Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[danielpalos]

Not the right place to tell lies, hack boi.

Andrew Jackson was the last president to leave a surplus.

Sorry Cupcake, I get the rightards don't understand the difference with a YEARLY BUDGET versus debt by the US Gov't Cupcake

THE LAST GUY TO HAVE BUDGET SURPLUSES (more money coming in than going out in a f/y) was BJ Bill, he had 4 of them Cupcake, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut

Most high school drop outs get it more readily, than the "educated right wing".

Or at least you two have convinced yourselves that you do...

it is why i try to rely, on market based metrics and the, "nothing but repeal" and red herrings, of the other, "market participants". Only the right prefers fantasy to objective, market based metrics.

 

[danielpalos]

Which increases revenues, as you well know.

No, tax cuts do not increase revenues. Tax cuts reduce revenues...which is why after the Bush Tax Cuts, the surplus was turned into record deficits, and after the Brownback Tax Cuts in Kansas, their surplus vanished and was replaced with record deficits too.

Explain to all of us how cutting taxes increases revenues, yet raising wages doesn't.

we have massive debt; cutting taxes just adds to the debt for the "short term gratification" of a micro-boom. Yet, the dope-less wonders on the right wing, want to drug test the poor for welfare benefits.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
it is why i try to rely, on market based metrics and the, "nothing but repeal" and red herrings, of the other, "market participants". Only the right prefers fantasy to objective, market based metrics.

Alright troll, this one I will respond to.

What "market metrics" does a person who thinks there is "state capitalism " rely on?

This I have got to see...

 

[danielpalos]

[
it is why i try to rely, on market based metrics and the, "nothing but repeal" and red herrings, of the other, "market participants". Only the right prefers fantasy to objective, market based metrics.

Alright troll, this one I will respond to.

What "market metrics" does a person who thinks there is "state capitalism " rely on?

This I have got to see...

Mixed market based metrics in our mixed market economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

especially when you gut regulators

Gut regulators?

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards

DERP!

Glad to see you're back to the meme that it was poor people

Yes, poorer people buying homes that the government, Dems and Republicans, pushed on them.
It was in all the papers. Moron.

Hey Dumbass, REGULATORS COULD'VE REIGNED IN THOSE MORTGAGE BROKERS THAT DID 80% OF THE LOANS (THAT'S WHAT WAS MEANT BY LENDING STANDARDS), INSTEAD DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN IN THE PREDATORY LENDERS, BY INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE. ALL 50 STATES SUED (AND WON TOO LATE IN 2009)...


Yes AFTER Dubya was warned in 2004 of an "epidemic of mortgage fraud that could rival the S&L crisis" Dubya gutted them by 1/3rd. As well as HIS regulators on the beat turning a blind eye to the Banksters WHO WERE UNDER TRADITIONAL BANKING REGULATIONS

No Cupcake, it was actually Banksters loaning to old white guys who were flipping that drove Dubya's bubble. Who knew old white guys NEVER want to pay their bills (except those of US watching the GOP the past 36 years).....

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards

DERP!

Yes Moron, BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES NOT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES LIKE CRA DUMBSHIT!



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

WAPO

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



SORRY CUPCAKE

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

 

[JonKoch]

Hey Dumbass, REGULATORS COULD'VE REIGNED IN THOSE MORTGAGE BROKERS THAT DID 80% OF THE LOANS (THAT'S WHAT WAS MEANT BY LENDING STANDARDS), INSTEAD DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN IN THE PREDATORY LENDERS, BY INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE. ALL 50 STATES SUED (AND WON TOO LATE IN 2009)...


Yes AFTER Dubya was warned in 2004 of an "epidemic of mortgage fraud that could rival the S&L crisis" Dubya gutted them by 1/3rd. As well as HIS regulators on the beat turning a blind eye to the Banksters WHO WERE UNDER TRADITIONAL BANKING REGULATIONS

No Cupcake, it was actually Banksters loaning to old white guys who were flipping that drove Dubya's bubble. Who knew old white guys NEVER want to pay their bills (except those of US watching the GOP the past 36 years).....

