Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 1:06:53 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

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.



And since bush was the nutsucker president since 2001, and his policies, and with a nutsucker legislature, the mortgages less than 2 years old in the period of 2007 to 2009 (thats 6 years in the future from Clinton) were what went skyrocket belly up, tell me again how its not pure nutsucker fault? You know how long a year is here on earth?



< Message edited by mnottertail -- 5/10/2016 1:08:44 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 1:08:36 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

2003 they attempted to prevent fannie/freddie from accepting sub-prime loans; asked for hearings to change the CRA.
Held hearings on the threats and protests by democrat organizaitions which tried and succeeded in forcing banks to issue certain % of their loans as subprime.

So nothing really. Thanks for admitting that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/


Peter Wallison, nutsucker deregulator extraordinaire and wrote a sole opinion dissent on the findings of the FCIC. Couldn't even agree with the dissent.

Yeah, no. Again, for all the innumerate imbeciles of the nutsucker party, who caused this: time; as we understand it, does not flow from present to past.





Oh I'll happily quit using Wallison - if you stop pretending the FCIC - put in place by democrats is anything other than a whitewash.
You use a crap source, I quoted a collaborator that said its crap.

Look - its pretty much obvious - you can't give subprime lenders better terms than prime lenders. Thus the credit easing put in place by the CRA (no income verification, interest only, 2/28 hypbrid loans) degraded the standards for all segments. Easing of credit standards and rates thus spread across the entire industry.

As Damon said - we're playing musical chairs on the titanic, waiting for the music to stop.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 1:13:26 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

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.



And since bush was the nutsucker president since 2001, and his policies, and with a nutsucker legislature, the mortgages less than 2 years old in the period of 2007 to 2009 (thats 6 years in the future from Clinton) were what went skyrocket belly up, tell me again how its not pure nutsucker fault? You know how long a year is here on earth?




The fact that bush upped it by 5%, in late 2007 was immaterial. Subprime loans were already crashing by the time of the change (down 58%) and by 2008 were non-existent.

It was stupid, but the cause of the problem was the policies put in place to encourage banks to liberalize the banking standards.
Ie., the issue wasn't the increase from 50% to 55%. It was this government intervention at all.

Essentially democrats told the banks - ignore historical best practices for loan mortgages. We INSIST you throw those standards out and provide more than half your loans to sub prime borrowers.

And the natural, inevitable result was these borrowers couldn't pay the loans and defaulted at 29%- 20 times the historical average. And more than 17 trillion dollars in wealth was wiped out.

And yet you #!@## libs want to argue about a trillion thrown away in iraq....

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 1:31:38 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		OH, wallison was fcic wilbur, and like an issa or like a gowdy, a real ignorant nutsucker.

I have posted other studies by the Federal Reserve, Educational intitutions.

Fuck what he says. Fuck what they all say.

Bush nutsucker president 1/21/2001. Nutsucker administration throughout including oversight, policy and regulation.
from 2001-2007 the nutsuckers held both houses.
2007-2009 nutsuckers held the senate.

failure was from 2007-2009 with 95% plus of the mortgages less than 3 years old.


Explain.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 1:42:57 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

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.

http://commonsensewonder.blogspot.com/2011/10/remember-janet-reno-threatening-banks.html

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.



https://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1998/0320_agcom.htm

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

- - -
REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE JANET RENO,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
TO THE
NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION

But capital alone won't work. You need the people to do it. The Community Reinvestment Act has played a critical part in ensuring that lending institutions put some of their capital into underserved areas, especially the inner cities and in minority neighborhoods.
The new Community Reinvestment Act regulations enable lenders to develop customized strategic plans for meeting their obligations under the Act, and many have been developed in partnership with your local organizations. In this way you are not only helping to rebuild your communities, but you are showing bankers how to be responsible corporate citizens. In short, you can't do it just with capital, you can't do it just with people who care; we can do it together.

(Applause.)

