Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

"Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.

sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia

You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post

"Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
Right-wing[edit]
This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America's Party
Independent American Party"

Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This comment should be pointed squarely at you.

You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post

 

[dnsmith35]

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

====================

the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them

Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.

It was not the actual verbiage in the law which caused the problem, it was the way leftist extremists understood the spirit of the law, and the way administrations of Clinton and Bush wanted it to work. The bottom line is, regulators were told to push sub primes and government entities not only pushed them, they chose to securitize sub prime loans as a means to follow the spirit of CRA.

Take you blinders off and come into the real world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Did she say that the CRA didn't lower lending standards?
Do you think it didn't lower lending standards?

 

[Andylusion]

I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.

But it's not a reduction. It's not. Light rail uses more energy than a car. By far.

And assuming you are right about concerns of the environment being largely made up, then you are right. But how accurate is your assessment? It could be true, partially so or false. What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?

I have specifically looked at those environmental concerns. I have read the paperwork, I have read the reports. When you boil down those numbers, they are in fact estimates, based on the opinions of eco-nutz. That's simply what they are. If you want to deny that, by all means post your citations for those numbers, I'll be more than happy to read your link, and post right here all the made up estimates your link contains.

Now if you want to claim that those estimates based on opinion, are right... that's a fair argument. But that too, would be just an opinion of an estimate based on opinion.

You can't directly show me 'this person died from road construction pollution last year'. You can't show me the river that can no longer sustain life, specifically because of auto pollution.

It's all 'we think cars put out x amount of pollution, and we estimate that this is causing y effect, and our calculations show that could do Z amount of long term harm to the environment'.

Again, you can claim those are accurate..... but they are still just accurate calculations, based on estimates, based on opinion.

There's about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%); but there's another group among scientists that assert the cost to the environment and hence to humanity is much more disastrous a situation then any of the mainstream reports like IPCC. Notably an MIT group of scientists among many others: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Just based on intelligent guesses we can determine your accusation that climate concern is largely made up is itself made up--for what creature besides man actually thinks he can survive without utmost concern for his habitat? Only people bent towards personal excess and greed can ignore the most fundamental truth about humans: that we are of this earth and depend on its providence alone. But when all your peers agree with you and ignores this truth, it makes you feel like you have a valid point. Don't let groupthink deceive you into invalid views. Do your own homework and think about it.

If I round up 98 people on this forum, and claim that you do not actually have a brain, and only 2 people say you do..... does that mean the 98 are right? What if they had Ph.Ds in philosophy? Would that make them all correct?

You accused me of "groupthink", and yet at the very start your argument was about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%); What is that?

That's groupthink... you just accused me of what you yourself just did. Saying my group is larger, than the other group which is tiny, that's groupthink. That's not science. Science is never "we all voted this is true". In fact, real Science often bucks the conventional wisdom of the ages.

What's even more ironic is that you list the IPCC report. Did you know that many of the names listed on the IPCC report, were not scientists at all? Did you also know that many scientists who did work on the IPCC report, disagreed with the conclusions given? Did you know that some of the scientists actually had to sue the IPCC in court, to have their names removed from the report which they considered fraudulent and misleading? Did you know the infamous hockey stick graph used in the report used doctored data, and two separate contradicting data sources, in order to create the graph?

Now is that just make making up stuff? Is that just my opinion? No, all of what I just said is absolute fact, and I can prove each and every point..... unlike the myth of dooms day pollution which you can't prove. All those dooms day myths, are based on computer models. The problem is you can make a computer model say anything. Tweak one number here, tweak a multiplier there, and you can get that model to say anything you want. Estimates, based on opinion.

 

[Andylusion]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.

What has that got to do with Capitalism? Where in the Capitalist system do you see "Also Capitalism requires civil war, slaughtering of others, and stealing their stuff"?

When you think of the people who are considered the fathers of modern capitalism, which one said that?

