Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[Andylusion]

Sorry for jumping in... but I am not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Do you mean the sub-prime crash of 2007-2009? Because that was almost entirely government caused.

I still disagree with the bailouts (which actually were not a bailout at all), but there is no question it was government caused.

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

From 1998


"They would not have qualified for loan, but for this affirmative action by the banks."
"To take a greater risk."
"which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure will be a higher default rate than the rest of the portfolio"

HUD being led by Andrew Cuomo,



Bill Clinton, openly saying that the money lent to people who did not qualify, was mostly done under his administration.

Obama 2007 at NASDAQ "Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
https://2008election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Obama20070917.pdf

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners | Investor's Business Daily

The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities.​

John Allison wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776&tag=ff0d01-20

In this he describes how he was an executive at a bank in the late 90s, and had regulators say that their standards were discriminator, and how they had to change them. The regulators never explained how they were discriminatory, nor what they should do to improve, only that they needed changed.

The fact that the Clinton Administration was suing banks to force them to make bad loans, is beyond debate. It is a documented, video'd, recorded and published fact.

Once again, you have the right to be wrong... .but if you deny this, that's all you are..... is wrong.

I haven't argued that the government didn't push for lower standards. The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

Greenspan said his biggest mistake in trusting that the banks would do the right thing.

Greenspan, was a brilliant idiot. You can't trust people to do the right thing, when government is directly suing people to do the wrong thing.

The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

And there is where the rub comes. If the government guaranteed the loans..... then the banks didn't do it.

The banks were always 'freed up'. There was never anything that prevented banks from making a sub-prime loan. Any bank could have made a subprime loan before the 90s, or the 80s, or even the 70s. Nothing ever prevented a bank from making a bad loan.

They simply didn't. Why? Because it was a bad loan. Without government backing the loan, they would have lost money. So they simply didn't make the loan.

It was government, not the banks, which changed the market incentives, which caused banks to make bad loans.

This is why I say it's 99% government. You are pointing to 1% of the cause. If government had not guaranteed those loans.... we wouldn't be discussing a subprime crash, because it never would have happened.

Before 1997, when Freddie Mac guaranteed sub-prime loans, and allowed them to be bundled with prime loans.... subprime was a niche market. Flat growth from the graph I posted before.

 

[RealDave]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A quid pro quo caused the mortgage crisis? LOL!

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

 

[Andylusion]

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

Who did Obama sue?

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

Suing a local bank made Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, etc make bad loans?

One of the many banks sued, was CitiGroup. Not a local bank.

Moreover, you mentioned Countrywide..... I particularly love Countrywide, because it is a prime example of government influence.....

From 1999
Countrywide and Fannie Mae team up

Countrywide Credit Industries Inc. " and Fannie Mae FNM, -2.44% have entered a strategic agreement to expand markets, reduce homeownership costs and spearhead higher levels of efficiency and innovation in the mortgage industry, both companies announced Friday.

Part of the strategic agreement includes expanding markets to accommodate more customers and streamline loan processing through increased use of Countrywide's proprietary CLUES underwriting technology, greater usage of short form appraisals, an expansion of streamlined loan products and guideline waivers.

An initial effort of this plan is the Alternative Servicing Compensation mortgage-backed securities (ASC MBS) product, developed by Fannie Mae and recently issued by Countrywide.​

Fannie Mae specifically allowed Countrywide Financial waviers on some of the guidelines for making loans. Additionally Fannie Mae specifically created new morgage-backed securities, which ended up failing during the crash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-may-do/de19100c-1435-4577-bc1e-f8858373e388/

Additionally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were trying to push lenders into using their own system for evaluating borrowers.

Part of what pushed Fannie's detractors into the open were moves by Fannie and Freddie to require that lenders use their systems for evaluating borrowers. Lenders, which have spent millions of dollars developing their own systems, were angry. To mollify them, first Freddie and then Fannie recently struck deals with large lenders such as Countrywide Credit Industries Inc. and Fleet Financial Group in which one or the other enterprise is guaranteed all of that lender's business in exchange for allowing the lender to use its own evaluation system.
​

And we already know that Fannie and Freddie both were lowering their qualifications requirements.

Over and over, the government was pushing influence on how the mortgage market worked. It wasn't isolated to a "local bank" or something. It was market wide.

 

[Andylusion]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Ok.... spend less. Thanks.

 

[Weatherman2020]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

What do families making $29K pay in taxes now?

More Republican bullshit in action.

