, is standard tomorrow

They were talking about stack scrubbers when I was in grade school - over 40 years ago now.

Huh - still not standard.

In the mean time - coal extraction and burning is still polluting air land and water.

And NO not just in China.

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Well, you do want electricity don't you? And at a cheap price? All methods of producing electricity have some disadvantages. So who shall we trust to make the decisions about what methods to use? Shall we trust you? Or shall we trust the department of energy with their huge resources and time and money and effort that they use to answer that very question? I vote the department of energy.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Fossil fuel is being exported = coal oil and natural gas. That means an excess in the home market. WHERE ARE THE SAVINGS???

Sure sure the department of energy - as they have been on top of the game and been keeping things clean and in a process of continuous improvement so that we do not have pollution..............WAIT A MINUTE........SHIT.........NO......THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED wonder if it has anything to do with big money buying off proper legislation and enforcement of what regulations are already on the books???

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

WallStreet is about US companies (banks form only a small proportion of them). US companies are responsible for the cars you drive, the ipads you surf on, the computers you type on, everything you consume and use everyday is in some way there because of companies listed on wallstreet. So no apology from wall street is required.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

U mean not just from wallstreet - I'm sure.

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Sure many small businesses and companies also contribute, but the number of products and jobs that are supplied by wallstreet companies is staggering. Without it the USA would be a backwater village with no relevance.

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1197) 7 years ago

nationalize the banks, put cameras in every office, and pay the employees a reasonable wage. Banks could actually be helpful.

What's happening now is criminal, and should be recognized as such..

[-] 1 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Governments running every bank is a really bad idea. Then absolutely nothing would be funded without government approval. This is basically communism.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 7 years ago

well.... that's what happens when the money accumulates to the very few... the people revolt... same thing thing happened in the '30's ....

you want to stop it ? .... stop lobbying for the greed ... and lobby against it

[-] 1 points by windyacres (1197) 7 years ago

We the people should be the government, replacing what currently exists. If the public servants we hire to provide funding don't produce, we can replace them with people that will. When they know that, they will fund proper projects, not their cronies.

What exists now is doomed to collapse.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

BS - too tough to cipher? Let me help. BULLSHIT!!!

[-] -2 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Expletive words are really constructive ways to contribute to discussion. I Applaud your intelligent response.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Did you get what you came for?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Community Banks and credit unions - NOT The TBTF monstrosities.

[-] 0 points by grateful (259) 7 years ago

Community banks are typically less competitive than the major banks offering higher home loan rates and lower deposit rates. This is because their smaller deposit does not allow them good access to cheaper sources of funding. Feel free to accept a higher home loan rate from community banks. I personally will get a cheaper loan from a major.