A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess

[Dad2three]

"

• The bankers who created, with the help of (I am NOT making this up) physicists, the abominations known as sub-prime CDO's to dangle in front of investors, pure shit securities"

TRUE, BANKSTERS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAD OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY OVER

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle




Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

So NO, even IF we are being ideological, YOU can't refute the posits presented with ANYTHING but attacking us as being ideological. Got it



Weird how consumers whose biggest purchases would be homes, and the consumers are pretty dumb on financial matters, they outsmarted those guys whose JOBS were to create underwriting standards, outwitted the Banksters right Bubs?

Oh, I've long since learned that ideologues present only the evidence that supports their position and ignore/avoid/distort all contrary evidence, and then (like you) pretend that they have presented all of it. Lies of omission.

Limbaugh, Maddow, all of 'em.

You can't help yourselves, and you hate it when it's pointed out. Too bad.
.

So you claim I omit things after earlier saying my posts are to long for you to bother to read??? lol

 

[Mac1958]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

So NO, even IF we are being ideological, YOU can't refute the posits presented with ANYTHING but attacking us as being ideological. Got it



Weird how consumers whose biggest purchases would be homes, and the consumers are pretty dumb on financial matters, they outsmarted those guys whose JOBS were to create underwriting standards, outwitted the Banksters right Bubs?

Oh, I've long since learned that ideologues present only the evidence that supports their position and ignore/avoid/distort all contrary evidence, and then (like you) pretend that they have presented all of it. Lies of omission.

Limbaugh, Maddow, all of 'em.

You can't help yourselves, and you hate it when it's pointed out. Too bad.
.

So you claim I omit things after earlier saying my posts are to long for you to bother to read??? lol

That's correct. I know what I'm dealing with.
.

 

[Dad2three]

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

So NO, even IF we are being ideological, YOU can't refute the posits presented with ANYTHING but attacking us as being ideological. Got it



Weird how consumers whose biggest purchases would be homes, and the consumers are pretty dumb on financial matters, they outsmarted those guys whose JOBS were to create underwriting standards, outwitted the Banksters right Bubs?

Oh, I've long since learned that ideologues present only the evidence that supports their position and ignore/avoid/distort all contrary evidence, and then (like you) pretend that they have presented all of it. Lies of omission.

Limbaugh, Maddow, all of 'em.

You can't help yourselves, and you hate it when it's pointed out. Too bad.
.

So you claim I omit things after earlier saying my posts are to long for you to bother to read??? lol

That's correct. I know what I'm dealing with.
.

Says the ideologue

 

[Mac1958]

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

So NO, even IF we are being ideological, YOU can't refute the posits presented with ANYTHING but attacking us as being ideological. Got it



Weird how consumers whose biggest purchases would be homes, and the consumers are pretty dumb on financial matters, they outsmarted those guys whose JOBS were to create underwriting standards, outwitted the Banksters right Bubs?

Oh, I've long since learned that ideologues present only the evidence that supports their position and ignore/avoid/distort all contrary evidence, and then (like you) pretend that they have presented all of it. Lies of omission.

Limbaugh, Maddow, all of 'em.

You can't help yourselves, and you hate it when it's pointed out. Too bad.
.

So you claim I omit things after earlier saying my posts are to long for you to bother to read??? lol

That's correct. I know what I'm dealing with.
.

Says the ideologue

I have no idea what that post means, but I suspect it illustrates my point.
.

 

[Dad2three]

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

 

[Tehon]

And for those who want to pretend that the American consumer had nothing to do with the Meltdown -- and no, it's not "all their fault", as the dishonest straw man argument will surely be, they were just a part of it -- here's a look at consumer debt in 2007. No, this does not include mortgage debt, this is just regular credit card and other installment loan data:

• Total installment debt, not including mortgages: $2.398 TRILLION
• Revolving debt: $904 billion
• Typical family's credit card balance: 5% of their annual income

Source: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)

Even with all this existing personal debt, Americans CHOSE to get new mortgages. As far as I know, there were no vicious gangs of Republicans jumping out of vans, kidnapping them, and forcing them to buy a house. They CHOSE to buy a home even knowing they held the other debt. The mortgage companies -- another important part of the Meltdown, which I have already made clear -- couldn't drag these people into their offices, the buyers came in as a result of their own free will.

