You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[jc456]

You're so clueless. If the mortgages were all AAA with 20% down, they wouldn't have failed, there would have been no crisis. But they were shitty loans.

From the link I posted. This is truly hilarious. no income, no job, no assets, got people loans. Nothing to see could go wrong there? hhahahahahahahaahahahahahaaha self inflicted chaos.

During the early-to-mid 2000s, the lending standards for some lenders became so relaxed; it sparked the creation of the NINJA loan: "no income, no job, no assets." Investment firms were eager to buy these loans and repackage them as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) and other structured credit products.

 

[Theowl32]

Bill Clinton stated this evening that since 1989, 51 million new jobs have been created and under the Democrats, of those 51, 49 million were created under Democratic presidents and only 2 million were created under Republican presidents.

Clinton said he had to check it 3 times but that it was confirmed.

Here is a link to one of the articles that confirms that information:

“Since 1989 and a new age of globalization began, 51 million jobs have been created in America. 49 million, 96%, have been created under Democratic presidents.”

This means that more Americans were working under Democratic rule than under Republican presidents. More people working means a better economy, better lives, and better life for all.

This is also something that is true and that has been confirmed 100%

View attachment 999299

 

[Luckyone]

One more Trumper using insults and debasing comments instead of addressing the issue.

Can't address it can you?

 

[jc456]

One more Trumper using insults and debasing comments instead of addressing the issue.

Can't address it can you?

View attachment 1003252

dude, you haven't presented one factual link for anything you've posted. Factual being the key word. Still waiting for you bubba!!! where'd you go, are you a drop and go poster with no factual thing to present, but use the board to spew disinformation as often as possible? That's where my thoughts are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, yes, Adjustable-Rate Mortgages (ARMs) can indeed be predatory, especially when they are marketed to borrowers who do not fully understand the risks involved. These loans often start with a "teaser" rate that is attractively low but then adjust to much higher rates, sometimes even doubling the monthly payments. Many borrowers were not properly informed of how quickly or how much their payments could increase. Financial institutions took advantage of these borrowers, knowing they were unlikely to be able to handle the sudden spike in payments, which led to widespread defaults. The predatory nature comes from the exploitation of borrowers' lack of understanding and the strategic placement of them into loans that would eventually become unaffordable.

Issuing securities is regulated, but the key issue here is not just about regulation in theory, it's about how effectively those regulations were enforced and what was actually allowed under the deregulated framework. During the lead-up to the crisis, the financial products created from these subprime loans, like Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS), were often given misleadingly high ratings by credit rating agencies. The lack of stringent oversight allowed these risky products to be sold as safe investments, spreading the toxic risk across the entire financial system. The regulations in place were either insufficient or not properly enforced, allowing the financial industry to manipulate these products with disastrous consequences.

Todd, it's not about whether Glass-Steagall would have prevented the creation of bad mortgages, it's about how it would have limited the scope of their impact. Glass-Steagall enforced a separation between commercial banking (where deposits and loans are handled) and investment banking (which involves riskier activities like securities trading). Without this separation, commercial banks were able to use depositor funds to engage in risky investments, including the securitization of subprime loans. This blending of banking activities under the same roof meant that when those bad mortgages were securitized and spread throughout the global economy, the risk was magnified exponentially. Glass-Steagall’s repeal didn't cause the loans to be made, but it allowed the fallout from those loans to wreak havoc on the financial system.

While it's true that Glass-Steagall wouldn't have stopped these entities from buying and securitizing mortgages, the broader point is that the repeal of Glass-Steagall facilitated a systemic failure. It allowed commercial banks, which handle depositor money and provide loans, to get deeply involved in investment banking activities like securitization. This mingling of activities amplified the risks and connected the commercial banking sector directly to the fallout from these high-risk investments. In other words, Glass-Steagall's repeal created an environment where the damage from risky practices could, and did spread far beyond isolated institutions, affecting the global economy.

Todd, you're missing the point here. The crisis wasn't just about the quality of the loans, although that was certainly a factor. The real issue was how these "shitty loans," as you put it, were packaged into supposedly low-risk securities and sold to investors around the world. These MBS were given AAA ratings by credit agencies, even though they were filled with toxic, high-risk subprime loans. This misrepresentation spread the risk globally, as institutions and investors believed they were purchasing safe assets. The systemic risk was not just in the bad loans themselves but in the way they were fraudulently marketed and sold as secure investments.

The issue isn't about where the losses occur but how they occur. If the risks had been contained within the institutions that created them, the fallout might have been severe but localized. By spreading the risk globally through securitization, the financial system ensured that when things went wrong, the impact would be felt everywhere, exacerbating the crisis. This global spread of risk made the situation far more difficult to manage and more damaging to the world economy, which is why it led to such a profound and prolonged economic downturn.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certainly played a role in the crisis by purchasing subprime mortgages, but they were far from the only culprits. Private institutions were equally, if not more, involved in the aggressive pursuit of subprime lending and securitization. According to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Fannie and Freddie were involved in about 20% of subprime purchases, but private firms were responsible for the vast majority of these toxic assets. The crisis was a systemic failure involving many players, and focusing solely on Fannie and Freddie is an attempt to oversimplify and misdirect blame.

