Should the Glass Steagall Act be brought back?

[Andylusion]

You mean CNBC is a harbinger of liberals? lol

How about Faux or WSJ, ANYTHING

How about the WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, CRA TOO? How about the bubble in the commercial markets and auto industry in the 2000's too? CRA? LOL

Yes, indeed.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2V50AS7K0"]Look how disdainfully they treat Dr Ron Paul .[/ame]

.

.

Weird, so politicians taking 2 minutes a piece on opening statements (about 15 per committee) and criticizing them means Paul's nonsense has credibility? lol


ONE MORE TIME, HOW THE FUCK DOES CRA CREATE A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Or one in the auto industry or commercial real estate? Grow a fkkng brain and get honest!!!

It doesn't. How is that relevant?

Just because two different countries, have an economic crash, mean it's impossible for the specific policies that caused our crash, can't be CRA. There is no reason to assume that every economic crash in the universe, must have a common cause, because they had a common time frame.

When you have unstable fiscal policy in multiple countries that have interdependent economies, when one economy takes a dive, it affects the others. If other countries have bad policies too, it can cause them to crash.

Canada did not have CRA, or Glass Steagall, and did not crash.

It's a leap of logic to assume that because another country did have a crash, and didn't have CRA, means it can't possibly be the cause of our crash.

 

[Dad2three]

To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena

You know where banks lost money?

In staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending.

Well, except they dropped underwriting standards because they could bundle and off load the risk, mainly to insurance comp's and pension funds, instead of holding the loans as they traditionally did

No, they didn't do that traditionally. Mortgage Backed Securities, have been 'traditionally' sold on the market for 50 years. It was common practice, long long before they started making sub-prime mortgage backed securities that crash.

And yes, Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, did lower the standards. I agree with that part. And the rest of the market followed.

When were CDO's and synthetic derivatives created? When did the MBS's market explode?



World wide credit bubble and bust because F/F lowered their standards? lol


WHEN did F/F 'lower' their standards'?



The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008



“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”

Fannie and Freddie, Cecala said in a telephone interview, didn’t start making a big move into riskier mortgages until the mortgage boom was already under way, and they were fighting to reclaim market share they’d lost to more aggressive Wall Street players. Even then, they were more cautious than Lehman Brothers and other investment banks. For example, just over 15 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans made in 2007 have been seriously delinquent, compared to nearly 42 percent of mortgages bankrolled by Wall Street, according to the FHFA.


Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown - The Daily Beast



While the sheer magnitude of GSE purchases would seem to provide an important source of demand for subprime loan collateral, this was unlikely the case due to the specific type of securities purchased. A typical PLS involves a “waterfall” payment structure. Instead of a traditional “pass - through,” the PLS note holders are paid according to their seniority, with senior pieces or tranches getting paid first and suffering losses from defaults on the underlying collateral, if any, last. The size of the tranches is chosen to achieve AAA ratings on the senior portion(s), with the amount of subordinated securities adjusted as necessary to provide the overcollateralization required by rating agencies.


Fannie and Freddie bought almost nothing but AAA rated tranches According to Freddie Mac’s 2006 Annual Report, “more than 99.9 percent” of its PLS were rated AAA

Until 2007, Fannie Mae also bought exclusively AAA PLS and added only “limited amounts” of other investment grade PLS in 2007 (Fannie Mae, 2007).


The tranches were senior in the risk queue to junior
pieces, typically 20% of the pool, which absorbed first losses.


Their investments were roughly equivalent to direct investments with 20% capital cushions




That the GSEs invested in AAA tranches is significant because it largely undercuts claims that their purchases had a significant effect on subprime mortgage origination or the pricing of these securities.


A common theme among research that has examined the causes of the financial crisis is the “insatiable demand” that existed for safe, dollar - denominated debt. Acharya and Richardson (2009) emphasize that securitization existed to create AAA tranches, which appealed to many classes of potential investors. As explained by Brunnermeier (2009), some of those investors were money market and pension funds limited by law or investment policy to invest only in AAA assets, while others were leveraged hedge funds attracted to AAA securities
because of their low haircuts and potential for greater leverage (Shleifer and Vishny, 2009).




http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf



A major source of demand for AAA assets came from foreign institutional investors. Caballero (2010, 2009) argues that global payment imbalances were the manifestation of “global excess demand” for AAA securities that placed “enormous pressure on the U.S. financial system and its incentives.”

 

[Dad2three]

Look pal. this is not a Repugnant vs Dumbocrats issue. They are both incompetent fools.

And because Fannie and Freddy were created by the fascist state then - you guessed it - they were exempt from futher regulation.

.

Right Wing Versions of Political Events Challenged

First correction: Barney Frank/Housing Bubble/Frannie & Freddie

First the video:

[youtube]6coIcgdgF5U[/youtube]

Rightwingers will usually say something like "Barney Frank is on record as saying there was no bubble, and he planned to continue to push for easier home ownership."