It has been my experience in these five years in office that most bankers want to be good and responsible corporate citizens, or they're willing to be if they're nudged in the right direction by vocal, knowledgeable, constructive groups such as the NCRC members and by Justice Department lawyers who care and want to do the right thing.[/]

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/26/opinion/justice-cracks-down-on-redlining.html



The Justice Department dramatically sharpened its attack on discriminatory lending practices this week when it got Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank, the largest in the Washington D.C. area, to agree to set up branches in black neighborhoods. Justice has gone after banks that discriminated against black loan applicants, but until the Chevy Case case it had never used anti-discrimination laws to challenge where banks provided services or placed branches.

The new tactic deserves praise. As Attorney General Janet Reno observed, blacks are no better off if a bank shuns their neighborhood than if it rejects their loan applications. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to guarantee that qualified blacks have an equal shot at loans. At Chevy Chase they did not. According to Justice, the bank made 97 percent of its loans between 1976 and 1992 in white neighborhoods. It opened no branches where 90 percent of blacks in Washington D.C. live, nor did it open branches where 75 percent of the blacks in Prince George's County, Maryland, live.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:19:26 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		I am done and have been done, most of the what I read here is just more unmitigated partisan bullshit. I'll go with the fed. CRA loans did NOT contribute substantially or in any meaningful way to the financial meltdown.

Policy does not cause a mortgage to go into default, No money down and underwater values which came later does not cause a default. I know because I was fucking there, selling homes and in the business. The total of the national CRA portfolio as stated by the fed was no more 'subprime' and were not or did they end up in default anymore than typical or conventional loans.

Cry all you want but given the Bush & Co. was in charge from 2001 on and every bit as partisan or more so than you, then why didn't his admin. take action blaming the necessity of that action on the crazy liberals that preceded them ? It's obvious, they loved the party and how 'his' constituency (wall street) was making out like the fucking bandits they are.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 5/10/2016 2:20:26 PM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:20:43 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

It was stupid, but the cause of the problem was the policies put in place to encourage banks to liberalize the banking standards.
Ie., the issue wasn't the increase from 50% to 55%. It was this government intervention at all.

This is like saying the street lights were out at that intersection so the muggers were 'encouraged' to lower their standards and mug indiscriminately. Those poor money lenders, mortgage bankers, and investment sharks were 'encouraged' to construct the whole house of cards Ponzi scheme of lyers' loans and falsely rated, consolidated securities layered with derivatives and default insurance, and oh the poor dears just couldn't help themselves, caught up in their greed, and were surprised when it all caved in, costing many an innocent, middle-aged suburbanite manager his job and home. What a parcel of shit it is to blame the CRA when the blame clearly lies with the greed operating within a casino of 40 to one debt leverage.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:29:39 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It was stupid, but the cause of the problem was the policies put in place to encourage banks to liberalize the banking standards.
Ie., the issue wasn't the increase from 50% to 55%. It was this government intervention at all.

This is like saying the street lights were out at that intersection so the muggers were 'encouraged' to lower their standards and mug indiscriminately. Those poor money lenders, mortgage bankers, and investment sharks were 'encouraged' to construct the whole house of cards Ponzi scheme of lyers' loans and falsely rated, consolidated securities layered with derivatives and default insurance, and oh the poor dears just couldn't help themselves, caught up in their greed, and were surprised when it all caved in, costing many an innocent, middle-aged suburbanite manager his job and home. What a parcel of shit it is to blame the CRA when the blame clearly lies with the greed operating within a casino of 40 to one debt leverage.

And yet above I've provided links to show where the "encouragement" was Janet Reno and justice department lawyers threatening the banks with lawsuits, denied access to lending and public humiliation.

< Message edited by Nnanji -- 5/10/2016 2:46:11 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:31:06 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It was stupid, but the cause of the problem was the policies put in place to encourage banks to liberalize the banking standards.
Ie., the issue wasn't the increase from 50% to 55%. It was this government intervention at all.