See, I can actually point to people in Socialism, that advocated struggle and class warfare, as being required in the institution of Socialism.

You are apply two completely unrelated topics. What revolution militia doesn't attempt to grab whatever they can to make money to fund the revolution? All of them do this. Socialist and Communist militias did the same thing.

I don't see you suggesting that their slaughtering of people was for the advancement of socialism. Or the Lenin slaughtering the business owners in Russia was for the benefit of Socialism.

But when you talk about Capitalism, suddenly every militia group trying to overthrow their government, are all evil capitalists?

Grow up.

 

[Andylusion]

What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.

Sorry to break it to you but we live in a globalized economy and economic activities (and their consequences) are not contained within the borders of a single nation.

Still irrelevant. Capitalism didn't cause that. There is nothing in capitalism that requires adherence to go kill people.

Capitalism isn't built on class warfare, and trying to kill each other over resources that must be confiscated by the masses and dolled out by authority equally in some socialist hell on earth.

Capitalism is built on everyone working for their own self interest, and that self interest builds the economy. I know how to fix cars. You have a car that needs fixed. We both work together in a transaction for mutual benefit. I fix the car, and you pay me. You are better off because your car is fix. I'm better off because I was paid for my service.

You do the same thing with what you do, that provides for your customers. And those customers do what they do for their customers. And the capitalist system benefits everyone.

Nowhere in that system do you see "kill everyone and take their stuff". It's not there.

In fact, Capitalism is against that, because dead people don't provide goods and services that improve society. That's why typically in a war torn disaster area, the economy is normally ruined until the population recovers somewhat.

 

[dblack]

I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?

 

[Andylusion]

Glass–Steagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.

Mr Hipeter, I am not trying to insult you in any way, but in truth, you don't appear to know what you are talking about.

For historical accuracy, there is no Glass-Steagal Act. In reality, it's the 1933 Banking Act. People call it the "Glass Steagal Act" because the sponsors of the 1933 Banking Act were Carter Glass, and Henry B. Steagall.

Ironically, the 1933 Banking Act contained several key provisions for FDIC and Federal Deposit Insurance, which people claim to be part of the New Deal.

The provision of the 1933 Banking Act, that people call the Glass-Steagal Act, is the provision for separation of Retail banks, Commercial bank, Investment Banks, and Insurance Companies. Investment, Retail, Commercial and Insurance, were prohibited from operating together.

The claim that these prohibitions would have prevented the melt down are just simply not true.

First, the rest of the world does not have these prohibitions, and most never did. Canada didn't, and never has. They have not had a problem.

Second, the vast majority of the banks that failed in the recent crash, would not have been covered under the Glass-Steagal prohibitions. Countrywide Financial would not. Bear Stearns would not. Indymac would not. The vast majority of the bank failures, had Glass Steagall been enforced, would have not been affected in any way.

Third, the majority of the 'fixes' that government pushed, were only allowed with Glass-Steagal repealed. Bank of America buying out Countrywide, would have been illegal under GSA. JP Morgan Chase buying Bear Stearns, would have been illegal under GSA.

So this idea that "repealing Glass Steagal Act caused everything" in just flat out bogus. If anything, getting rid of that regulation helped solve the crisis.



By any objective measure, the New Deal policies are what dragged out the recession, into the great depression.

How does paying people to destroy food, during a hunger crisis, result in great economic growth? If you look at the standard of living under the New Deal, and World War 2, the standard declined at best. There was no great economic growth.



Ah, I don't buy it. Most of the Canadian government programs existed before the crisis in the US every happened. Further, there was no sub-prime melt down in Canada, which would have caused the need for a bailout. No one can even point to a bank that was at risk of bankruptcy.

The basic argument I've read thus far, is that 'banks had taken advantage of money the government gave out..... thus they were bailed out'. Sorry, that's not true. If you provide a program today, to hand out money to people like me, I'm going to ask for your address and come get some cash. Doesn't mean you bailed me out... just means I was more than happy to take your money.