What do families making $29k a year pay in premiums, co-pays, coinsurance & deductibles today?

A family of four with a wage earner working full time might get 75% of his premiums covered by his employer. Say that policy cost $1200 a month, $2,000 deductible, with office visits , precriptions, etc typical.

That family will pay $3600.00 a year its share of the premiums, could be $1000 in deductables and 400 hundred in copays. That is $5000. As as any tax increase is less that $5K, they are ahead with medicare for all.

In reality their tax increase would be far less.

This is what you lying assfucks don't get.

Plus, no more sweating out this time of year to see what kind of policy you will get next year, no more worrying what the new premium cost will be, worrying if your doctor is in the network.

The idea you Trumpettes keep whiling is proof you are dumber than shit & just bitching because it is a Democrat idea.

You'd rather pay more out of pocket & fight with the insurance companies

But het, you voted for Trump & I guess that makes you that fucking stupid.

Shameful the way you Leftists hate the poor and are always making life more difficult for them.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Which Democrat is calling for reducing the deficit?
I’ll wait.

 

[pknopp]

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

Who did Obama sue?

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

Suing a local bank made Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, etc make bad loans?

Nope. Suing a local bank made a local bank write bad mortgages.
While Glass-Stegall was still law......weird.

Of course you have no proof of this. There were banks sued for redlining. As they should have been.

 

[pknopp]

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

From 1998


"They would not have qualified for loan, but for this affirmative action by the banks."
"To take a greater risk."
"which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure will be a higher default rate than the rest of the portfolio"

HUD being led by Andrew Cuomo,



Bill Clinton, openly saying that the money lent to people who did not qualify, was mostly done under his administration.

Obama 2007 at NASDAQ "Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
https://2008election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Obama20070917.pdf

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners | Investor's Business Daily

The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities.​

John Allison wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776&tag=ff0d01-20

In this he describes how he was an executive at a bank in the late 90s, and had regulators say that their standards were discriminator, and how they had to change them. The regulators never explained how they were discriminatory, nor what they should do to improve, only that they needed changed.

The fact that the Clinton Administration was suing banks to force them to make bad loans, is beyond debate. It is a documented, video'd, recorded and published fact.

Once again, you have the right to be wrong... .but if you deny this, that's all you are..... is wrong.

I haven't argued that the government didn't push for lower standards. The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

Greenspan said his biggest mistake in trusting that the banks would do the right thing.

The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

The government guaranteed bad loans?

It's like teaching a class to third graders. Seriously, how old are you? Or is this just another bad attempt of getting clicks up for the site?

 

[RealDave]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Which Democrat is calling for reducing the deficit?
I’ll wait.

All of them. When they talk abut rolling back Trump's gift to the wealthy and well off corporations.

Why are you supporting a President who is skyrocketing the deficit

 

[pknopp]

Dodd/Frank made the too big to fail banks even bigger.

That's kind of our point. No amount of regulations, is going to solve anything. In fact, regulations generally make the problem worse, which you pointed out.

Regulations inherently make the companies they are created to supposedly reign in... larger and more out of control.

Allow me to explain....

Regulations are very expensive, and at the same time, they reduce the ability of the companies to create new products.

So I'm a big mega-bank. You are a smaller bank. Between the two of us, which one has the money to spend in order to meet the regulations? I do. I have hundreds of billions. You are a small bank chain, and likely don't have billions to spend meeting regulations.

Additionally, between the two of us, which one needs to create diverse new products to attract customers? You do. I do not. I'm a mega bank. Customers will come to me on name brand alone. You are the one who has to attract customers with new products.

The regulations will both harm your ability to create new products, and will cost you tons of money you don't have in order to be compliant.

So you facing these huge costs and challenges, may just determine to sell out to me. You sell off to me, and I become larger and more profitable, because now there is less competition.

And you can see this throughout the entire economy. In states that have the tightest regulations, you often see the fewest insurance companies, for example.

When they passed the net neutrality regulations, the first thing that happened was a wave of mergers across the country. Comcast today is vastly larger than they were before those regulations passed.

Indeed, every time there is a wave of regulations, what follows is a decline in public choices as companies sell out and merge. Go look at the auto industry before the regulations of the 1970s. There were many separate companies. By the 1990s, it was just GM, Ford and Chrysler.

The solution to having these massive banks, is actually to deregulate, and allow more free competition. Competitors will rise up where the large banks fail, and the market will end up more diverse.

Bull. Without regulations and oversite Trump would still be stealing from his charity.

A competitor can't rise up to compete with Goldman Sachs. Impossible.