This is like saying the street lights were out at that intersection so the muggers were 'encouraged' to lower their standards and mug indiscriminately. Those poor money lenders, mortgage bankers, and investment sharks were 'encouraged' to construct the whole house of cards Ponzi scheme of lyers' loans and falsely rated, consolidated securities layered with derivatives and default insurance, and oh the poor dears just couldn't help themselves, caught up in their greed, and were surprised when it all caved in, costing many an innocent, middle-aged suburbanite manager his job and home. What a parcel of shit it is to blame the CRA when the blame clearly lies with the greed operating within a casino of 40 to one debt leverage.

And yet above I've provided links to show where the "encouragement" was Janet Reno and justice department lawyers threatening the banks with lawsuits, envied access to lending and public humiliation.

.....based on discrimination and racial discrimination called redlining which is in your link.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:32:17 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It was stupid, but the cause of the problem was the policies put in place to encourage banks to liberalize the banking standards.
Ie., the issue wasn't the increase from 50% to 55%. It was this government intervention at all.

This is like saying the street lights were out at that intersection so the muggers were 'encouraged' to lower their standards and mug indiscriminately. Those poor money lenders, mortgage bankers, and investment sharks were 'encouraged' to construct the whole house of cards Ponzi scheme of lyers' loans and falsely rated, consolidated securities layered with derivatives and default insurance, and oh the poor dears just couldn't help themselves, caught up in their greed, and were surprised when it all caved in, costing many an innocent, middle-aged suburbanite manager his job and home. What a parcel of shit it is to blame the CRA when the blame clearly lies with the greed operating within a casino of 40 to one debt leverage.

Oh...and...I might add that street lights are never considered crime prevention accessories. For instance, in my area they are considered producers of light pollution and only allowed where emergency vehicle will need to read street signs. Your whole argument is bunk and lacking any knowledge.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:35:25 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

It was stupid, but the cause of the problem was the policies put in place to encourage banks to liberalize the banking standards.
Ie., the issue wasn't the increase from 50% to 55%. It was this government intervention at all.

This is like saying the street lights were out at that intersection so the muggers were 'encouraged' to lower their standards and mug indiscriminately. Those poor money lenders, mortgage bankers, and investment sharks were 'encouraged' to construct the whole house of cards Ponzi scheme of lyers' loans and falsely rated, consolidated securities layered with derivatives and default insurance, and oh the poor dears just couldn't help themselves, caught up in their greed, and were surprised when it all caved in, costing many an innocent, middle-aged suburbanite manager his job and home. What a parcel of shit it is to blame the CRA when the blame clearly lies with the greed operating within a casino of 40 to one debt leverage.

And yet above I've provided links to show where the "encouragement" was Janet Reno and justice department lawyers threatening the banks with lawsuits, envied access to lending and public humiliation.

.....based on discrimination and racial discrimination called redlining which is in your link.

Which was the current leftist meme at the time, yes. So once again we see that all leftist policies eventually fail and cause horrific unintended consequences which then require leftists to jump in and revise history so often.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:43:26 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Good. Be done. Vehemence is no substitute for facts.

quote:

Policy does not cause a mortgage to go into default,

No. But it encourage loans that are not in the public interest, and against the common good, in the full knowledge that historic numbers of them have no ability to pay, and will default thus penalizing huge numbers of people at the lower income.


quote:

No money down and underwater values which came later does not cause a default.
Intellectualyl dishonest.

quote:

I know because I was fucking there, selling homes and in the business.


That explains it - a little bit of guilt for your role in victimizing poor people.

quote:

The total of the national CRA portfolio as stated by the fed was no more 'subprime' and were not or did they end up in default anymore than typical or conventional loans.


Actually, no fed report actually says that.

quote:


Cry all you want but given the Bush & Co. was in charge from 2001 o


We get it. Its all bushes fault. War in Iraq. Birth of Putin. Dot.com crash.
Its all bush's fault.