That doesn't change the point. Yes, if you tie bad investments to good investments, that doesn't make the bad investments good. If the Carpathia had reached the Titanic before she sank, and tied itself to the hull, that would not have kept the Titanic afloat, it would have just sank the Carpathia too.

Again, the problem wasn't derivatives. The problem was the sub-prime loans. If the sub-prime loans had not been sold to begin with, or had not been bundled into the derivatives, there would never have been a problem with derivatives.

And again.... it was government that pushed sub-prime loans, and it was government that pushed them to be bundled into derivatives. If you watched the video, Obama himself says the whole point of bundling those loans, was to get more investment. The government pushed this whole thing.



Yes, property values could dive without warning, even without sub-prime lending. But in this case, it was directly because of sub-prime loans that values went up, and it was directly because of sub-prime melt down, that they went down.

Just because X can happen without Y, doesn't mean X did happened without Y.

If they lose their jobs or fall into bankruptcy they can't, and if the value of their property dives, a previously easily repayable debt becomes impossible to pay. The banks got greedy, and actually went out of their way to encourage loans to people that could't afford them, but at the same time a lot of houses went under that were owned by people that re-mortgaged their house knowing they were in good financial state at the time. There is no way for a bank to truly prepare, it can only limit the fallout.

Yes, AFTER the bubble got started, banks found they could make risky loans, and if the buyer defaulted, they could get the house back, which had a higher value than when it was purchased. Thus the risky loan was considered very safe, because if the buyer paid back the loan, they win. If the buyer defaults, and they get back a house worth more than the original loan, they win.

It was a win-win for the banks.

But here's the problem.... that situation was only true AFTER the bubble got started.

What started the bubble? Answer? Government through Freddie Mac, encourage banks to make sub-prime loans that Freddie Mac would guarantee.

This was a win-win for the banks, because of government. If the buyer paid back, the bank wins. If the buyer defaults, Freddie Mac pays back, and the bank wins. Win-win for the bank BEFORE the bubble started.

Government started the bubble. Yes, the banks continued the bubble. But Government created the bubble to begin with.

When did government first require private lenders to solicit appraisal fraud?
Thanks.

"Only lenders and their agents can cause a substantial amount of appraisal fraud;
They did so through extorting appraisers to inflate appraisals by blacklisting the most ethical appraisals;

"No honest lender would induce appraisal fraud;
Lenders engaged in accounting control fraud find widespread appraisal fraud an optimal strategy;

"Fraudulent mortgage lenders engage in appraisal fraud because it aids their overall strategy of making fraudulent loans;

"No honest lender would permit widespread appraisal fraud;
Honest lenders can prevent widespread appraisal fraud in the loans they make;
No honest secondary market purchaser would knowingly purchase loans with inflated appraisals;

"Competent secondary market purchasers could have avoided purchasing large numbers of loans with inflated appraisals;The appraisers warned the Nation publicly of the widespread appraisal fraud and that it occurred through extortion and blacklisting by the lenders and their agents;

"The appraisers took special efforts to warn the mortgage lending industry and U.S. government beginning in 2000, and continued those efforts through 2007, about these facts and warned that it would cause a crisis;

"Eventually, over 11,000 appraisers signed the profession’s petition warning about the epidemic of appraisal fraud driven by the lenders and their agents."

Global Economic Intersection

Nice topic change. Fail much?

Look, you people on the left are grasping at straws.

How much is a property worth? Do you know answer to that?

The answer is, the same as anything else is worth..... it's worth how much someone is willing to pay for it.

But but the appraisers said!!! DOES NOT MATTER. I know people right now that had an appraisal, and got an offer for $10K over the appraisal. I know people that got an appraisal, and the highest bid they got was $50K under.