While there were certainly policies that encouraged homeownership, the primary issue wasn't too much regulation, it was the wrong kind of regulation combined with a lack of enforcement. Deregulation, particularly the repeal of Glass-Steagall, allowed financial institutions to take risks that they never would have been able to take under a properly regulated system. The greed of the private sector was a driving force, fueled by a deregulated environment that prioritized short-term profits over long-term stability. This is the real story behind the 2008 financial crisis, and ignoring these factors is a dangerous oversimplification.

Financial institutions stood to benefit enormously from these adjustable-rate mortgages because they could initially offer low, enticing payments to draw in borrowers. Then, once the rates inevitably spiked, banks could either collect higher payments or, more likely, push homeowners into default,

Banks lost billions when homeowners defaulted. It was in all the papers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certainly played a role in the crisis by purchasing subprime mortgages,

How much subprime did they buy, dollarwise?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While there were certainly policies that encouraged homeownership, the primary issue wasn't too much regulation, it was the wrong kind of regulation combined with a lack of enforcement.

Yes, too much regulation forcing banks to lend to people with low credit scores.
Too much regulation forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy subprime mortgages.

That's a lot of government pressure to make a lot of bad loans.

Zero to do with Glass-Steagall.

You still can't point to a single commercial bank that failed because of investment banking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, you're missing the bigger picture here. The issue isn’t just about a specific commercial bank failing directly because of risky securities trading, it's about how the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to dive into investment banking, intertwining these activities and amplifying systemic risk. The fact that commercial banks held subprime mortgages and then turned them into toxic securities that spread across the global financial system is precisely the problem. When these risky practices blew up, it wasn’t just the banks holding subprime mortgages that suffered; the entire economy took a hit because these toxic assets were everywhere.

Your focus on individual bank failures due to subprime mortgages ignores how deregulation created an environment where commercial banks could engage in reckless behavior with depositor funds indirectly. By blending commercial banking with investment banking, they exposed themselves and the broader economy to massive risks. So, while you might not find a single bank that failed solely due to securities trading, the interconnectedness of these activities under deregulation was the real-time bomb that brought down the entire financial system.

it's about how the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to dive into investment banking,

Which ones did it? Which ones failed because of it?

The fact that commercial banks held subprime mortgages and then turned them into toxic securities that spread across the global financial system is precisely the problem.

Why is spreading it across the global financial system worse than keeping it in one place?
Show me.

So, while you might not find a single bank that failed solely due to securities trading, the interconnectedness of these activities under deregulation was the real-time bomb that brought down the entire financial system.

You can't show the "interconnectedness" made things worse.
You could make the argument that it made things better.
What were the biggest banks that failed?
Bear Stearns and Lehman, two standalone investment banks, failed because they held bad mortgages.
Washington Mutual and IndyMac failed because they held bad mortgages.

Your focus on individual bank failures due to subprime mortgages ignores how deregulation created an environment where commercial banks could engage in reckless behavior with depositor funds indirectly.

You just can't show any that did anything riskier than hold mortgages.

 

[Faun]

Rents are due to supply and demand, a thing called capitalism.

Illegals do not steal jobs, that's a myth.

The job market is not a zero sum game.

AS population increases, jobs increase.

Why? Humans buying stuff.

Humans, not Americans, Latinos, Mexicans, Illegals, just humans.

It's amusing how the right loves Capitalism except for when it comes to their purse.

 

[jc456]

It's amusing how the right loves Capitalism except for when it comes to their purse.

explain? That comment actually includes all things?

 

[TruthNotBS]

it's about how the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial banks to dive into investment banking,

Which ones did it? Which ones failed because of it?

The fact that commercial banks held subprime mortgages and then turned them into toxic securities that spread across the global financial system is precisely the problem.

Why is spreading it across the global financial system worse than keeping it in one place?
Show me.

So, while you might not find a single bank that failed solely due to securities trading, the interconnectedness of these activities under deregulation was the real-time bomb that brought down the entire financial system.

You can't show the "interconnectedness" made things worse.
You could make the argument that it made things better.
What were the biggest banks that failed?
Bear Stearns and Lehman, two standalone investment banks, failed because they held bad mortgages.
Washington Mutual and IndyMac failed because they held bad mortgages.

Your focus on individual bank failures due to subprime mortgages ignores how deregulation created an environment where commercial banks could engage in reckless behavior with depositor funds indirectly.

You just can't show any that did anything riskier than hold mortgages.

Todd, the reality is that the 2008 financial crisis was a direct result of a deregulated, profit-driven capitalist system that prioritized short-term gains over long-term stability. If we had a more socialist banking system, one that was focused on serving the public good rather than maximizing profits for a few, the crisis wouldn't have happened. In a socialist framework, banks would be publicly owned and operated with the primary goal of supporting the economic well-being of all citizens, not engaging in speculative activities that enrich the few at the expense of the many.