I've already said bush was a moron; already said the extent to which his administration was culpable. So when are you going to accept the culpability of barney frank, christopher dodd, bill clinton, hmm?

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:45:49 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		What we see though, in reality, and not nutsuckerism is nutsucker policy failures they are blaming on anyone but themselves thru every method of felch available.

2007-2009 was the time of the meltdown. Entire nutsucker government.
2001 Nutsuckers ran the government.
the mortgages melted down were less than 3 years old.
that puts the earliest mortgage at 2004, and if we stretch 2003.

looks like nutsuckers.




_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:49:11 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What we see though, in reality, and not nutsuckerism is nutsucker policy failures they are blaming on anyone but themselves thru every method of felch available.

2007-2009 was the time of the meltdown. Entire nutsucker government.
2001 Nutsuckers ran the government.
the mortgages melted down were less than 3 years old.
that puts the earliest mortgage at 2004, and if we stretch 2003.

looks like nutsuckers.




Three year old mortgages...ask MrRodgers how many mortgages he sold that were refinances. With the real estate (boom edited to ) bubble everyone was refinancing. That is such a lame example to postulate.

< Message edited by Nnanji -- 5/10/2016 2:50:12 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 2:59:51 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What we see though, in reality, and not nutsuckerism is nutsucker policy failures they are blaming on anyone but themselves thru every method of felch available.

2007-2009 was the time of the meltdown. Entire nutsucker government.
2001 Nutsuckers ran the government.
the mortgages melted down were less than 3 years old.
that puts the earliest mortgage at 2004, and if we stretch 2003.

looks like nutsuckers.




Three year old mortgages...ask MrRodgers how many mortgages he sold that were refinances. With the real estate (boom edited to ) bubble everyone was refinancing. That is such a lame example to postulate.

Actually refinances are much easier given payment and work history and are sensitive almost exclusively to how much cash is taken out...if any. BTW, I didn't sell mortgages but sold houses but trust me, a whole army of loan officers attacked us everyday loaded with the current market uptakes and a life long friend ran (owned) a mortgage company and was in and still is as far as I know, the business and since about 1970.

However we could blame Jimmy Carter as the CRA was created in 1977 and after all...he's a liberal dem too. We don't have to take into account that those mortgages were almost paid off...do we ?

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 3:11:17 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What we see though, in reality, and not nutsuckerism is nutsucker policy failures they are blaming on anyone but themselves thru every method of felch available.

2007-2009 was the time of the meltdown. Entire nutsucker government.
2001 Nutsuckers ran the government.
the mortgages melted down were less than 3 years old.
that puts the earliest mortgage at 2004, and if we stretch 2003.

looks like nutsuckers.




Three year old mortgages...ask MrRodgers how many mortgages he sold that were refinances. With the real estate (boom edited to ) bubble everyone was refinancing. That is such a lame example to postulate.

Actually refinances are much easier given payment and work history and are sensitive almost exclusively to how much cash is taken out...if any. BTW, I didn't sell mortgages but sold houses but trust me, a whole army of loan officers attacked us everyday loaded with the current market uptakes and a life long friend ran (owned) a mortgage company and was in and still is as far as I know, the business and since about 1970.

However we could blame Jimmy Carter as the CRA was created in 1977 and after all...he's a liberal dem too. We don't have to take into account that those mortgages were almost paid off...do we ?

You make a couple of reasonable points. Two of which I almost threw in, but didn't. Yes, I saw you said you sold real estate an not mortgages. I just assumed you'd be honest and discuss the mortgages that you had to be intimately involved with, and you did. Thank you. Second I almost mentioned the people who didn't refinance were people with older mortgages that were, by that time, paying ridiculously low monthly rates because they bought before the CRA created the bubble. I didn't think it was relavent because I also saw a lot of those people use the bubble to upgrade an get themselves into trouble and lose everything. So, you're just a little disingenuous there by not mentioning the other half of the older mortgages and certainly you didn't mention that CRA was virtually ignored until Clinton ( the rapist not the rape shamer) set the justice department on the financial institutions and creates the bubble.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 3:12:28 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What we see though, in reality, and not nutsuckerism is nutsucker policy failures they are blaming on anyone but themselves thru every method of felch available.