Right now it's impossible.... because all the regulations make it impossible.

No, regulations does not prevent stealing from a charity. AOC was using campaign money, funneled through a front company, to her boyfriend. Why didn't the regulations prevent that?

Franklin Raines was cooking the books at Fannie Mae, and fabricated a profit where there was none, so that they could trigger executive bonuses.

Enron, Bernie Madoff... the list of examples where people engaged in fraud and money laundering while under heavy regulation is endless.

Nothing can somehow "prevent" crime. What you can do is have laws against fraud.... and then punish people caught engaging in fraud.

I'm all in favor of more law enforcement. 100% support more law enforcement.

However, regulations do not prevent crime. All they do, is allow the rich to hold down the poor. That's it. No regulation anywhere has ever stopped a crime.

No regulations do not stop corruption. There wi always be people who think they can get by with it.

Regulations allow the oversite that catches the corruption.

I disagree with that too. If the oversight worked..... again.... Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Enron, AOC, Madoff.

You know who caught Madoff? Outside investors who kept looking at the returns, and saying it isn't possible. Enron, you know who caught Enron? No one, they went bankrupt.

In fact, from what I've read elsewhere, Enron was particularly damning, because Enron used the regulations to their benefit, to conceal the fraud. When the executives met with bond holders, who said to Jeff Skilling that it appeared Enron was hiding something, Skillings reply was that they had filed with the SEC and followed all the regulations. As a result the fraud was concealed, and the bond holders accepted that.

So I see little evidence that oversight does anything. When evidence of fraud comes up, they investigate, just like they would investigate any fraud, without any regulations, or any oversight.

I'm not against oversight so much..... I just think law enforcement does a better job of oversight, than the supposed oversight agencies.

But regardless, I still see the regulations do far more harm than good. I see little that they stop any crime from happening, and a ton that it holds the poor down, so the rich and stay above.

Yes, regulators were tipped off and ignored all warnings. I don't disagree with that. There should have been a mass firing. They did not do their job.

I argue all the time that laws and regulations not enforced really are worthless. About like our current laws concerning the hiring of illegals.

It's not something we should accept. To note though, without them Maddoff is a free man.

 

[pknopp]

So you say "almost". We agree there was both sides at fault. Then the only discussion is how much each side is at fault.

Is that really worthy to argue?

Well yes, because I would say 99% was government, and the main "fault" of the banks as it were, was trusting government.

Government was suing banks to make bad loans.
Government was pushing banks to make bad loans.
Government incentivized banks to make bad loans.
Government even required banks to make bad loans in order to get merger approvals.
Government even guaranteed sub-prime loans.

And the problem is, with all this concerted effort to push banks to make bad loans, then you want to point at the banks and say they should not have done that. Well.... while technically true, that is entirely unfair.

Without government intervention, the sub-prime crash would never have happened. Because prior to 1997, the government didn't make any direct overt moves to push sub-prime loans, and before 1997, they were a niche market.

Prior to 1997, sub-prime loans were tiny, and the market was flat. There was no real significant growth, until the government got involved in 1997.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

From 1998


"They would not have qualified for loan, but for this affirmative action by the banks."
"To take a greater risk."
"which will be a higher risk, and I'm sure will be a higher default rate than the rest of the portfolio"

HUD being led by Andrew Cuomo,



Bill Clinton, openly saying that the money lent to people who did not qualify, was mostly done under his administration.

Obama 2007 at NASDAQ "Subprime lending started off as a good idea - helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to."
https://2008election.procon.org/sourcefiles/Obama20070917.pdf

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners | Investor's Business Daily

The pressure worked. In 1994, Clinton's top bank regulators signed a landmark anti-redlining policy that declared traditional mortgage underwriting standards racist and mandated banks apply easier lending rules for minorities.​

John Allison wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776&tag=ff0d01-20

In this he describes how he was an executive at a bank in the late 90s, and had regulators say that their standards were discriminator, and how they had to change them. The regulators never explained how they were discriminatory, nor what they should do to improve, only that they needed changed.

The fact that the Clinton Administration was suing banks to force them to make bad loans, is beyond debate. It is a documented, video'd, recorded and published fact.

Once again, you have the right to be wrong... .but if you deny this, that's all you are..... is wrong.

I haven't argued that the government didn't push for lower standards. The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

Greenspan said his biggest mistake in trusting that the banks would do the right thing.

Greenspan, was a brilliant idiot. You can't trust people to do the right thing, when government is directly suing people to do the wrong thing.

The banks did it when they were freed up and the government gaurantees the loans.

And there is where the rub comes. If the government guaranteed the loans..... then the banks didn't do it.

The banks were always 'freed up'. There was never anything that prevented banks from making a sub-prime loan. Any bank could have made a subprime loan before the 90s, or the 80s, or even the 70s. Nothing ever prevented a bank from making a bad loan.

They simply didn't. Why? Because it was a bad loan. Without government backing the loan, they would have lost money. So they simply didn't make the loan.

It was government, not the banks, which changed the market incentives, which caused banks to make bad loans.

This is why I say it's 99% government. You are pointing to 1% of the cause. If government had not guaranteed those loans.... we wouldn't be discussing a subprime crash, because it never would have happened.

Before 1997, when Freddie Mac guaranteed sub-prime loans, and allowed them to be bundled with prime loans.... subprime was a niche market. Flat growth from the graph I posted before.

At least I am grateful you are aware of the issue unlike others.

 

[RealDave]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

What do families making $29K pay in taxes now?

More Republican bullshit in action.

What do families making $29k a year pay in premiums, co-pays, coinsurance & deductibles today?

A family of four with a wage earner working full time might get 75% of his premiums covered by his employer. Say that policy cost $1200 a month, $2,000 deductible, with office visits , precriptions, etc typical.

That family will pay $3600.00 a year its share of the premiums, could be $1000 in deductables and 400 hundred in copays. That is $5000. As as any tax increase is less that $5K, they are ahead with medicare for all.

In reality their tax increase would be far less.

This is what you lying assfucks don't get.

Plus, no more sweating out this time of year to see what kind of policy you will get next year, no more worrying what the new premium cost will be, worrying if your doctor is in the network.

The idea you Trumpettes keep whiling is proof you are dumber than shit & just bitching because it is a Democrat idea.

You'd rather pay more out of pocket & fight with the insurance companies

But het, you voted for Trump & I guess that makes you that fucking stupid.

Shameful the way you Leftists hate the poor and are always making life more difficult for them.

The poor don't pay income taxes & still would not.

 

[RealDave]

Dem policies are so awesome and popular they have to punish people with taxes and threaten them with laws to force people to OBEY!

Jesus fuck,. God forbid we have laws & God forbid we pay for what we spend.

No wonder you love these skyrocketing deficits. Is this why you voted for Trump?

Ok.... spend less. Thanks.

So you are not a Trump supporter.

You pay for what you spend.

 

[pknopp]

Absolutely. The government removed restrictions and in return the banks made bad loans for the government's benefit to buy votes.

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

 

[pknopp]

No bank was sued to make a bad loan. When you start like this, I stop.

No bank was sued to make a bad loan.

Baloney. That's how Obama got his start....organizing his community.

Who did Obama sue?

Local banks who didn't make enough loans in black areas.

Suing a local bank made Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, etc make bad loans?

One of the many banks sued, was CitiGroup. Not a local bank.

Moreover, you mentioned Countrywide..... I particularly love Countrywide, because it is a prime example of government influence.....

From 1999
Countrywide and Fannie Mae team up

Countrywide Credit Industries Inc. " and Fannie Mae FNM, -2.44% have entered a strategic agreement to expand markets, reduce homeownership costs and spearhead higher levels of efficiency and innovation in the mortgage industry, both companies announced Friday.

Part of the strategic agreement includes expanding markets to accommodate more customers and streamline loan processing through increased use of Countrywide's proprietary CLUES underwriting technology, greater usage of short form appraisals, an expansion of streamlined loan products and guideline waivers.

An initial effort of this plan is the Alternative Servicing Compensation mortgage-backed securities (ASC MBS) product, developed by Fannie Mae and recently issued by Countrywide.​

Fannie Mae specifically allowed Countrywide Financial waviers on some of the guidelines for making loans. Additionally Fannie Mae specifically created new morgage-backed securities, which ended up failing during the crash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-may-do/de19100c-1435-4577-bc1e-f8858373e388/

Additionally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were trying to push lenders into using their own system for evaluating borrowers.

Part of what pushed Fannie's detractors into the open were moves by Fannie and Freddie to require that lenders use their systems for evaluating borrowers. Lenders, which have spent millions of dollars developing their own systems, were angry. To mollify them, first Freddie and then Fannie recently struck deals with large lenders such as Countrywide Credit Industries Inc. and Fleet Financial Group in which one or the other enterprise is guaranteed all of that lender's business in exchange for allowing the lender to use its own evaluation system.
​

And we already know that Fannie and Freddie both were lowering their qualifications requirements.

