Analysis Finds Trump Tax Cuts Didn’t Benefit Workers, Just Made Rich Companies Richer

[Mac1958]

Great. Then please show me how much more you know about my profession than I do. I'm sure those "papers" were very educational.

I provided several examples. Please explain what Dodd or Frank or Acorn (?) had to do with:

• The structure and proliferation of unregulated CDOs and CMOs, shit securities which Alan Greenspan fought tooth and nail to not regulate
  
• The fact that the ratings agencies were assigning those shit securities Treasury-level ratings with zero (0) oversight from regulators, but while getting fat fees from issuers
  
• How derivatives allowed the mortgages to assume zero (0) risk, incentivizing them to write shittier and shittier loans
• How the world's biggest banks were found to have purposely created and sold shitty (that's a quote from one of the banks) derivatives so they could short them, betting against their own clients while having all the inside information
  
• How AIG didn't have any reserve requirements on the hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps they sold
• How the big banks could get away with quadrupling their leverage with zero reserve requirements on the back end

For starters.

Go ahead, educate me on my profession. It would be very helpful for me. Knock it out of the park.
.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

Why don't you tell me what impact the subprime mandates for Fannie and Freddie had on the housing market?

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted, primarily because they wanted to keep up with the competition. They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets. Hey, why not, those derivatives were AAA, right?

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit. If those shitbag unregulated derivatives had not been available to them, if the ratings agencies had been better regulated, if AIG had not been spraying unregulated credit default swaps around the planet like candy, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

I'm glad you asked.
.

 

[healthmyths]

Acorn? wtf?

I suspect that your entire library of knowledge regarding the inner workings of the financial Meltdown was gleaned from talk radio.
.

Not at all. I’ve read many papers on it. You should choose other means besides CNN

Great. Then please show me how much more you know about my profession than I do. I'm sure those "papers" were very educational.

I provided several examples. Please explain what Dodd or Frank or Acorn (?) had to do with:

• The structure and proliferation of unregulated CDOs and CMOs, shit securities which Alan Greenspan fought tooth and nail to not regulate
  
• The fact that the ratings agencies were assigning those shit securities Treasury-level ratings with zero (0) oversight from regulators, but while getting fat fees from issuers
  
• How derivatives allowed the mortgages to assume zero (0) risk, incentivizing them to write shittier and shittier loans
• How the world's biggest banks were found to have purposely created and sold shitty (that's a quote from one of the banks) derivatives so they could short them, betting against their own clients while having all the inside information
  
• How AIG didn't have any reserve requirements on the hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps they sold
• How the big banks could get away with quadrupling their leverage with zero reserve requirements on the back end

For starters.

Go ahead, educate me on my profession. It would be very helpful for me. Knock it out of the park.
.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
* House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized
the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis .
The more people exaggerate these problems,
the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing."...
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,"
New York Times, 9/11/03)
* Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also
ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised"
position. Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze
Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle

So after destroying millions of peoples home equities guess what Barney Frank admitted to?

Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts By Larry Kudlow August 21, 2010
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

 

[depotoo]

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

Not at all. I’ve read many papers on it. You should choose other means besides CNN

Great. Then please show me how much more you know about my profession than I do. I'm sure those "papers" were very educational.

I provided several examples. Please explain what Dodd or Frank or Acorn (?) had to do with:

• The structure and proliferation of unregulated CDOs and CMOs, shit securities which Alan Greenspan fought tooth and nail to not regulate
  
• The fact that the ratings agencies were assigning those shit securities Treasury-level ratings with zero (0) oversight from regulators, but while getting fat fees from issuers
  
• How derivatives allowed the mortgages to assume zero (0) risk, incentivizing them to write shittier and shittier loans
• How the world's biggest banks were found to have purposely created and sold shitty (that's a quote from one of the banks) derivatives so they could short them, betting against their own clients while having all the inside information
  
• How AIG didn't have any reserve requirements on the hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps they sold
• How the big banks could get away with quadrupling their leverage with zero reserve requirements on the back end

For starters.

Go ahead, educate me on my profession. It would be very helpful for me. Knock it out of the park.
.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

 

[Mac1958]

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

Great. Then please show me how much more you know about my profession than I do. I'm sure those "papers" were very educational.