True. But: What is this video about? I know: Representative Frank is a co-sponsor of a GOP sponsored resolution in the year 2005. Why is 2005 so important?
Look at who is Speaker of the US House and what changed: In November 2004, US SPEAKER, Dennis Hastert instituted his "majority of the majority" policy, allowing the House to vote only on bills supported by the majority of its Republican members.

H.Res.312 - Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.109th Congress (2005-2006)

To view go to: https://beta.congress.gov/
Drop Down MENU: All Sources
Type In SEARCH BOX: H.Res. 312​

H.Res.312 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)
Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.
Sponsor: Rep. Miller, Gary G. [R-CA-42] (Introduced 06/09/2005)
Committees: House - Financial Services
Latest Action: 06/27/2005 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

---

Who was saying there was a housing bubble? The GOP?

Right, so because he wasn't emperor of the universe, he's completely excused from saying there was absolutely no bubble, and there would be no crash, and therefore he would continue to push for more home ownership.

Got, you are partisan hack filling the forum with excuses like all the other partisan hacks.

Why should we care what you have to say on this issue anymore? What reason should we think you have any credibility?

MORE right wing CRAP. Barney said that in 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING scandals as the MINORITY party in the GOP majority party in the House. WHAT POWER DID HE HAVE AGAIN?


Talk about lack of credibility. PLEASE tell me the super powers Barney Frank had in the GOP majority House? Pretty please? lol



In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."[


Pretty boilerplate conservative, always blubbering excuses about how conservatives aren't responsible for the complete and utter failure of their policies



The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.



JUNE 2004

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

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 Bush


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

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, indeed.

Look how disdainfully they treat Dr Ron Paul .

.

.

Weird, so politicians taking 2 minutes a piece on opening statements (about 15 per committee) and criticizing them means Paul's nonsense has credibility? lol


ONE MORE TIME, HOW THE FUCK DOES CRA CREATE A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Or one in the auto industry or commercial real estate? Grow a fkkng brain and get honest!!!

It doesn't. How is that relevant?

Just because two different countries, have an economic crash, mean it's impossible for the specific policies that caused our crash, can't be CRA. There is no reason to assume that every economic crash in the universe, must have a common cause, because they had a common time frame.

When you have unstable fiscal policy in multiple countries that have interdependent economies, when one economy takes a dive, it affects the others. If other countries have bad policies too, it can cause them to crash.

Canada did not have CRA, or Glass Steagall, and did not crash.

It's a leap of logic to assume that because another country did have a crash, and didn't have CRA, means it can't possibly be the cause of our crash.

Got it, you have shit for brains!



CRA around for 30+ years, caused Dubya to have a subprime crisis right? Even though oversight and goals were weakened under him?


A COUPLE OF NATIONS? TRY DOZENS, From China Russia, Ireland, Philippines, Australia, etc

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



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

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



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


Suburbs and Exurbs were where the boom & bust occurred — and not the CRA regions — Source: Washington Post

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, indeed.

Look how disdainfully they treat Dr Ron Paul .

.

.

Weird, so politicians taking 2 minutes a piece on opening statements (about 15 per committee) and criticizing them means Paul's nonsense has credibility? lol


ONE MORE TIME, HOW THE FUCK DOES CRA CREATE A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Or one in the auto industry or commercial real estate? Grow a fkkng brain and get honest!!!

It doesn't. How is that relevant?

Just because two different countries, have an economic crash, mean it's impossible for the specific policies that caused our crash, can't be CRA. There is no reason to assume that every economic crash in the universe, must have a common cause, because they had a common time frame.

When you have unstable fiscal policy in multiple countries that have interdependent economies, when one economy takes a dive, it affects the others. If other countries have bad policies too, it can cause them to crash.

Canada did not have CRA, or Glass Steagall, and did not crash.

It's a leap of logic to assume that because another country did have a crash, and didn't have CRA, means it can't possibly be the cause of our crash.

Canada kept underwriting standards high, actually believed in Gov't oversight and didn't have Dubya/GOP pushing their failed 'home ownership society' on US as they cheered on the Banksters DUMMY!


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



Dubya -2004 Republican Convention:

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There you go again! Lehman (who bilked ME out of $130K) isn't the issue here. It's Chase, BofA, and Wells Fargo (to a lesser extent) who got into the derivatives game after GS was repealed. They had no idea they'd end up like they did.....pawning off crap mortgages all over the world. To this day, you better do one HELL of a title search before you buy a distressed property because nobody knows who really owns a lot of them....you can be in for a BIG SURPRISE down the road when you get a letter stating the property you bought didn't belong to the party who sold it to you.