Yes, appraisal fraud is a problem. I agree. But it's not a CAUSE. It is an EFFECT.

You can't blame a price bubble starting in 97 retroactively on appraisal fraud that started in the 2000s.

First off, the fraud would be nearly impossible to even attempt, in a stable housing price market. No one would have bought the idea that this house suddenly jumped 20% in price in the last three years, if home prices were stable.

Further, the whole reason the lenders wanted the prices up, is because housing prices were increasing so fast to begin with, they wanted the appraisal price reflecting what they believed the home would be worth in the future.

Stop grasping at straws, trying to find one of the effects of the problem, so you can just deny the cause of the problem.

 

[Andylusion]

This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell

According to Androw:

"People asked 'how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating? This is how. Freddie Mac, gave it to them.'"

When did Freddie Mac give any "junk sub-prime mortages" a AAA rating?

For those who can read:

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

They made it very clear why they had a AAA rating on sub-prime loans.

 

[georgephillip]

THE ONLY thing capitalism seems to gaurantee is legions of angry, whining progressive losers butt-hurt over their failed agenda; and the record welfare and food stamps it has produced, crying like the bitches they are that corporations are making MORE MONEY ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH than they did under those mean ol Republicans!

lol why dont you go hang yourself idiot?

Here's the next guarantee capitalism has in mind for humanity
Don't forget to $wallow (if you can afford market price)

"The third wave of imperialist wars is currently being fought over nature’s most valuable commodity: water.

"Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, CIA analysts reported on a prediction of a new theater of war: hydrological warfare, 'in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled'.

"These predictions became realized in quick succession, beginning with the recent wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

"It is now clear that the age of hydro-imperialism is upon us."

US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[georgephillip]

This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sell

According to Androw:

"People asked 'how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating? This is how. Freddie Mac, gave it to them.'"

When did Freddie Mac give any "junk sub-prime mortages" a AAA rating?

For those who can read:

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

They made it very clear why they had a AAA rating on sub-prime loans.

Words have meaning.

"im·pliedim·ply·ing

Full Definition of IMPLY

transitive verb
1
obsolete : enfold, entwine
2
: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3
: to contain potentially
4
: to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>"

Imply - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Andylusion]

We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.

Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.

Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.

Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".

I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.

Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.

Yeah... people are mindless lemmings who can't choose anything for themselves, and thus are at the complete mercy of anyone on a phone saying "we have a mortgage for you!". Really?

Reminds me of this idiot that came to my high school way back when, and played a bunch of beer commercials, and explained that men were simply too stupid to not drink a beer when a commercial came on with girls on it.

To date, I have never had a beer. Apparently I am Super-Human Androw, the one and only human being able to say the magic complete sentence "no".

Similarly, back in 2006 to 2008, I paid off all my debts, cut up my credit cards, and to this day, am completely 100% debt free, owing no one anywhere anything.

Apparently my Super-Human ability protected me from the mind control of the mortgage lenders too.

Do you realize just how incompetent this post makes you look?

Really.... you and those like you, are so unbelievable stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that some doofus on a phone said you needed a sub-prime mortgage, and you idiotically just "dur dur ok! I need a mortgage!" and you and those like you crashed the entire economy???

Personally I don't think you are that stupid. I think you are just full of crap, making up whatever you can to try and cast blame.

But if what you say is actually true, and you mindless lemmings are so completely irresponsible that some doofus on a phone can convince you to crash the entire world economy, than I have a friendly helpful suggestion....... If you, and those like you, are such an absolute disaster to society, then for the social well being of all of humanity, you and those like you should gather together, and commit mass suicide.

If you people are so truly incompetent, then do one last good deed for the world. Take yourselves out of it.

And for the last time..... No one has ever yet suggested that Bush was not in favor of more home ownership. Bush continued the policies that Clinton continued, that Bush Sr continued, that Reagan continued, that Carter started, and that Obama is continuing TO THIS DAY.