I provided several examples. Please explain what Dodd or Frank or Acorn (?) had to do with:

• The structure and proliferation of unregulated CDOs and CMOs, shit securities which Alan Greenspan fought tooth and nail to not regulate
  
• The fact that the ratings agencies were assigning those shit securities Treasury-level ratings with zero (0) oversight from regulators, but while getting fat fees from issuers
  
• How derivatives allowed the mortgages to assume zero (0) risk, incentivizing them to write shittier and shittier loans
• How the world's biggest banks were found to have purposely created and sold shitty (that's a quote from one of the banks) derivatives so they could short them, betting against their own clients while having all the inside information
  
• How AIG didn't have any reserve requirements on the hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps they sold
• How the big banks could get away with quadrupling their leverage with zero reserve requirements on the back end

For starters.

Go ahead, educate me on my profession. It would be very helpful for me. Knock it out of the park.
.

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

Why don't you tell me what impact the subprime mandates for Fannie and Freddie had on the housing market?

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted, primarily because they wanted to keep up with the competition. They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets. Hey, why not, those derivatives were AAA, right?

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit. If those shitbag unregulated derivatives had not been available to them, if the ratings agencies had been better regulated, if AIG had not been spraying unregulated credit default swaps around the planet like candy, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

I'm glad you asked.
.

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted,

Before the mandate, they didn't want ANY subprime mortgages.

It directly caused them to add subprime mortgages to their portfolio. Up to 55% of total purchases, at the end.

Better.

They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets.

Yeah, those mandates forced them to make lots of stupid purchases.
And that's in addition to the damage mandates did to the commercial banks.

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit.

Are you sure they bought hedges?
I thought the shitbag derivatives they bought were to increase their exposure to the mortgage market,
not hedge their exposure.

Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

How much in subprime mortgages did they end up with? Couple of trillion?

 

[yiostheoy]

TRUMP’S TAX CUTS DIDN’T BENEFIT U.S. WORKERS, MADE RICH COMPANIES RICHER, ANALYSIS FINDS

Trump and Republican leadership have long touted their tax cuts as a massive boon to America’s working class, if not through direct tax reductions or refunds, then through the trickle-down effect of bonuses and wage increases from their employers who receive massive corporate cuts. “Tax reform is working,” Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said in January, mentioning Apple’s decision to reward a bonus of $2,500 in stock grants to some Apple employees. “Workers are coming home and telling their families they got a bonus, or they got a raise or they got better benefits.”

But a new analysis of all Fortune 500 companies found only 4.3 percent of workers will receive a one-time bonus or wage increase tied to the business tax cuts, while businesses received nine times more in cuts than what they passed on to their workers, according to Americans for Tax Fairness, a political advocacy group devoted to tax reform. The analysis also found that companies spent 37 times as much on stock buybacks than they did on bonuses and increased wages for workers.

“There are too many disingenuous claims that the Trump and Republican tax cuts for corporations will trickle down to the middle class,” said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. “President Trump and Republicans gave huge tax cuts to big drug companies, big oil and other corporations, but corporations are giving back little—if anything—to working families,” said Clemente. “In fact, this [analysis shows] that 433 corporations out of the Fortune 500 have announced no plans to share their tax cuts with employees.”

The newest projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the Republican tax plan led to, in part, a 2018 deficit $242 billion higher than previously estimated.

Roughly 36 percent of Americans approve of the Republican tax cuts, according to a March Quinnipiac University Poll and a CNBC poll found that 52 percent of working adults said they had not seen a change to their paychecks since the cuts were passed.

In January, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said 90 percent of all working adults would see increases in their paychecks because of the cuts.

The states that Trump-tax hurts the most (Calif, NJ, NY etc) already voted for Hillary last time.

 

[sparky]

Some good & very informative points , there's an upper quintile crew opining here, bravo I've had the pleasure of delving into detail over the years,and am confident the truth is out there

For those who are playin' catch up, google trickle down , we're living a reganista redux . it's all been done before, the results are easily obtainable

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some good & very informative points , there's an upper quintile crew opining here, bravo I've had the pleasure of delving into detail over the years,and am confident the truth is out there

For those who are playin' catch up, google trickle down , we're living a reganista redux . it's all been done before, the results are easily obtainable

~S~

16 years of Clinton and Obama and we're still living under Reaganism? LOL!

 

[depotoo]

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Sorry, but this is just dumb, not to mention misleading. "Only 43%" of workers got a bonus, better benefits? "Only"? That's nearly half. And all workers who are in the second, third, or fourth tax bracket for their top marginal rate received a sizable tax cut. I'm in the third tax bracket, and my take-home pay rose by $220 per month.

