Which State Would You Like to Kick Out of the US?

[mamooth]

Very late? You mean starting in 1992?

Did you notice how you gave zero evidence that all that had anything to do with the housing bubble?

Don't worry. Everyone else did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Very late? You mean starting in 1992?

Did you notice how you gave zero evidence that all that had anything to do with the housing bubble?

Don't worry. Everyone else did.

Did you notice how you gave zero evidence that all that had anything to do with the housing bubble?

Sub prime mortgages had to make up 30% of all their mortgage purchases. Rising to 50% in 2000.
Nothing to do with the bubble? That's funny!!
It's good to see that you're consistent with your ignorance.

 

[mamooth]

So, what was the default rate on those mortgages, compared to private banks?

What's that? You don't want to give us any figures? You just want everyone to take your claims on faith.

Here's an article with some figures, debunking your fantasy.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, what was the default rate on those mortgages, compared to private banks?

What's that? You don't want to give us any figures? You just want everyone to take your claims on faith.

Here's an article with some figures, debunking your fantasy.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

So, what was the default rate on those mortgages, compared to private banks?

The default rate on the subprime loans was much higher than on the conforming loans.

What's that? You don't want to give us any figures?

30% of Fannie and Freddie purchases were subprime. Rising to 50% in 2000 and 55% in 2007.
Are those figures too tough for you to understand?

 

[mamooth]

So, still no figures. And no response to the data that private banks were making most of the loans, and failing at a much bigger rate.

It appears you're going to bitterly cling to your religious belief here no matter what the facts say.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, what was the default rate on those mortgages, compared to private banks?

What's that? You don't want to give us any figures? You just want everyone to take your claims on faith.

Here's an article with some figures, debunking your fantasy.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Thanks for the link.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Read more here: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

That's awful!!!!
After the "private lending institutions" made the loans, how many were bought by Fannie and Freddie?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, still no figures. And no response to the data that private banks were making most of the loans, and failing at a much bigger rate.

It appears you're going to bitterly cling to your religious belief here no matter what the facts say.

So, still no figures. And no response to the data that private banks were making most of the loans

You understand that Fannie and Freddie don't make loans, right? LOL!

 

[mamooth]

That's in the article. Good to see you read it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's in the article. Good to see you read it.

Yes, I enjoy it when you post articles that refute your own claims.

 

[Synthaholic]

I knew you were incapable of manning up. You made an incorrect remark, I proved you wrong. Now all you have are excuses. I'm sure Obama is to blame or something.

You made an incorrect remark, I proved you wrong.

What was my incorrect remark?

This.

It's weird, after losing billions, companies don't pay taxes. Durr.

It's true, when companies lose money, they don't pay taxes.

So what was my incorrect remark?

Because you didn't show that GE lost billions in 2008 and 2009.

Because you didn't show that GE lost billions in 2008 and 2009.

It was in all the papers. Let me help you.

The claim about GE paying no taxes stems from a March 24, 2011, story in the New York Times headlined “GE’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.” It was part of a 2012 Pulitzer Prize-winning series titled “But Nobody Pays That” by David Kocieniewski.

According to the New York Times story, GE reported U.S. profits of $5.1 billion in 2010 (and $14.2 billion worldwide). “Its American tax bill?” asked the Times. “None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.” The company accomplished this, the story said, due to “an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”

On April 4, 2011, Pro Publica and Fortune co-published their own analysis of GE’s taxes and concluded that the New York Times had left the mistaken impression that GE got a $3.2 billion tax refund, when, in fact, it did not. The company also paid U.S. income taxes in 2010, the authors wrote.

Wait, there's more!!

Andrew Williams, a spokesman for GE, told us via email that “there is a lot of misinformation out there about what we pay in taxes, but at the most basic level: we pay taxes and we did not get a refund.”

According to Williams, GE paid $1 billion in federal, state and local taxes in the U.S. for 2010. He declined to say how much of that was for federal income taxes, except to say that some of it was.

Williams also pointed to a company press release, from April 17, on taxes paid by GE. According to that release, GE paid an effective global tax rate of 7 percent in 2010, counting money paid “to the IRS and foreign counterparts” in other nations. That rate was particularly low, Williams said, because the company lost $32 billion in its financial business during the global financial crisis.

Warren: GE Pays No Taxes

Let me know if there's anything else I can help you understand. Always glad to help.

Spokesmen and press releases. How nice.

 

[Synthaholic]

F&F chased the bubble. Nobody disputes that. They got left holding the bag, like lots of people and institutions.

However, they got in the game very late. They had no part in causing the bubble.

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

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration.

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

Very late? You mean starting in 1992?

Also need to point out that was not written by a reporter at The Atlantic. It was written by a partisan Republican who "specializes in financial deregulation", the wet dream of every wingnut, and part of the reason we got into this mess.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You made an incorrect remark, I proved you wrong.

What was my incorrect remark?

This.

It's weird, after losing billions, companies don't pay taxes. Durr.

It's true, when companies lose money, they don't pay taxes.

So what was my incorrect remark?

Because you didn't show that GE lost billions in 2008 and 2009.

Because you didn't show that GE lost billions in 2008 and 2009.

It was in all the papers. Let me help you.

The claim about GE paying no taxes stems from a March 24, 2011, story in the New York Times headlined “GE’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.” It was part of a 2012 Pulitzer Prize-winning series titled “But Nobody Pays That” by David Kocieniewski.

According to the New York Times story, GE reported U.S. profits of $5.1 billion in 2010 (and $14.2 billion worldwide). “Its American tax bill?” asked the Times. “None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.” The company accomplished this, the story said, due to “an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”

On April 4, 2011, Pro Publica and Fortune co-published their own analysis of GE’s taxes and concluded that the New York Times had left the mistaken impression that GE got a $3.2 billion tax refund, when, in fact, it did not. The company also paid U.S. income taxes in 2010, the authors wrote.

Wait, there's more!!

Andrew Williams, a spokesman for GE, told us via email that “there is a lot of misinformation out there about what we pay in taxes, but at the most basic level: we pay taxes and we did not get a refund.”

According to Williams, GE paid $1 billion in federal, state and local taxes in the U.S. for 2010. He declined to say how much of that was for federal income taxes, except to say that some of it was.

Williams also pointed to a company press release, from April 17, on taxes paid by GE. According to that release, GE paid an effective global tax rate of 7 percent in 2010, counting money paid “to the IRS and foreign counterparts” in other nations. That rate was particularly low, Williams said, because the company lost $32 billion in its financial business during the global financial crisis.

Warren: GE Pays No Taxes

Let me know if there's anything else I can help you understand. Always glad to help.

Spokesmen and press releases. How nice.

Versus American-Indian Senators.

Maybe Warren has a press release that says GE didn't lose money during the financial crisis?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

F&F chased the bubble. Nobody disputes that. They got left holding the bag, like lots of people and institutions.

However, they got in the game very late. They had no part in causing the bubble.

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

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration.

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

Very late? You mean starting in 1992?

Also need to point out that was not written by a reporter at The Atlantic. It was written by a partisan Republican who "specializes in financial deregulation", the wet dream of every wingnut, and part of the reason we got into this mess.

Also need to point out that was not written by a reporter at The Atlantic. It was written by a partisan Republican who "specializes in financial deregulation",

Considering the regulation he discussed in the article, he has a point about deregulation.

Feel free to post an article written by someone not "a partisan Republican" who can dispute the mandated percentages of subprime mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought.

and part of the reason we got into this mess.

I see a regulation that was part of the reason, what deregulation was part of the reason? Be specific.