For the Economically challenged, like myself, would it have been possible for Chase, BofA, and Wells to engage in the derivatives game to the extent they did if GS had not been repealed?

Nope, not in the packaging of low and high-risk mortgages that the buyers never really looked through. What needs to be understood is these derivatives were actually DUMPS of the CRA crap paper the bankers had. They had to write the loans or be accused of "redlining" against minorities. Which is why it was Maxine Waters screaming "RACISM" who kept the Bush inspectors at bay while her husband was on the board of either Freddie or Fanny, don't remember which.

Dubya had his hands full with Iraq while GREENSPAN continued assuring everybody who'd listen to his gibberish that the "market" would weed out the grifters. Uh huh, sure thing... I lost my investment with Lehman and Bear Stears....I knew going in the returns they promised were too good to be true but I went along.... I cut my teeth in card games with Detroit Italians who didn't take IOUs and between gunfights in the RVN with cats who were not promised a tomorrow....you paid up at the table or got your ass in a blender. So I knew I was gambling and was more pissed at myself than anybody but my broker....who I hunted for 3 years...he'd disappeared or I would have disappeared him.

What I lost to the commercial banks shenanigans was MY BUSINESS. Couldn't find enough customers to keep it going thanks to them shutting down. They'd only lend to outfits who could have gotten by without it. Not to the small business guy or homeowner with perfect credit who needed a second mortgage to get through the crash. They simply abandoned us who made them GIANTS...and on top of that, Chase STOLE a $5,500 checking account from me...cleaned it out and then told the County Attorney's Office and then the FBI that the information on my account was "proprietary" and none of their business. So I burned them for $4,900 on a Visa card they'd issued me. The way I see it, they're still ahead of me by $600 and my former 770 credit score.

Nope, not in the packaging of low and high-risk mortgages that the buyers never really looked through. What needs to be understood is these derivatives were actually DUMPS of the CRA crap paper the bankers had.

Those are bonds, not derivatives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THE ONLY provision you say???????That was exactly the purpose. To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena.

Jesus you are dense.

To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena

You know where banks lost money?

In staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending.

Todd, you think that making NINA (No Income No Asset) loans represents "staid, old fashioned, safe, secure mortgage lending?"

How about combo (first and seconds combined) loans with an LTV of 110%? How about plain ole 100% finance with a 600 credit score? Em good loans there eh?

You don't know safe secure mortgage lending. But junk loans never fit that description and junk loans were the reason for the collapse.

BTW. Most banks didn't lose money on mortgage lending. Most if not all small local banks or even larger regional banks had better management and more lending sense than to get involved in the casino that mortgage lending became for the big boys. They actually continued to have borrowers making their payments. Because they had made good, sound, safe mortgage lending decisions. Called prudent underwriting in the trade.

Todd, you think that making NINA (No Income No Asset) loans represents "staid, old fashioned, safe, secure mortgage lending?"

You think NINA loans are the only ones that lost money?

Most banks didn't lose money on mortgage lending.

Baloney.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

THE ONLY provision you say???????That was exactly the purpose. To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena.

Jesus you are dense.

To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena

You know where banks lost money?

In staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending.

Well, except they dropped underwriting standards because they could bundle and off load the risk, mainly to insurance comp's and pension funds, instead of holding the loans as they traditionally did

Many banks, even the big ones, still held the loans.
Still lost money on them.

 

[Andylusion]

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

You don't understand what glass-steagall did, do you? Since it appears that you are blind and/or have some kind of cognitive impairment I am going to use a large fonts.

Shattering the Glass-Steagall myth

Facts such as that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch — three institutions at the heart of the crisis — were pure investment banks that had never crossed the old line into commercial banking. The same goes for Goldman Sachs, another favorite villain of the left.

The infamous AIG? An insurance firm. New Century Financial? A real estate investment trust. No Glass-Steagall there.

Two of the biggest banks that went under, Wachovia and Washington Mutual, got into trouble the old-fashioned way – largely by making risky loans to homeowners. Bank of America nearly met the same fate, not because it had bought an investment bank but because it had bought Countrywide Financial, a vanilla-variety mortgage lender."

.

Actually had Wachovia not purchased Golden West Financial, the bank would still be in existence today.
Bank of America and Wachovia, the two banking giants based in Charlotte, NC were always "one upping" each other. When one went ahead with plans to purchase a bank, the other was soon to do that same. In 2006 or so, Bank of America purchased Countrywide Mortgage. Wachovia , in my opinion stupidly, followed suit with it's buy out of Golden West Financial. I told my wife who was then a Wachovia employee now with Wells Fargo, that this was a very bad idea and it would come back to bite them.
I was right. Ken Thompson then CEO was canned shortly after the financial meltdown began.

Yes, and no. Yes, Wachovia was one of the very very few banks that was in fact a Financial Services company. As such, they could do both Banking, and Investing.