Over and over, the government was pushing influence on how the mortgage market worked. It wasn't isolated to a "local bank" or something. It was market wide.

Countrywide was simply corrupt. A perfect example of greed getting out of hand. Mozilo should be in prison.

 

[RealDave]

You agree, none of the restrictions would have stopped bad mortgages.

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

 

[Bush92]

I seriously doubt it has anything to do with cost. If somebody wants to sit on the couch with three boxes of cracker jacks, that's what they want to do, even if it costs five bucks a box. I can't see anybody saying they're going to eat a bag of grapes because cracker jacks are too expensive.

Trust me, it's all about cost, if healthy foods were on an even playing field with unhealthy processed foods from a price perspective the problem we're seeing with chronic disease trends wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is now.

Of course we do NEED increased education with respect to diet because the "junk food" industry represents one the most powerful marketing cartels on the planet and we also do not educate our health care professionals NEARLY enough with respect to nutrition (for example the typical doctor only receives 19-20 hours of education related to nutrition in Medical School).

It's a winnable battle but step one is to adopt an agricultural policy that is not INSANE and adopt one that encourages the competitiveness of a healthy diet for the U.S. citizenry, that alone will begin the process of actually LOWERING health care costs.

With the advancement of technology, we've become much less active. I have older tenants and younger tenants. When spring breaks, all us older people get outside. We have a fire, they bring their kids with them, and they play outside. My younger tenants? I've seen some that never left the apartment unless they were going to their car. Their entire world is in their four walls. They have their cell phone, their internet, their cable television, their video games. No need to go outside.

Today if a kid wants to play baseball, he does it on his Playstation whatever. That's why you just about have to speak Spanish if you want to understand what's being discussed in our professional baseball dugouts. Where they came from, they grew up like we did in the 60's and 70's.

You make good points on the lack of exercise problem.

I find an advantage of living in the countryside is the ability to hunt your food. Deer meat, rabbit meat, and pheasant meat is very lean. Plus hunting can be a labor intensive activity.

That's a good point, if you're living the countryside you can also GROW your own food, which means you know exactly what's going into it (no GMO's, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, etc..,) .

Oh yes. We have a huge garden and can every year. Roma tomatoes for pasta sauce, onions to go with it. Getting ready to have home grown butternut squash with wild game for Thanksgiving. We bake our own bread as well. Make jam from wild raspberries and elderberries.

Same here except for the elderberries, lol

Sorry I don’t eat kosher and I don’t believe in socialism.

 

[Bush92]

It would have stopped the involvement of customers money.

It wasn't customer money.

Banks basically have two kinds of loans: prime loans and subprime loans. Prime loans are where the bank lends it's own money to the customer. Subprime loans (as the name suggests) are loans that are not as secure as prime loans, therefore the bank only makes money on processing the loan, and then sells it as securities to other entities.

And then there was the investment side.

And that's what caused the crash, not prime loans.

At one time, the only loans you could just about get were prime loans. The problem was (particularly for Democrats) that your credit and history had to be so good that a bank would be willing to risk making you a loan. It left a lot of people out of the loop, mostly minorities. Subprime was exit legislation from the Jimmy Carter years.

To compensate for the additional risk, government allowed for banks to charge higher interest rates, and use Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS) in order to make loans to less than perfect creditworthy customers (Credit score of 620 or under). It was key to the housing collapse because even people that were paying on their home, got screwed when the interest rate increased. They didn't have the smarts to understand that if you get a loan at 2% on an ARM, it's only likely to go up from there. They were owning homes paycheck to paycheck, and even one percent more was enough for them go into default.

Bankers totally mislead people on ARM's. A few were at least fined. Should be know what they are getting into? They should but they should also be able to trust the banker or investment broker to not be corrupt.

Borrows knew they would be in trouble when the balloon payments came. Lenders told them they could just remortgage at that time but when that time rolled around, home values had decreased.

Well we don’t agree on much Dave...but yes...the idiots that took out the loans are to blame and Clinton administration took out the safeguards on the insurance on the loans.

 

[Bush92]

"Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door."

No one beats a path to your door if you claim to have a better mousetrap but don't actually have one.

So the American voters will beat a path to the Democrats' health care door sooner or later.

You can whine and whine for years over it, but it's your own fault for not asking to see the actual better mousetrap.

We have “the better mousetrap.” Pay for your own goddamn healthcare.