Now, as for stock buybacks. The whining about this shows how little liberals know about business. If you work for a company and you hear that your company is buying back a bunch of its own stock, you should be very happy, because it means that your company is putting itself on a much better financial footing. It is a very GOOD thing when a company is able to buy back its stock from shareholders--it gives the company more control over its own destiny and reduces the amount of profits that it has to distribute to shareholders (since the shareholders now own much less stock, or no stock, in the company).

 

[sparky]

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

I've been my own man for decades , but only as a small biz.

What goes on above me (et all) ,and may or may not land in my rice bowl is inconsequential fallout

The fiscal institutions are all about creating valuation out of thin air these days , which in turn is the basis of any given bubble economy

It's a sure sign of a failing fiat....

But i digress....

Nobody here needs to be a rocket scientist to get this

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

I've been my own man for decades , but only as a small biz.

What goes on above me (et all) ,and may or may not land in my rice bowl is inconsequential fallout

The fiscal institutions are all about creating valuation out of thin air these days , which in turn is the basis of any given bubble economy

It's a sure sign of a failing fiat....

But i digress....

Nobody here needs to be a rocket scientist to get this

~S~

Why would you worry about the notional value of a derivatives contract?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Companies can only buy back stock from someone willing to sell that stock at the price offered. The increased value of that stock benefits everyone who owns that stock.

Companies using tax savings to buy back stocks are simply transferring those savings to the sellers of the stocks. The money does not disappear down some dark hole, most of it will be reinvested in the economy. Smart people only sit on money when they are afraid to invest it, and that is why so much money was sitting on the sidelines during the Obama years

So that you can become just a bit smarter before spewing........consider this


The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks | Money

How much of America do foreigners really own? - MarketWatch

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

Hearing you Stalinists spew hatred at the "rich" is surreal, given that the radical left is literally owned by the Silicone Valley Oligarchs and the Soros International Communist Cabal.

Seriously, Standard Oil was a mom & pop organization compared to Apple or Facebook - both run by dedicated Marxists. U.S. Steel never dreamed of having the power to utterly silence dissent the way Twitter and YouTube routinely do.

Going after the obscenely rich means going after your own, Comrade gnat.

 

[AntonToo]

Companies can only buy back stock from someone willing to sell that stock at the price offered. The increased value of that stock benefits everyone who owns that stock.

Companies using tax savings to buy back stocks are simply transferring those savings to the sellers of the stocks. The money does not disappear down some dark hole, most of it will be reinvested in the economy. Smart people only sit on money when they are afraid to invest it, and that is why so much money was sitting on the sidelines during the Obama years

So that you can become just a bit smarter before spewing........consider this


The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks | Money

How much of America do foreigners really own? - MarketWatch

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

Hearing you Stalinists spew hatred at the "rich" is surreal, given that the radical left is literally owned by the Silicone Valley Oligarchs and the Soros International Communist Cabal.

Seriously, Standard Oil was a mom & pop organization compared to Apple or Facebook - both run by dedicated Marxists. U.S. Steel never dreamed of having the power to utterly silence dissent the way Twitter and YouTube routinely do.

Going after the obscenely rich means going after your own, Comrade gnat.

Facts are not hinged on any emotions last I checked.

Doesn't matter what you FEEL about it, The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks or they don't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Companies can only buy back stock from someone willing to sell that stock at the price offered. The increased value of that stock benefits everyone who owns that stock.

Companies using tax savings to buy back stocks are simply transferring those savings to the sellers of the stocks. The money does not disappear down some dark hole, most of it will be reinvested in the economy. Smart people only sit on money when they are afraid to invest it, and that is why so much money was sitting on the sidelines during the Obama years

So that you can become just a bit smarter before spewing........consider this


The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks | Money

How much of America do foreigners really own? - MarketWatch

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

Hearing you Stalinists spew hatred at the "rich" is surreal, given that the radical left is literally owned by the Silicone Valley Oligarchs and the Soros International Communist Cabal.

Seriously, Standard Oil was a mom & pop organization compared to Apple or Facebook - both run by dedicated Marxists. U.S. Steel never dreamed of having the power to utterly silence dissent the way Twitter and YouTube routinely do.

Going after the obscenely rich means going after your own, Comrade gnat.

Facts are not hinged on any emotions last I checked.

Doesn't matter what you FEEL about it, The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks or they don't.

Either the top 1% are primarily Marxist or they are not, Comrade.