However, I have to disagree with you on the merger with One West, being the cause of their downfall.

First, even if they had never merged, One West had over a hundred billion dollars in assets. They would have crashed, even if they did not merge.

So Glass Steagall still would not have prevented a single bank failure at all.

Second, Wachovia was already neck deep in sub-prime loans before the merger. Wachovia had over $500 Billion in liabilities, before the merger with many in Sub-prime loans. For example Wachovia bought out AmNet Mortgage Inc, which had been making sub-prime loans, and had $15 Billion in assets in 2005. Wachovia also merged with First Union, which was one of the first sub-prime lenders.

So, there is little doubt in my mind that even without that particular merger, Wachovia was doomed.

I don't think based on the evidence, that Glass Steagall would have prevented either bank from failing.

 

[Dad2three]

For the Economically challenged, like myself, would it have been possible for Chase, BofA, and Wells to engage in the derivatives game to the extent they did if GS had not been repealed?

Nope, not in the packaging of low and high-risk mortgages that the buyers never really looked through. What needs to be understood is these derivatives were actually DUMPS of the CRA crap paper the bankers had. They had to write the loans or be accused of "redlining" against minorities. Which is why it was Maxine Waters screaming "RACISM" who kept the Bush inspectors at bay while her husband was on the board of either Freddie or Fanny, don't remember which.

Dubya had his hands full with Iraq while GREENSPAN continued assuring everybody who'd listen to his gibberish that the "market" would weed out the grifters. Uh huh, sure thing... I lost my investment with Lehman and Bear Stears....I knew going in the returns they promised were too good to be true but I went along.... I cut my teeth in card games with Detroit Italians who didn't take IOUs and between gunfights in the RVN with cats who were not promised a tomorrow....you paid up at the table or got your ass in a blender. So I knew I was gambling and was more pissed at myself than anybody but my broker....who I hunted for 3 years...he'd disappeared or I would have disappeared him.

What I lost to the commercial banks shenanigans was MY BUSINESS. Couldn't find enough customers to keep it going thanks to them shutting down. They'd only lend to outfits who could have gotten by without it. Not to the small business guy or homeowner with perfect credit who needed a second mortgage to get through the crash. They simply abandoned us who made them GIANTS...and on top of that, Chase STOLE a $5,500 checking account from me...cleaned it out and then told the County Attorney's Office and then the FBI that the information on my account was "proprietary" and none of their business. So I burned them for $4,900 on a Visa card they'd issued me. The way I see it, they're still ahead of me by $600 and my former 770 credit score.

Nope, not in the packaging of low and high-risk mortgages that the buyers never really looked through. What needs to be understood is these derivatives were actually DUMPS of the CRA crap paper the bankers had.

Those are bonds, not derivatives.

Yeah, CRA loans lol

 

[Andylusion]

Weird, so politicians taking 2 minutes a piece on opening statements (about 15 per committee) and criticizing them means Paul's nonsense has credibility? lol


ONE MORE TIME, HOW THE FUCK DOES CRA CREATE A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Or one in the auto industry or commercial real estate? Grow a fkkng brain and get honest!!!

It doesn't. How is that relevant?

Just because two different countries, have an economic crash, mean it's impossible for the specific policies that caused our crash, can't be CRA. There is no reason to assume that every economic crash in the universe, must have a common cause, because they had a common time frame.

When you have unstable fiscal policy in multiple countries that have interdependent economies, when one economy takes a dive, it affects the others. If other countries have bad policies too, it can cause them to crash.

Canada did not have CRA, or Glass Steagall, and did not crash.

It's a leap of logic to assume that because another country did have a crash, and didn't have CRA, means it can't possibly be the cause of our crash.

Canada kept underwriting standards high, actually believed in Gov't oversight and didn't have Dubya/GOP pushing their failed 'home ownership society' on US as they cheered on the Banksters DUMMY!


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



Dubya -2004 Republican Convention:

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

I'm sorry.... I should have know better than to treat you like an adult. You are just too childish for me to bother with. Being arrogant and partisan, as substitution for mature debate, is just not something I want to bother with.

You are hereby ignored forever. I can't tell if you are just a jerk on the forums, or if you really are this childish, but either way, I just am not going to put up with you. I'll debate the other more mature posters, who don't come on here like they just hit puberty.

 

[Dad2three]

To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena

You know where banks lost money?

In staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending.

Well, except they dropped underwriting standards because they could bundle and off load the risk, mainly to insurance comp's and pension funds, instead of holding the loans as they traditionally did

Many banks, even the big ones, still held the loans.
Still lost money on them.

You mean BECAUSE of the Bankster bubble Dubya was in on?

CRA? lol

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

It doesn't. How is that relevant?