And let's please not forget all those consumers who CHOSE to get home equity loans JUST TO PAY OFF THEIR CREDIT CARDS. Then many of them, with all that fresh, new credit card space, went right out and started buying again.

I know how desperate you folks are to blame everything on one group of people, and I know you'll do or say anything to pretend consumers had nothing to do with it. I know how the game goes: Partisan ideologues don't place a high priority on honesty.
.

Are you being honest when you postulate that there is a correlation between Americans who defaulted on their mortgage and high credit card debt? What data supports that? What percentages are you talking about here? Also from your link.

• The majority of U.S. households have no credit card debt. About a quarter have no credit cards, and an additional 30 percent of households pay off their balances every month (Source: Federal Reserve).

Read more: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)
Follow us: @CreditCardsCom on Twitter | CreditCards.com on Facebook
Compare credit cards here - CreditCards.com

 

[Mac1958]

And for those who want to pretend that the American consumer had nothing to do with the Meltdown -- and no, it's not "all their fault", as the dishonest straw man argument will surely be, they were just a part of it -- here's a look at consumer debt in 2007. No, this does not include mortgage debt, this is just regular credit card and other installment loan data:

• Total installment debt, not including mortgages: $2.398 TRILLION
• Revolving debt: $904 billion
• Typical family's credit card balance: 5% of their annual income

Source: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)

Even with all this existing personal debt, Americans CHOSE to get new mortgages. As far as I know, there were no vicious gangs of Republicans jumping out of vans, kidnapping them, and forcing them to buy a house. They CHOSE to buy a home even knowing they held the other debt. The mortgage companies -- another important part of the Meltdown, which I have already made clear -- couldn't drag these people into their offices, the buyers came in as a result of their own free will.

And let's please not forget all those consumers who CHOSE to get home equity loans JUST TO PAY OFF THEIR CREDIT CARDS. Then many of them, with all that fresh, new credit card space, went right out and started buying again.

I know how desperate you folks are to blame everything on one group of people, and I know you'll do or say anything to pretend consumers had nothing to do with it. I know how the game goes: Partisan ideologues don't place a high priority on honesty.
.

Are you being honest when you postulate that there is a correlation between Americans who defaulted on their mortgage and high credit card debt? What data supports that? What percentages are you talking about here? Also from your link.

• The majority of U.S. households have no credit card debt. About a quarter have no credit cards, and an additional 30 percent of households pay off their balances every month (Source: Federal Reserve).

Read more: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)
Follow us: @CreditCardsCom on Twitter | CreditCards.com on Facebook
Compare credit cards here - CreditCards.com

I'm being quite honest when I say that our culture is one of conspicuous consumption and that too many Americans are not responsible with their personal finances.

Getting themselves into a mortgage that is a stretch for them would be a perfect example of that.

Anyone who is not playing politics would admit that.
.

 

[Dad2three]

And for those who want to pretend that the American consumer had nothing to do with the Meltdown -- and no, it's not "all their fault", as the dishonest straw man argument will surely be, they were just a part of it -- here's a look at consumer debt in 2007. No, this does not include mortgage debt, this is just regular credit card and other installment loan data:

• Total installment debt, not including mortgages: $2.398 TRILLION
• Revolving debt: $904 billion
• Typical family's credit card balance: 5% of their annual income

Source: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)

Even with all this existing personal debt, Americans CHOSE to get new mortgages. As far as I know, there were no vicious gangs of Republicans jumping out of vans, kidnapping them, and forcing them to buy a house. They CHOSE to buy a home even knowing they held the other debt. The mortgage companies -- another important part of the Meltdown, which I have already made clear -- couldn't drag these people into their offices, the buyers came in as a result of their own free will.

And let's please not forget all those consumers who CHOSE to get home equity loans JUST TO PAY OFF THEIR CREDIT CARDS. Then many of them, with all that fresh, new credit card space, went right out and started buying again.

I know how desperate you folks are to blame everything on one group of people, and I know you'll do or say anything to pretend consumers had nothing to do with it. I know how the game goes: Partisan ideologues don't place a high priority on honesty.
.

Are you being honest when you postulate that there is a correlation between Americans who defaulted on their mortgage and high credit card debt? What data supports that? What percentages are you talking about here? Also from your link.

• The majority of U.S. households have no credit card debt. About a quarter have no credit cards, and an additional 30 percent of households pay off their balances every month (Source: Federal Reserve).

Read more: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)
Follow us: @CreditCardsCom on Twitter | CreditCards.com on Facebook
Compare credit cards here - CreditCards.com

I'm being quite honest when I say that our culture is one of conspicuous consumption and that too many Americans are not responsible with their personal finances.

Getting themselves into a mortgage that is a stretch for them would be a perfect example of that.

Anyone who is not playing politics would admit that.
.

"Getting themselves into a mortgage that is a stretch for them would be a perfect example of that."


Weird I thought there was this thing called UNDERWRITING standards Banksters used to APPROVE buyers so they don't get over their heads?

 

[Mac1958]

And for those who want to pretend that the American consumer had nothing to do with the Meltdown -- and no, it's not "all their fault", as the dishonest straw man argument will surely be, they were just a part of it -- here's a look at consumer debt in 2007. No, this does not include mortgage debt, this is just regular credit card and other installment loan data:

• Total installment debt, not including mortgages: $2.398 TRILLION
• Revolving debt: $904 billion
• Typical family's credit card balance: 5% of their annual income

Source: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)

Even with all this existing personal debt, Americans CHOSE to get new mortgages. As far as I know, there were no vicious gangs of Republicans jumping out of vans, kidnapping them, and forcing them to buy a house. They CHOSE to buy a home even knowing they held the other debt. The mortgage companies -- another important part of the Meltdown, which I have already made clear -- couldn't drag these people into their offices, the buyers came in as a result of their own free will.

And let's please not forget all those consumers who CHOSE to get home equity loans JUST TO PAY OFF THEIR CREDIT CARDS. Then many of them, with all that fresh, new credit card space, went right out and started buying again.

I know how desperate you folks are to blame everything on one group of people, and I know you'll do or say anything to pretend consumers had nothing to do with it. I know how the game goes: Partisan ideologues don't place a high priority on honesty.
.

Are you being honest when you postulate that there is a correlation between Americans who defaulted on their mortgage and high credit card debt? What data supports that? What percentages are you talking about here? Also from your link.

• The majority of U.S. households have no credit card debt. About a quarter have no credit cards, and an additional 30 percent of households pay off their balances every month (Source: Federal Reserve).

Read more: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)
Follow us: @CreditCardsCom on Twitter | CreditCards.com on Facebook
Compare credit cards here - CreditCards.com

I'm being quite honest when I say that our culture is one of conspicuous consumption and that too many Americans are not responsible with their personal finances.

Getting themselves into a mortgage that is a stretch for them would be a perfect example of that.

Anyone who is not playing politics would admit that.
.

"Getting themselves into a mortgage that is a stretch for them would be a perfect example of that."

Weird I thought there was this thing called UNDERWRITING standards Banksters used to APPROVE buyers so they don't get over their heads?

Underwriting and lending standards went to shit, and consumers stupidly took advantage of it.

Obviously.

What the hell is wrong with you?
.

 

[mudwhistle]

It is 100% on your shoulders. Electing another traiter to this country will lead to a repeat. Obamacare is a prime example.




FUCK DEMOCRATS

Democrats embrace treason.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Well, it's nice to see that evidently everyone agrees that proper, comprehensive, efficient regulation of financial markets is critical.

Yes, the video is right in that the GSE's were under-effectively-regulated, and yes, that played a role. But that's just the beginning, and only part of the Meltdown.

• The bankers who created, with the help of (I am NOT making this up) physicists, the abominations known as sub-prime CDO's to dangle in front of investors, pure shit securities
  
• The ratings agencies, obediently slapping AAA ratings (for a fee, of course) on those pure shit securities were also under-effectively-regulated.
  
• AIG, selling horrific Credit Default Swaps like candy to children without having to worry about pesky reserve requirements, was also under-effectively-regulated.
• Mortgage lenders granting spectacularly stupid 125% no-doc loans on anyone with a fucking pulse.
• Borrowers (yes kids, they were involved in this too) signing on the dotted line for loans they goddamn well knew they couldn't afford
• Borrowers (oops, there they are again) getting loans to pay off bills and then, as if they had no functioning brain matter whatsoever, immediately running up new bills

On and on, I know I missed a few. Both ends of the spectrum just love to point the finger at the other, as always.
.

"

• The bankers who created, with the help of (I am NOT making this up) physicists, the abominations known as sub-prime CDO's to dangle in front of investors, pure shit securities"

TRUE, BANKSTERS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAD OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY OVER

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle




Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

 

[Dad2three]

And for those who want to pretend that the American consumer had nothing to do with the Meltdown -- and no, it's not "all their fault", as the dishonest straw man argument will surely be, they were just a part of it -- here's a look at consumer debt in 2007. No, this does not include mortgage debt, this is just regular credit card and other installment loan data:

• Total installment debt, not including mortgages: $2.398 TRILLION
• Revolving debt: $904 billion
• Typical family's credit card balance: 5% of their annual income

Source: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)

Even with all this existing personal debt, Americans CHOSE to get new mortgages. As far as I know, there were no vicious gangs of Republicans jumping out of vans, kidnapping them, and forcing them to buy a house. They CHOSE to buy a home even knowing they held the other debt. The mortgage companies -- another important part of the Meltdown, which I have already made clear -- couldn't drag these people into their offices, the buyers came in as a result of their own free will.

And let's please not forget all those consumers who CHOSE to get home equity loans JUST TO PAY OFF THEIR CREDIT CARDS. Then many of them, with all that fresh, new credit card space, went right out and started buying again.

I know how desperate you folks are to blame everything on one group of people, and I know you'll do or say anything to pretend consumers had nothing to do with it. I know how the game goes: Partisan ideologues don't place a high priority on honesty.
.

Are you being honest when you postulate that there is a correlation between Americans who defaulted on their mortgage and high credit card debt? What data supports that? What percentages are you talking about here? Also from your link.

• The majority of U.S. households have no credit card debt. About a quarter have no credit cards, and an additional 30 percent of households pay off their balances every month (Source: Federal Reserve).

Read more: Credit card debt information (2006-2007)
Follow us: @CreditCardsCom on Twitter | CreditCards.com on Facebook
Compare credit cards here - CreditCards.com

I'm being quite honest when I say that our culture is one of conspicuous consumption and that too many Americans are not responsible with their personal finances.

Getting themselves into a mortgage that is a stretch for them would be a perfect example of that.

Anyone who is not playing politics would admit that.
.

"Getting themselves into a mortgage that is a stretch for them would be a perfect example of that."

Weird I thought there was this thing called UNDERWRITING standards Banksters used to APPROVE buyers so they don't get over their heads?

Underwriting and lending standards went to shit, and consumers stupidly took advantage of it.

Obviously.

What the hell is wrong with you?
.

CONSUMERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE BANKSTERS? THAT'S YOU NEW PREMISE? lol

To bad there wasn't a branch of Gov't that had regulatory oversight and could've warned US about this right Bubs?


FBI saw threat of loan crisis

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere.



"It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

But sources familiar with the FBI budget process, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the growing fraud problem, say that he and other FBI criminal investigators sought additional assistance to take on the mortgage scoundrels.

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

In 2007, the number of agents pursuing mortgage fraud shrank to around 100. By comparison, the FBI had about 1,000 agents deployed on banking fraud during the S&L bust of the 1980s and '90s





Most observers have declared the mess a gross failure of regulation. To be sure, in the run-up to the crisis, market-oriented federal regulators bragged about their hands-off treatment of banks and other savings institutions and their executives. But it wasn't just regulators who were looking the other way. The FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, are supposed to act as the cops on the beat for potentially illegal activities by bankers and others. But they were focused on national security and other priorities, and paid scant attention to white-collar crimes that may have contributed to the lending and securities debacle.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis

 

[Dad2three]

"

• The bankers who created, with the help of (I am NOT making this up) physicists, the abominations known as sub-prime CDO's to dangle in front of investors, pure shit securities"

TRUE, BANKSTERS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAD OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY OVER

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle




Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

CRA? You mean 6% of ALL loans that Banksters provided during Dubya's subprime bubble, NOT that even the 6% were even FOR CRA goals?


A law around for 30+ years with weakened enforcement caused THIS:

SERIOUSLY?


A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, DOZENS OF NATIONS HAD A BUBBLE, THE RESULT OF THE CRA LAW??? lol

 

[Dad2three]

It is 100% on your shoulders. Electing another traiter to this country will lead to a repeat. Obamacare is a prime example.




FUCK DEMOCRATS

Democrats embrace treason.

And CONservatives/GOP embrace stupidity and willful ignorance!

 

[Dad2three]

"

• The bankers who created, with the help of (I am NOT making this up) physicists, the abominations known as sub-prime CDO's to dangle in front of investors, pure shit securities"

TRUE, BANKSTERS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAD OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY OVER

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle




Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

>

The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia?


For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

>

CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages — Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
>

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.


OOPS

 

[Dad2three]

"

• The bankers who created, with the help of (I am NOT making this up) physicists, the abominations known as sub-prime CDO's to dangle in front of investors, pure shit securities"

TRUE, BANKSTERS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAD OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY OVER

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle




Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

"It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness." Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress


James Theckston, a former regional vice president for Chase Home Finance, says bankers were encouraged to hand out subprime loans, especially ones that were likely to fail.

He realizes this was wrong:

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.


Former Chase Banker Describes A Particularly Troubling Memory From The Housing Bubble - Business Insider

 

[Dad2three]

"

• The bankers who created, with the help of (I am NOT making this up) physicists, the abominations known as sub-prime CDO's to dangle in front of investors, pure shit securities"

TRUE, BANKSTERS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAD OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY OVER

"The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence." William K. Black Sr. regulator during S&L debacle




Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

CRA?


Jun 16th 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?


According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


LOL

 

[Bfgrn]

A vast majority. Great. Link?
.

First of all, a little common sense would answer this question.

1) Were some lower income families caught in this mess, of course they were. But I will bet most of them keep paying their mortgages even when they were drowning. Why? Because they were buying a "homestead".

And...if you really think about it, who would desire crazy "gimmick" type loans with little or no down payment, short term benefits with huge penalties down the road? Someone who was had no intention of living in the home. Someone speculating and flipping homes. They never viewed it as a "home"...just a mere investment. And just like a bad stock, once the value went down they dumped it...

If those crazy "gimmick" type loans were drugs, they weren't "street drugs", they were designer drugs for the doctors, lawyers and professionals looking for a quick buck.

2) Look at where the foreclosures occurred...none of the high concentrations of foreclosures were in low income neighborhoods...

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards All to Blame | Foreclosure News | Home Foreclosure, RE Investing, Home Loan Modifications, Short Sales & More

“Flip This House”: Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble Liberty Street Economics

How Speculative Madness Changed the Housing Market

 

[Old Rocks]

It is 100% on your shoulders. Electing another traiter to this country will lead to a repeat. Obamacare is a prime example.




FUCK DEMOCRATS

They let George W. Bush win the Presidency.

 

[Dad2three]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

CRA?


Jun 16th 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?


According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


LOL

A vast majority. Great. Link?
.

First of all, a little common sense would answer this question.

1) Were some lower income families caught in this mess, of course they were. But I will bet most of them keep paying their mortgages even when they were drowning. Why? Because they were buying a "homestead".

And...if you really think about it, who would desire crazy "gimmick" type loans with little or no down payment, short term benefits with huge penalties down the road? Someone who was had no intention of living in the home. Someone speculating and flipping homes. They never viewed it as a "home"...just a mere investment. And just like a bad stock, once the value went down they dumped it...

If those crazy "gimmick" type loans were drugs, they weren't "street drugs", they were designer drugs for the doctors, lawyers and professionals looking for a quick buck.

2) Look at where the foreclosures occurred...none of the high concentrations of foreclosures were in low income neighborhoods...

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards All to Blame | Foreclosure News | Home Foreclosure, RE Investing, Home Loan Modifications, Short Sales & More

“Flip This House”: Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble Liberty Street Economics

How Speculative Madness Changed the Housing Market

Hadn't seen your NYT link, Thanks

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.


Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/business/economy/09rich.html?_r=2&src=mv