Under a socialist banking system, lending practices would be transparent, fair, and based on actual community needs rather than predatory schemes designed to trap people in debt. The reckless gambling with people's lives and the economy that we saw in 2008 wouldn't even be possible because the system wouldn't allow private financial institutions to create and trade in toxic assets just to make a quick buck. Instead of banks being motivated by profit, they would be accountable to the people, ensuring that financial stability and economic justice are the top priorities. That’s the fundamental difference—a socialist banking system is designed to prevent exactly the kind of catastrophic collapse that the capitalist model brought us in 2008.

 

[jc456]

It's amusing how the right loves Capitalism except for when it comes to their purse.

explain?

Todd, the reality is that the 2008 financial crisis was a direct result of a deregulated, profit-driven capitalist system that prioritized short-term gains over long-term stability. If we had a more socialist banking system, one that was focused on serving the public good rather than maximizing profits for a few, the crisis wouldn't have happened. In a socialist framework, banks would be publicly owned and operated with the primary goal of supporting the economic well-being of all citizens, not engaging in speculative activities that enrich the few at the expense of the many.

Under a socialist banking system, lending practices would be transparent, fair, and based on actual community needs rather than predatory schemes designed to trap people in debt. The reckless gambling with people's lives and the economy that we saw in 2008 wouldn't even be possible because the system wouldn't allow private financial institutions to create and trade in toxic assets just to make a quick buck. Instead of banks being motivated by profit, they would be accountable to the people, ensuring that financial stability and economic justice are the top priorities. That’s the fundamental difference—a socialist banking system is designed to prevent exactly the kind of catastrophic collapse that the capitalist model brought us in 2008.

blah, blah, blah, wash, rinse repeat. How about answering the questions Todd asked you? got any answers? we know you got the same paragraph saved to float out every post. Repeating doesn't answer questions.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Yes, too much regulation forcing banks to lend to people with low credit scores.
Too much regulation forcing Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy subprime mortgages.

That's a lot of government pressure to make a lot of bad loans.

Zero to do with Glass-Steagall.

You still can't point to a single commercial bank that failed because of investment banking.

Imagine arguing that it’s not the fossil fuel industry’s fault that our atmosphere is being polluted by more and more gas-burning vehicles because they’re just meeting the demand created by the regulations encouraging highway construction. But what you’re conveniently leaving out is how the industry’s lobbying efforts have gutted or blocked any meaningful regulations that would have invested in public transit or renewable energy infrastructure—solutions that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and take millions of gas-guzzling cars off the roads. Similarly, the banks didn’t just fall victim to a few bad regulations; they actively lobbied for the repeal of protective measures like Glass-Steagall, which once prevented them from engaging in the kind of reckless, profit-driven behavior that led to the 2008 crisis.

The financial crisis wasn’t the inevitable result of regulation—it was the result of a financial industry that manipulated the regulatory environment to maximize their profits while offloading risk onto everyone else. Just like the fossil fuel industry prioritizes short-term profits over long-term environmental sustainability, the financial industry prioritized risky, high-return investments over the stability of the global economy. And when the house of cards came tumbling down, it wasn’t the free market that stepped in to save the day—it was the government, using taxpayer money to bail out the very institutions that had caused the collapse.

 

[TruthNotBS]

explain?

blah, blah, blah, wash, rinse repeat. How about answering the questions Todd asked you? got any answers? we know you got the same paragraph saved to float out every post. Repeating doesn't answer questions.

Imagine you’re arguing that it’s not the fossil fuel industry’s fault that our roads are clogged with gas-guzzling cars because, after all, they’re just supplying what people want. You point to regulations that encourage highway construction and the production of more vehicles as if that’s the end of the story. But here’s the part you’re missing: the fossil fuel industry has been lobbying against any regulations that would promote public transportation, electric vehicles, or renewable energy. They’re not just passively responding to demand—they’re actively shaping it by pushing policies that keep us dependent on fossil fuels. They block any effort to build the infrastructure that would reduce our reliance on gas-burning cars, ensuring that the system stays rigged in their favor.

Now, apply that to the financial crisis. Todd wants to focus on the existence of regulations that pressured banks to make more loans, particularly to people with lower credit scores. But what he’s conveniently ignoring is how the financial industry lobbied to dismantle the regulations that actually protected consumers and the economy—like Glass-Steagall. Just like the fossil fuel industry blocks efforts to reduce our reliance on oil, the financial industry fought to remove the safeguards that would have kept them from engaging in reckless, profit-driven behavior. And when the whole thing blew up, it wasn’t the free market that stepped in to fix it—it was the government, using taxpayer money to bail out the very institutions that caused the collapse.

So, while you and Todd keep demanding answers to questions that miss the broader point, you’re ignoring the real issue: the financial crisis was a result of a system that was rigged by the powerful to benefit themselves, at the expense of everyone else. Just like the fossil fuel industry works to keep us hooked on gas, the financial industry made sure the rules were bent in their favor, creating a crisis that we all had to pay for. Dismissing these points with "blah, blah, blah" doesn’t make you right—it just shows you’re not willing to engage with the truth.