Just because two different countries, have an economic crash, mean it's impossible for the specific policies that caused our crash, can't be CRA. There is no reason to assume that every economic crash in the universe, must have a common cause, because they had a common time frame.

When you have unstable fiscal policy in multiple countries that have interdependent economies, when one economy takes a dive, it affects the others. If other countries have bad policies too, it can cause them to crash.

Canada did not have CRA, or Glass Steagall, and did not crash.

It's a leap of logic to assume that because another country did have a crash, and didn't have CRA, means it can't possibly be the cause of our crash.

Canada kept underwriting standards high, actually believed in Gov't oversight and didn't have Dubya/GOP pushing their failed 'home ownership society' on US as they cheered on the Banksters DUMMY!


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



Dubya -2004 Republican Convention:

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

I'm sorry.... I should have know better than to treat you like an adult. You are just too childish for me to bother with. Being arrogant and partisan, as substitution for mature debate, is just not something I want to bother with.

You are hereby ignored forever. I can't tell if you are just a jerk on the forums, or if you really are this childish, but either way, I just am not going to put up with you. I'll debate the other more mature posters, who don't come on here like they just hit puberty.

Got it, you come here to push right wing myths, distortions and LIES, how dare I actually post REALITY based info with data, graphs and info to back it up!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=47022]Androw[/MENTION]

Look pal. this is not a Repugnant vs Dumbocrats issue. They are both incompetent fools.

And because Fannie and Freddy were created by the fascist state then - you guessed it - they were exempt from futher regulation.

.

Right Wing Versions of Political Events Challenged

First correction: Barney Frank/Housing Bubble/Frannie & Freddie

First the video:

[youtube]6coIcgdgF5U[/youtube]

Rightwingers will usually say something like "Barney Frank is on record as saying there was no bubble, and he planned to continue to push for easier home ownership."

True. But: What is this video about? I know: Representative Frank is a co-sponsor of a GOP sponsored resolution in the year 2005. Why is 2005 so important?
Look at who is Speaker of the US House and what changed: In November 2004, US SPEAKER, Dennis Hastert instituted his "majority of the majority" policy, allowing the House to vote only on bills supported by the majority of its Republican members.

H.Res.312 - Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.109th Congress (2005-2006)

To view go to: https://beta.congress.gov/
Drop Down MENU: All Sources
Type In SEARCH BOX: H.Res. 312​

H.Res.312 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)
Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.
Sponsor: Rep. Miller, Gary G. [R-CA-42] (Introduced 06/09/2005)
Committees: House - Financial Services
Latest Action: 06/27/2005 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

---

Who was saying there was a housing bubble? The GOP?

Right, so because he wasn't emperor of the universe, he's completely excused from saying there was absolutely no bubble, and there would be no crash, and therefore he would continue to push for more home ownership.

Got, you are partisan hack filling the forum with excuses like all the other partisan hacks.

Why should we care what you have to say on this issue anymore? What reason should we think you have any credibility?

Pushing for more home ownership is tantamount to causing the housing bubble?

Good gawd, you're confused

--------------------------------------

and wtf is this "we" you keep rambling on about? Are you a Queen or a Princess?

 

[Andylusion]

[MENTION=47022]Androw[/MENTION]

Right Wing Versions of Political Events Challenged

First correction: Barney Frank/Housing Bubble/Frannie & Freddie

First the video:

[youtube]6coIcgdgF5U[/youtube]

Rightwingers will usually say something like "Barney Frank is on record as saying there was no bubble, and he planned to continue to push for easier home ownership."

True. But: What is this video about? I know: Representative Frank is a co-sponsor of a GOP sponsored resolution in the year 2005. Why is 2005 so important?
Look at who is Speaker of the US House and what changed: In November 2004, US SPEAKER, Dennis Hastert instituted his "majority of the majority" policy, allowing the House to vote only on bills supported by the majority of its Republican members.

H.Res.312 - Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.109th Congress (2005-2006)

To view go to: https://beta.congress.gov/
Drop Down MENU: All Sources
Type In SEARCH BOX: H.Res. 312​

H.Res.312 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)
Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.
Sponsor: Rep. Miller, Gary G. [R-CA-42] (Introduced 06/09/2005)
Committees: House - Financial Services
Latest Action: 06/27/2005 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

---

Who was saying there was a housing bubble? The GOP?

Right, so because he wasn't emperor of the universe, he's completely excused from saying there was absolutely no bubble, and there would be no crash, and therefore he would continue to push for more home ownership.

Got, you are partisan hack filling the forum with excuses like all the other partisan hacks.

Why should we care what you have to say on this issue anymore? What reason should we think you have any credibility?

Pushing for more home ownership is tantamount to causing the housing bubble?

Good gawd, you're confused

Yeah, and you are a jerk. You come across as a jerk in every post.

But to answer your question.... duh... yeah.

Why can't you figure this out?