Obama is pushing for more home ownership even as we speak.

Housing risk rising as FHA not compensating for high DTI loans | 2014-05-26 | HousingWire

Read it!

This month&#8217;s NMRI update shows about 22% of all purchase loans have a debt-to-income ratio greater than the QM limit of 43%.

It states that the Federal Housing Administration is not compensating for riskiness of high DTI loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensating only to a limited extent.

It also shows that the percentage of low-risk loans accounted for 41.8% of April activity, down from 46.5% in August 2013.

The FHA leads with 45% of purchase loans exceeding the 43% DTI limit.

Indices for Fannie/Freddie and FHA/RHS both hit new highs in April.

Fully 35% of FHA&#8217;s home purchase loans have a FICO score below 660 (the demarcation line for subprime credit); these have an average NMRI of 35%.

What's your excuse now? Is Bush the cause of FHA, Fannie and Freddie increasing sub-prime loans TODAY?!?

I want to hear it. What's your explanation?

 

[Andylusion]

According to Androw:

"People asked 'how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating? This is how. Freddie Mac, gave it to them.'"

When did Freddie Mac give any "junk sub-prime mortages" a AAA rating?

For those who can read:

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

They made it very clear why they had a AAA rating on sub-prime loans.

Words have meaning.

"im·pliedim·ply·ing

Full Definition of IMPLY

transitive verb
1
obsolete : enfold, entwine
2
: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3
: to contain potentially
4
: to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>"

Imply - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Yes. When the government implies that you have to pay taxes, without sending you a note, or having the IRS call you.... you kind do it. Because you are not stupid. Right?

When the government says to the lending agencies "these have an implied AAA".... when government TELLS you it does? What you do? You give it a AAA rate.

We're not talking about your broke brother-in-law saying this investment is a great plan. We're talking about the Federal Government, whose regulators can shut your little business down in a matter of months.

When they say "This has an implied (wink wink) AAA rating", you do what you are in effect, told to do.

Again, you people on the left are a joke. You specifically create Fannie and Freddie to influence the mortgage market, and then magically want to deny they have any effect on the mortgage market. "Oh they only implied it... that doesn't mean anything". What idiot says that?

 

[georgephillip]

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?

You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.

Why is that?

 

[Andylusion]

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?

You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.

Why is that?

Stawman? Never said there was a law, and that fact is irrelevant. You're obviously incapable of understand that there's no law that any mortgage lender must follow Freddie or Fannie guideline for conforming loans. Yet they do. Why? Because Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage market, and that is also why they can say "this has an implied AAA rate" and people follow.

 

[georgephillip]

sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia

You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post

"Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
Right-wing[edit]
This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America's Party
Independent American Party"

Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This comment should be pointed squarely at you.

You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post

The only point you've proven so far is that you're a legend in your own mind.

 

[georgephillip]

Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?

You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.

Why is that?

Stawman? Never said there was a law, and that fact is irrelevant. You're obviously incapable of understand that there's no law that any mortgage lender must follow Freddie or Fannie guideline for conforming loans. Yet they do. Why? Because Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage market, and that is also why they can say "this has an implied AAA rate" and people follow.

Do you agree private lenders bribed private ratings agencies in order to secure those AAA ratings?

 

[georgephillip]

====================

the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them

Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.

It was not the actual verbiage in the law which caused the problem, it was the way leftist extremists understood the spirit of the law, and the way administrations of Clinton and Bush wanted it to work. The bottom line is, regulators were told to push sub primes and government entities not only pushed them, they chose to securitize sub prime loans as a means to follow the spirit of CRA.

Take you blinders off and come into the real world.

Right after you name a few of those "leftist extremists" in the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

 

[gnarlylove]

I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.

But it's not a reduction. It's not. Light rail uses more energy than a car. By far.

You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.

 

[gnarlylove]

I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?

You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.

So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.

In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."

Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?