Zuckerberg
Bezos
Soros
Cook
Hoyer
Gates
Balmer
Brin
Glass
Musk
Buffett
Elison
Geffen
Winfrey




What is it you Stalinists call your ruling Oligarchs? The "Masters of the Universe," isn't it?

 

[nat4900]

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

First of all, you desperately need work on your percentages.

But more important, it is NOT who is filthy rich....it is more about who is filthy rich and uses that money to openly BRIBE our government to screw over the middle and lower classes........Just check out the Koch, Waltons and Mercers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Say, aren't the richest 1% of Americans the Communist Oligarchs like Marc Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, who you want to rule the nation?

First of all, you desperately need work on your percentages.

But more important, it is NOT who is filthy rich....it is more about who is filthy rich and uses that money to openly BRIBE our government to screw over the middle and lower classes........Just check out the Koch, Waltons and Mercers.

Alice Walton is as far left as you are.

Again, the fact that you leftists continue to attack the "rich" when you ARE the filthy rich is irony beyond the pale.

Hollaywood - 99.9999% Marxist. Professional Sports - 99.999999% Marxist.

Anywhere there is huge wealth without a lot of effort, the Marxists dominate.

 

[healthmyths]

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators."

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

Why don't you tell me what impact the subprime mandates for Fannie and Freddie had on the housing market?

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted, primarily because they wanted to keep up with the competition. They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets. Hey, why not, those derivatives were AAA, right?

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit. If those shitbag unregulated derivatives had not been available to them, if the ratings agencies had been better regulated, if AIG had not been spraying unregulated credit default swaps around the planet like candy, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

I'm glad you asked.
.

AND if this hadn't of occurred a lot of the above problems would NOT have happened!
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.
The startling failure rate among Obama’s private sector clients was discovered during The Daily Caller’s review of previously unpublished court information from the lawsuit that a young Obama worked on as an attorney for the lead plaintiff.
Since the mortgage bubble burst, some of his former clients are calling for a policy reversal.
Nonetheless, Obama has pursued the same top-down mortgage lending policies in the White House.
Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.
With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans

 

[Mac1958]

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

Why don't you tell me what impact the subprime mandates for Fannie and Freddie had on the housing market?

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted, primarily because they wanted to keep up with the competition. They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets. Hey, why not, those derivatives were AAA, right?

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit. If those shitbag unregulated derivatives had not been available to them, if the ratings agencies had been better regulated, if AIG had not been spraying unregulated credit default swaps around the planet like candy, Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

I'm glad you asked.
.

It indirectly caused them to add more subprime mortgages to their portfolio than they would have wanted,

Before the mandate, they didn't want ANY subprime mortgages.

It directly caused them to add subprime mortgages to their portfolio. Up to 55% of total purchases, at the end.

Better.

They even loaded up on those shitbag derivatives that I mentioned earlier to take some risk off of their balance sheets.

Yeah, those mandates forced them to make lots of stupid purchases.
And that's in addition to the damage mandates did to the commercial banks.

In short, they ended up behaving much like the banks, by hedging their bets with pure unbacked shit.

Are you sure they bought hedges?
I thought the shitbag derivatives they bought were to increase their exposure to the mortgage market,
not hedge their exposure.

Fannie and Freddie wouldn't have ended up the way they did.

How much in subprime mortgages did they end up with? Couple of trillion?

They both bought credit default swaps to hedge their positions. The same credit default swaps that weren't requiring any reserves to sell.

Fannie & Freddie were just a part of this. Most of it is being ignored, because it doesn't follow the narrative.
.

 

[Mac1958]

You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.

View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.

They are not one sided-
Dodd-Frank, Community Bank Decline, And The Effect On U.S. Cities And Towns
Harvard Study Confirms Dodd-Frank's Harm to Main Street
The State and Fate of Community Banking
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/d...cbg/files/Final_State_and_Fate_Lux_Greene.pdf

You still haven't touched my list.

Demonstrate you understand this, and not just the standard conservative talking points. I'll sure as hell know if you know what you're talking about.

I'll wait. But at this point, from what I've seen so far, I'll be pretty shocked if you can.
.

demonstrate that Frank Dodd and Acorn didn't drive the market down the drain. Yep, there are plenty of links. to show how they acted and caused this shit

You're going to obediently believe the one-sided talking points.

I know what actually happened.
.

You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.

This has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.

So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.

If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.

I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.

And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..