Banks do not need to be told "go make loans to everyone that wants one, and can afford it".

Banks will do that without the slightest external motivation.

You don't need to motivate banks to make loans, anymore than you need to motivate a dog to eat, or need to motivate a leftard Dante, to be an arrogant jerk on the forums.

It comes naturally. No one had to tell Dante to be an a$$hole, he just naturally is. That's why every post he's a jerk. Just like you don't tell a dog to eat, he just naturally eats until there's no food left.

Nor do you have to motivate a bank to make loans. They do that naturally.

So when the government says they are going to "push for more home ownership" what does that mean? They can't push for more credit worthy borrowers to get loans, because banks already give credit worthy borrowers loans without being told.

The only possible area that the government can 'push banks to make more loans', when they already give out all the loans they can to those who are safe.... is to those not credit worthy.

Which is exactly what happened. And when you suddenly increase the base of home buyers, by lowering the standards to include those who are not prime rate borrowers.....

Economics 101 jerk boy..... Demand goes... UP... supply stays the same.... what does the price do? It goes up. Did you keep up with that jerk boy?

So to answer your ignorance based question.... yes, pushing more home ownership directly caused the price bubble.

FYI, if you want to be treated like an adult, the first prerequisite, it to act like one, and treat others like you are one. If you are ok being treated as a spoiled brat child, keep on going, and I'll treat you the way you act.

 

[georgephillip]

There you go again! Lehman (who bilked ME out of $130K) isn't the issue here. It's Chase, BofA, and Wells Fargo (to a lesser extent) who got into the derivatives game after GS was repealed. They had no idea they'd end up like they did.....pawning off crap mortgages all over the world. To this day, you better do one HELL of a title search before you buy a distressed property because nobody knows who really owns a lot of them....you can be in for a BIG SURPRISE down the road when you get a letter stating the property you bought didn't belong to the party who sold it to you.

For the Economically challenged, like myself, would it have been possible for Chase, BofA, and Wells to engage in the derivatives game to the extent they did if GS had not been repealed?

Nope, not in the packaging of low and high-risk mortgages that the buyers never really looked through. What needs to be understood is these derivatives were actually DUMPS of the CRA crap paper the bankers had. They had to write the loans or be accused of "redlining" against minorities. Which is why it was Maxine Waters screaming "RACISM" who kept the Bush inspectors at bay while her husband was on the board of either Freddie or Fanny, don't remember which.

Dubya had his hands full with Iraq while GREENSPAN continued assuring everybody who'd listen to his gibberish that the "market" would weed out the grifters. Uh huh, sure thing... I lost my investment with Lehman and Bear Stears....I knew going in the returns they promised were too good to be true but I went along.... I cut my teeth in card games with Detroit Italians who didn't take IOUs and between gunfights in the RVN with cats who were not promised a tomorrow....you paid up at the table or got your ass in a blender. So I knew I was gambling and was more pissed at myself than anybody but my broker....who I hunted for 3 years...he'd disappeared or I would have disappeared him.

What I lost to the commercial banks shenanigans was MY BUSINESS. Couldn't find enough customers to keep it going thanks to them shutting down. They'd only lend to outfits who could have gotten by without it. Not to the small business guy or homeowner with perfect credit who needed a second mortgage to get through the crash. They simply abandoned us who made them GIANTS...and on top of that, Chase STOLE a $5,500 checking account from me...cleaned it out and then told the County Attorney's Office and then the FBI that the information on my account was "proprietary" and none of their business. So I burned them for $4,900 on a Visa card they'd issued me. The way I see it, they're still ahead of me by $600 and my former 770 credit score.

We may be from the same generation, and while I never had the card games with Italians or gunfights in Vietnam, I did have a similar encounter with Chase. In April of 2008 I became homeless at the age of 60 for the last time in this life (I hope) That time I swallowed my pride and went to the state for food stamps and general relief. The total monthly stipend was a little less than $400, but it made living under the Beverly Bridge in downtown LA for the next 14 months much easier. After the crash hit, the bank I was getting my benefits through collapsed and Chase took over. Just about the time I turned 62 and began collecting my SSA, Chase cleaned out the last few dollars I had in my General Relief account. Something about too many visits to the ATM, I don't remember exactly but I will never forget their help.

 

[Andylusion]

For the Economically challenged, like myself, would it have been possible for Chase, BofA, and Wells to engage in the derivatives game to the extent they did if GS had not been repealed?

Nope, not in the packaging of low and high-risk mortgages that the buyers never really looked through. What needs to be understood is these derivatives were actually DUMPS of the CRA crap paper the bankers had. They had to write the loans or be accused of "redlining" against minorities. Which is why it was Maxine Waters screaming "RACISM" who kept the Bush inspectors at bay while her husband was on the board of either Freddie or Fanny, don't remember which.