2007-2009 was the time of the meltdown. Entire nutsucker government.
2001 Nutsuckers ran the government.
the mortgages melted down were less than 3 years old.
that puts the earliest mortgage at 2004, and if we stretch 2003.

looks like nutsuckers.




Three year old mortgages...ask MrRodgers how many mortgages he sold that were refinances. With the real estate (boom edited to ) bubble everyone was refinancing. That is such a lame example to postulate.


Oh, the reality is the lame example? Fucking excuse me, nutsucker slobber blogs notwithstanding and everything.

The refies must have been what? 75%? All the failing mortgages were within 3 years of origination. Dont matter how they got there, they all happened in nutsuckerville. At least one full administration away from Clinton, and no bad seed was carried with thru those days...ALL 100% nutsuckerism on this one boys. CRA didnt have shit to do with this, nor did over-regulation, nor did libertarianism or freedom, it was greedy nutsuckers destroying america thru their imbecility.

There is no way a nutsucker can make a case for anything else. The postulate is a fucking tautology.





< Message edited by mnottertail -- 5/10/2016 3:14:59 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 3:21:14 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What we see though, in reality, and not nutsuckerism is nutsucker policy failures they are blaming on anyone but themselves thru every method of felch available.

2007-2009 was the time of the meltdown. Entire nutsucker government.
2001 Nutsuckers ran the government.
the mortgages melted down were less than 3 years old.
that puts the earliest mortgage at 2004, and if we stretch 2003.

looks like nutsuckers.




Three year old mortgages...ask MrRodgers how many mortgages he sold that were refinances. With the real estate (boom edited to ) bubble everyone was refinancing. That is such a lame example to postulate.


Oh, the reality is the lame example? Fucking excuse me, nutsucker slobber blogs notwithstanding and everything.

The refies must have been what? 75%? All the failing mortgages were within 3 years of origination. Dont matter how they got there, they all happened in nutsuckerville. At least one full administration away from Clinton, and no bad seed was carried with thru those days...ALL 100% nutsuckerism on this one boys. CRA didnt have shit to do with this, nor did over-regulation, nor did libertarianism or freedom, it was greedy nutsuckers destroying america thru their imbecility.

There is no way a nutsucker can make a case for anything else. The postulate is a fucking tautology.





glad to see you now agree with me and you are still able to use the bluff and bluster that is so entertaining.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 4:05:56 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		So, the nutsuckers augered us in with their typical innumerate fiscal irresponsibility, and then forced the american citizens to bail their corporate overlords out. I didnt know we were in disagreement on that.

All nutsuckers and their same old epic failures as always, and now the cycle begins again where they say, but hey, we are going to make this country great again, just like last time, never mind you are getting fucked over in the deal, our Masters want our money to go overseas and to take our nations blood and treasure.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 - 5/10/2016 4:15:47 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, the nutsuckers augered us in with their typical innumerate fiscal irresponsibility, and then forced the american citizens to bail their corporate overlords out. I didnt know we were in disagreement on that.

All nutsuckers and their same old epic failures as always, and now the cycle begins again where they say, but hey, we are going to make this country great again, just like last time, never mind you are getting fucked over in the deal, our Masters want our money to go overseas and to take our nations blood and treasure.

Okay. Agreed, but remembering it was all under the Obama administration when bailouts to corporations were handed out. Of course the Clinton's (both the raper and the rape shamer) were shoveling money hand over fist into the accounts they controlled. And what I see in this election is that in both the repug and dem primary races that the political elite are getting black eyes from fed up voters. Although, it seems Clinton, (the rape shamer) is going to be forgiven by the lefties and they're attempting to get her seat at the trough back.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: More reading for liberals - economic crash of 2009 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109