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards

DERP!

Yes Moron, BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES NOT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES LIKE CRA DUMBSHIT!



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

WAPO

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



SORRY CUPCAKE

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

YOUR DODGES NOTED CUPCAKE.

Funny how you Klowns want to do "both siderismn" NS when clearly it was Dubya and HIS policies that allowed thew Banksters to create a SUBPRIME MORTGAGE BUBBLE as he cheered on their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE Cupcake

Who regulates mortgage lenders?

Who regulates mortgage lenders? | Investopedia

 

[JonKoch]

Hey Dumbass, REGULATORS COULD'VE REIGNED IN THOSE MORTGAGE BROKERS THAT DID 80% OF THE LOANS (THAT'S WHAT WAS MEANT BY LENDING STANDARDS), INSTEAD DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN IN THE PREDATORY LENDERS, BY INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE. ALL 50 STATES SUED (AND WON TOO LATE IN 2009)...


Yes AFTER Dubya was warned in 2004 of an "epidemic of mortgage fraud that could rival the S&L crisis" Dubya gutted them by 1/3rd. As well as HIS regulators on the beat turning a blind eye to the Banksters WHO WERE UNDER TRADITIONAL BANKING REGULATIONS

No Cupcake, it was actually Banksters loaning to old white guys who were flipping that drove Dubya's bubble. Who knew old white guys NEVER want to pay their bills (except those of US watching the GOP the past 36 years).....

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards

DERP!

Yes Moron, BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES NOT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES LIKE CRA DUMBSHIT!



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

WAPO

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



SORRY CUPCAKE

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


"Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"



..Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”


And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

NYT

Bush’s Philosophy Stoked the Mortgage Bonfire

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards

DERP!

Yes Moron, BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES NOT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES LIKE CRA DUMBSHIT!



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

WAPO

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



SORRY CUPCAKE

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

YOUR DODGES NOTED CUPCAKE.

Funny how you Klowns want to do "both siderismn" NS when clearly it was Dubya and HIS policies that allowed thew Banksters to create a SUBPRIME MORTGAGE BUBBLE as he cheered on their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE Cupcake

Who regulates mortgage lenders?

Who regulates mortgage lenders? | Investopedia

Yes, your previous errors are obvious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards

DERP!

Yes Moron, BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES NOT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES LIKE CRA DUMBSHIT!



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

WAPO

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



SORRY CUPCAKE

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


"Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"



..Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”


And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

NYT

Bush’s Philosophy Stoked the Mortgage Bonfire

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"

Yup. Dems didn't want to stop it either.

 

[JonKoch]

Yes Moron, BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES NOT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES LIKE CRA DUMBSHIT!



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

WAPO

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



SORRY CUPCAKE

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

YOUR DODGES NOTED CUPCAKE.

Funny how you Klowns want to do "both siderismn" NS when clearly it was Dubya and HIS policies that allowed thew Banksters to create a SUBPRIME MORTGAGE BUBBLE as he cheered on their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE Cupcake

Who regulates mortgage lenders?

Who regulates mortgage lenders? | Investopedia

Yes, your previous errors are obvious.

Sure Cupcake, Sure

Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble the US lost $16 trillion of wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes were foreclosed WooHoo GOP sure do know how to take care of an economy

 

[JonKoch]

Yes Moron, BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES NOT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES LIKE CRA DUMBSHIT!



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

WAPO

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



SORRY CUPCAKE

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


"Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"



..Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”


And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

NYT

Bush’s Philosophy Stoked the Mortgage Bonfire

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"

Yup. Dems didn't want to stop it either.

What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?

Why is it under Ronnie and Dubya we saw the 2 worst Bankster created crisis's since the GOP's first great depression Cupcake?



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, (BARNEY) Frank Says

JUNE 2004

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame Dubya


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

YOUR DODGES NOTED CUPCAKE.

Funny how you Klowns want to do "both siderismn" NS when clearly it was Dubya and HIS policies that allowed thew Banksters to create a SUBPRIME MORTGAGE BUBBLE as he cheered on their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE Cupcake

Who regulates mortgage lenders?

Who regulates mortgage lenders? | Investopedia

Yes, your previous errors are obvious.

Sure Cupcake, Sure

Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble the US lost $16 trillion of wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes were foreclosed WooHoo GOP sure do know how to take care of an economy

Bush is to blame for bubbles in other countries? LOL!

Do you ever pull your head out? The methane is warping your brain.
Give the little guy a break.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


"Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"



..Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”


And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

NYT

Bush’s Philosophy Stoked the Mortgage Bonfire

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"

Yup. Dems didn't want to stop it either.

What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?

Why is it under Ronnie and Dubya we saw the 2 worst Bankster created crisis's since the GOP's first great depression Cupcake?



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, (BARNEY) Frank Says

JUNE 2004

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame Dubya


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?

The Dems wanted to stop the bubble, but couldn't, because they had no power? LOL!

 

[JonKoch]

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

YOUR DODGES NOTED CUPCAKE.

Funny how you Klowns want to do "both siderismn" NS when clearly it was Dubya and HIS policies that allowed thew Banksters to create a SUBPRIME MORTGAGE BUBBLE as he cheered on their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE Cupcake

Who regulates mortgage lenders?

Who regulates mortgage lenders? | Investopedia

Yes, your previous errors are obvious.

Sure Cupcake, Sure

Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble the US lost $16 trillion of wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes were foreclosed WooHoo GOP sure do know how to take care of an economy

Bush is to blame for bubbles in other countries? LOL!



Do you ever pull your head out? The methane is warping your brain.
Give the little guy a break.

READING ISSUES CUPCAKE? AGAIN


Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble the US lost $16 trillion of wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes were foreclosed WooHoo

 

[JonKoch]

Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.


////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?




...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.



Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have federal authorities undercut them. In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


"Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"



..Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”


And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

NYT

Bush’s Philosophy Stoked the Mortgage Bonfire

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"

Yup. Dems didn't want to stop it either.

What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?

Why is it under Ronnie and Dubya we saw the 2 worst Bankster created crisis's since the GOP's first great depression Cupcake?



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, (BARNEY) Frank Says

JUNE 2004

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame Dubya


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?

The Dems wanted to stop the bubble, but couldn't, because they had no power? LOL!

More of your right wing BS. I'm shocked Buttercup


WHAT POWER DID THE DEMS HAVE TO STOP RONNIE'S S&L CRISIS OR DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE CUPCAKE?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

YOUR DODGES NOTED CUPCAKE.

Funny how you Klowns want to do "both siderismn" NS when clearly it was Dubya and HIS policies that allowed thew Banksters to create a SUBPRIME MORTGAGE BUBBLE as he cheered on their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE Cupcake

Who regulates mortgage lenders?

Who regulates mortgage lenders? | Investopedia

Yes, your previous errors are obvious.

Sure Cupcake, Sure

Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble the US lost $16 trillion of wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes were foreclosed WooHoo GOP sure do know how to take care of an economy

Bush is to blame for bubbles in other countries? LOL!



Do you ever pull your head out? The methane is warping your brain.
Give the little guy a break.

READING ISSUES CUPCAKE? AGAIN


Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble the US lost $16 trillion of wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes were foreclosed WooHoo

Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble

Yes, Bush said to banks all over the world, make stupid loans.
That's why the bubble was world wide.

DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC

Dipshit.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED

You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


"Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"



..Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down. Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”


And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

NYT

Bush’s Philosophy Stoked the Mortgage Bonfire

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"

Yup. Dems didn't want to stop it either.

What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?

Why is it under Ronnie and Dubya we saw the 2 worst Bankster created crisis's since the GOP's first great depression Cupcake?



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, (BARNEY) Frank Says

JUNE 2004

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame Dubya


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?

The Dems wanted to stop the bubble, but couldn't, because they had no power? LOL!

More of your right wing BS. I'm shocked Buttercup


WHAT POWER DID THE DEMS HAVE TO STOP RONNIE'S S&L CRISIS OR DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE CUPCAKE?

WHAT POWER DID THE DEMS HAVE TO STOP RONNIE'S S&L CRISIS

Well, the Dems held the House during Reagan's 2 terms, and the Senate his last 2 years.
I don't recall them saying anything about it then. Do you? Link?

OR DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE

When you show me Dems trying to limit mortgage lending during Bush's terms,
I'll stop telling you that you're a fucking moron.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing claims to "love the poor", while reducing food stamp benefits and lowering taxes for the rich.

 

[The Derp]

How did Bush and those mean Republicans weaken underwriting standards?

By not enforcing them. Regulators work for the Executive Branch. Who runs the Executive Branch?

 

[The Derp]

Because they listened to the stupid liberal whining.
And because of the stupid budget rules.
Phase ins are stupid. People delay some actions if they know taxes will be lower, later.

Stupid budget rules, how so? The fact that the Bush Tax Cuts increase the deficit? And that's why they had the sunset provision? So if the Bush Tax Cuts increased the deficit, then that means tax cuts create deficits. And why would they listen to liberals at all? Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. They didn't need liberals to go along with them, and all the liberals voted against the Bush Tax Cuts.

So the premise that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is a false premise, isn't it?
So they don't pay 100% for themselves. So what?

So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them. So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs, and increase debt, why do them at all? And no portion "came back", hence the deficits that appeared after taxes were cut.

Instead, job growth was faster than if the MW wasn't raised.
If only you had proof.

We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't. Whether or not that job growth is attributed to the MW hike, we can debate. However, your argument that raising the MW kills jobs is not something we can debate because it isn't true.

No, what I said was the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble.
You said there was no job growth. You were wrong.

NO! I said the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble. Re-read the thread. You do a lot of sloppy work here. Is that on purpose?

First of all, there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981.
Liar.

The Reagan Tax Cuts were signed into law August 1981. Unemployment for July 1981 was 7.2%. It would then climb up to 10.8% by December 1982, one year into the Reagan Tax Cuts taking effect, and 16 months after they were signed into law. So if unemployment went from 7.2% to 10.8%, does that mean there are more people employed than before? Yes or no?

And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate
I want tax cuts, not hikes.

Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%? Sloppy work, as usual. Stop rushing. Use your words.

The Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble,
You said the cuts created jobs which created the bubble.
Now you're claiming that cutting the top rate from 39.6% down to 35% created a bubble?

No, the bubble is what created the jobs. But remember, Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years, and lost 460,000 private sector jobs overall. And I'm not the one who claimed it caused the bubble, Bush was.

TWhy would the increase be $100K?
If you increase wage expenses by $100K, the increase is $100K.

No, where are you getting the $100K from? Or did you just pull that number out of your ass?

Because they didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages just three years ago.
You didn't show MW employment before and after the hike. Try again?

Ummmm....that's because unemployment declined. So I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

So again, we saw that 13 states raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states then saw faster job growth than the states that didn't.
Changes in total employment disprove the supply/demand curve?
Quick, alert the Nobel committee, you're a shoe in for a prize in economics.

We are talking about the unemployment rate. You all claimed it would go up if the MW was raised. It didn't for 13 states. So why are you still pretending as if it did? Sophistry, that's why.

As I said, we can debate whether or not raising the MW creates jobs...and that's a debate I don't mind having.
Great.
Does raising it to $15/hr lose jobs? Does raising it to $30 lose jobs? Does raising it to $50 lose jobs?
If you ever get to yes, as the rate rises, you've lost the debate.

No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr. Seattle raised theirs to $15/hr and they have 3.3% unemployment. You know that now because I gave you the most recent info, after you and your comrades tried to lie about it before.

And you base that on what?
I base employers having less money on your insistence on raising their costs. You know, math.

Less money? Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption, why would they "have less", and what would they do with the money they have anyway?

All I showed was that job growth happened.
Yes, I noticed your failure to post the proof of your claim.

Well, the empirical evidence is the proof. Those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't raise their MW. You all say that the opposite would happen, but it didn't. So that's why you argue in theory and not in fact.