Dubya had his hands full with Iraq while GREENSPAN continued assuring everybody who'd listen to his gibberish that the "market" would weed out the grifters. Uh huh, sure thing... I lost my investment with Lehman and Bear Stears....I knew going in the returns they promised were too good to be true but I went along.... I cut my teeth in card games with Detroit Italians who didn't take IOUs and between gunfights in the RVN with cats who were not promised a tomorrow....you paid up at the table or got your ass in a blender. So I knew I was gambling and was more pissed at myself than anybody but my broker....who I hunted for 3 years...he'd disappeared or I would have disappeared him.

What I lost to the commercial banks shenanigans was MY BUSINESS. Couldn't find enough customers to keep it going thanks to them shutting down. They'd only lend to outfits who could have gotten by without it. Not to the small business guy or homeowner with perfect credit who needed a second mortgage to get through the crash. They simply abandoned us who made them GIANTS...and on top of that, Chase STOLE a $5,500 checking account from me...cleaned it out and then told the County Attorney's Office and then the FBI that the information on my account was "proprietary" and none of their business. So I burned them for $4,900 on a Visa card they'd issued me. The way I see it, they're still ahead of me by $600 and my former 770 credit score.

We may be from the same generation, and while I never had the card games with Italians or gunfights in Vietnam, I did have a similar encounter with Chase. In April of 2008 I became homeless at the age of 60 for the last time in this life (I hope) That time I swallowed my pride and went to the state for food stamps and general relief. The total monthly stipend was a little less than $400, but it made living under the Beverly Bridge in downtown LA for the next 14 months much easier. After the crash hit, the bank I was getting my benefits through collapsed and Chase took over. Just about the time I turned 62 and began collecting my SSA, Chase cleaned out the last few dollars I had in my General Relief account. Something about too many visits to the ATM, I don't remember exactly but I will never forget their help.

I hate Chase. Totally hate them.

But I don't let my personal feelings, and my unrelated experience with that garbage company, change my ability to look at the facts, and the reality of the situation.

 

[GWV5903]

They actually continued to have borrowers making their payments. Because they had made good, sound, safe mortgage lending decisions. Called prudent underwriting in the trade.

WUT?

That has been against the law since the Carter administration.

"banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans."

.





.

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown


It's time to stop the scapegoating: According to a study by the Federal Reserve, 94% of high-cost loans originated during the housing boom had nothing to do with Community Reinvestment Act goals. Lending to poor didn't spur crisis -Fed's Kroszner -


The Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."**

CRA was effective long before the subprime market existed



Most subprime lenders weren’t covered under CRA



Wall Street created the demand for riskier loans


Regulatory oversight and accountability was missing


The majority of subprime loans went to white borrowers

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown




Community Reinvestment Act, which was enacted more than 30 years ago, suddenly caused an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002 to 2007. During the 1990s, enforcement under the reinvestment act was strong, prime lending to low-income communities increased and it was done safely. In 2000, a Federal Reserve report found that lending under the act was generally profitable and not overly risky.

By contrast, in the 2002 to 2007 period, the act’s enforcement was weak and its advocates had little influence with Congress. In 2003, President Bush’s chief thrift regulator — holding a chainsaw in his hands as a prop — boasted of his plans to cut banking regulations, including the scope of the reinvestment act and his enforcement staff, which he carried out over the next two years.



Instead, the bad subprime loans were predominantly made by financial firms not covered by the act


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/opinion/18barr.html


There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.



Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.

But that dog that didn't bark.



First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.



Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.

Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News



CRA does not either encourage or condone bad lending. Bank regulators were decrying bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium (see Interagency Guidance on Subprime Lending), and warning the CRA-covered institutions we regulated that badly underwritten subprime products that ignored consumer protections were not acceptable. Lenders not subject to CRA did not receive similar warnings.And we also explained to those we regulated how to serve lower income communities and borrowers in a manner that was good for the borrower, good for the bank, and earned CRA credit.


It's Still Not CRA | New America Blogs

The CRA is directly connected to the Mortgage Meltdown...

The problem didn't happen overnight, it took years to foster...

Clinton revised Carter's CRA in '96 and subsequently gave birth to FHA DPA, Zero Down, Zero risk mortgages...

Oh and BTW housing was taking off in '97...

This spawned the beginning of the Housing Bubble...

Sub Prime loans were born in '93, but they were not zero down loans with 560 FICO's, no they were 75% to 80% LTV's with rates 4% above par...

Glass-Steagall let the commercial banks into the picture and that's were Sub Prime Zero Down 560 FICO's started...

It was and still is very clear that none of the Zero Risk loans would have appeared if it wasn't for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), you tell yourself what ever makes you happy. You will have a very tough time finding anyone credible within the industry telling you anything different...

But then you probably believe Krugman was correct...

RealClearMarkets - How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=47022]Androw[/MENTION]

Right, so because he wasn't emperor of the universe, he's completely excused from saying there was absolutely no bubble, and there would be no crash, and therefore he would continue to push for more home ownership.

Got, you are partisan hack filling the forum with excuses like all the other partisan hacks.

Why should we care what you have to say on this issue anymore? What reason should we think you have any credibility?

Pushing for more home ownership is tantamount to causing the housing bubble?

Good gawd, you're confused

Yeah, and you are a jerk. You come across as a jerk in every post.

But to answer your question.... duh... yeah.

Why can't you figure this out?

Banks do not need to be told "go make loans to everyone that wants one, and can afford it".

Banks will do that without the slightest external motivation.

You don't need to motivate banks to make loans, anymore than you need to motivate a dog to eat, or need to motivate a leftard Dante, to be an arrogant jerk on the forums.

It comes naturally. No one had to tell Dante to be an a$$hole, he just naturally is. That's why every post he's a jerk. Just like you don't tell a dog to eat, he just naturally eats until there's no food left.

Nor do you have to motivate a bank to make loans. They do that naturally.

So when the government says they are going to "push for more home ownership" what does that mean? They can't push for more credit worthy borrowers to get loans, because banks already give credit worthy borrowers loans without being told.

The only possible area that the government can 'push banks to make more loans', when they already give out all the loans they can to those who are safe.... is to those not credit worthy.

Which is exactly what happened. And when you suddenly increase the base of home buyers, by lowering the standards to include those who are not prime rate borrowers.....

Economics 101 jerk boy..... Demand goes... UP... supply stays the same.... what does the price do? It goes up. Did you keep up with that jerk boy?

So to answer your ignorance based question.... yes, pushing more home ownership directly caused the price bubble.

FYI, if you want to be treated like an adult, the first prerequisite, it to act like one, and treat others like you are one. If you are ok being treated as a spoiled brat child, keep on going, and I'll treat you the way you act.

Oh, big, bad Dante is a jerk! cry me a river

Your simplistic faith in economic models is hilarious. Your statement that banks will do certain things (make loans to everyone that wants one, and can afford it) is proven untrue by the facts on the ground.

"We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home." - President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

Sorry, but most all the conservatives were pushing this and we ended up split over how to do regulation. Republican Mike Oxley and stuck up for Frank being against what you protray him as being for and causing and... In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."

 

[Dad2three]

[MENTION=47022]Androw[/MENTION]

Right, so because he wasn't emperor of the universe, he's completely excused from saying there was absolutely no bubble, and there would be no crash, and therefore he would continue to push for more home ownership.

Got, you are partisan hack filling the forum with excuses like all the other partisan hacks.

Why should we care what you have to say on this issue anymore? What reason should we think you have any credibility?

Pushing for more home ownership is tantamount to causing the housing bubble?

Good gawd, you're confused

Yeah, and you are a jerk. You come across as a jerk in every post.

But to answer your question.... duh... yeah.

Why can't you figure this out?

Banks do not need to be told "go make loans to everyone that wants one, and can afford it".

Banks will do that without the slightest external motivation.

You don't need to motivate banks to make loans, anymore than you need to motivate a dog to eat, or need to motivate a leftard Dante, to be an arrogant jerk on the forums.

It comes naturally. No one had to tell Dante to be an a$$hole, he just naturally is. That's why every post he's a jerk. Just like you don't tell a dog to eat, he just naturally eats until there's no food left.

Nor do you have to motivate a bank to make loans. They do that naturally.

So when the government says they are going to "push for more home ownership" what does that mean? They can't push for more credit worthy borrowers to get loans, because banks already give credit worthy borrowers loans without being told.

The only possible area that the government can 'push banks to make more loans', when they already give out all the loans they can to those who are safe.... is to those not credit worthy.

Which is exactly what happened. And when you suddenly increase the base of home buyers, by lowering the standards to include those who are not prime rate borrowers.....

Economics 101 jerk boy..... Demand goes... UP... supply stays the same.... what does the price do? It goes up. Did you keep up with that jerk boy?

So to answer your ignorance based question.... yes, pushing more home ownership directly caused the price bubble.

FYI, if you want to be treated like an adult, the first prerequisite, it to act like one, and treat others like you are one. If you are ok being treated as a spoiled brat child, keep on going, and I'll treat you the way you act.

Weird, so you have ANOTHER poster whose behavior YOU object too BECAUSE he gives you factual information based on logic and reasoning? lol



It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.


The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral


A Big Lie is so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. There are many examples: Claims that Earth is not warming, or that evolution is not the best thesis we have for how humans developed. Those opposed to stimulus spending have gone so far as to claim that the infrastructure of the United States is just fine, Grade A (not D, as the we discussed last month), and needs little repair.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post



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


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

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture