quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

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.

Well that disingenuousness you charge me with is unfounded if only because none of those came under CRA which was first time home buyers. Never saw a single sell to buy contingency come under CRA criteria or any refinance use that avenue as [it] just didn't apply. Refi's and second homes were riding the bubble due almost exclusively to equity improvements and low interest rates but weren't a root cause or even very large part of the bubble.

The problem I see arise from going back to Clinton, is that there was no real estate bubble then and there was a recession in the post dot.com era that preceded the last real estate bubble by some 5-6 years at least before 2006 to 2008 period.

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, denied access to lending and public humiliation.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

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, denied access to lending and public humiliation.

Janet Reno!!!! You're blaming Janet Reno for the 2008 financial debacle? That's fucking insane. She had nothing to do with the rampant securitization gambling that nearly destroyed the financial economy. Really stupid revisionist history. The identity of the greedy muggers was evident to all of us who lived through that era. However many links you have, they are nothing but hindsight opinion and diversions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And the subsequent Republican administrations and Congresses did what to remedy the situation?

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.

A lot more as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And the subsequent Republican administrations and Congresses did what to remedy the situation?

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.

A lot more as well.

A lot more indeed!

Like this: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html

Excerpt;

"President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.

The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgage

quote:


Still, your implicit claim that there was never a congressional Republican majority in the twenty years of Republican administration since Carter is amusement enough on its own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And the subsequent Republican administrations and Congresses did what to remedy the situation?

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.

A lot more as well.

A lot more indeed!

Like this: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html

Excerpt;

"President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.

The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgage

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem:

You seem to ignore my post #72: 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?

Or post #51: I've argued several times, forcefully that Bush insanely compounded the problem by trying to help minorities capitalize on the housing boom.
Bush increased the CRA percent to 55% from 50%. Bush was an idiot.

I'm not going to quote the many other critical posts I've made about bush. But nonetheless when it comes to culpability as I explained Bush has a minor role.

Speaking directly to your point - it is true that bush proposed a Zero Down payment proposal. However the CBO scored it (presciently) as losing taxpayers 500 billion dollars and the initiative was never implimented. Nice try. Play again?

quote:


Still, your implicit claim that there was never a congressional Republican majority in the twenty years of Republican administration since Carter is amusement enough on its own.

No, the amusement comes from watching you post delusional statements, ignoring the fact that I explicitly acknowledged the occasions where the republicans had control of the house.

Why don't you go read what I actually wrote, instead of listening to the voices in your head hmm?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And the subsequent Republican administrations and Congresses did what to remedy the situation?

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.

A lot more as well.

A lot more indeed!

Like this: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/achievement/chap7.html

Excerpt;

"President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.

The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgage

You apparently have a reading comprehension problem:

You seem to ignore my post #72: 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?

Or post #51: I've argued several times, forcefully that Bush insanely compounded the problem by trying to help minorities capitalize on the housing boom.
Bush increased the CRA percent to 55% from 50%. Bush was an idiot.

I'm not going to quote the many other critical posts I've made about bush. But nonetheless when it comes to culpability as I explained Bush has a minor role.

Speaking directly to your point - it is true that bush proposed a Zero Down payment proposal. However the CBO scored it (presciently) as losing taxpayers 500 billion dollars and the initiative was never implimented. Nice try. Play again?

quote:


Still, your implicit claim that there was never a congressional Republican majority in the twenty years of Republican administration since Carter is amusement enough on its own.

No, the amusement comes from watching you post delusional statements, ignoring the fact that I explicitly acknowledged the occasions where the republicans had control of the house.

Why don't you go read what I actually wrote, instead of listening to the voices in your head hmm?

I responded to what you wrote in -that post- (given that was the post I was responding to), which implied that the Republicans' involvement in the matter was limited to the actions you alluded to -in that post-, as example of battling mightily against the forces of evil.

And what is the argument in your OP?

That some thing enacted 30 years prior to the crisis was the cause of the crisis.

-I read what you copy/pasted in the OP- and responded to that.

You didn't write the OP, you copy/pasted from a fellow delusionista, and I shot it all down, as have numerous others in the thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

On the subject, I have not agreed with you Wilbur that refies were 75%, but thinking to myself that what better way to indicate a question would there be than to end the statement with a question mark, I took the risk.

I have no idea how much of the melt was refies, but I do have a sense that it was a fair bit in that so many went upside down so quickly.

In any case, the higher the refies, the more the meltdown is on the shoulders of the nutsuckers and their bankrupt ideas of no regulation. CRAs had absolutely nothing to do with this and it is massively and credibly proven, this is a nutsucker epic fail, as all nutsuckerisms are epic fail.

Because we the citizens must bear the externalities in a nutsucker world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

On the subject, I have not agreed with you Wilbur that refies were 75%, but thinking to myself that what better way to indicate a question would there be than to end the statement with a question mark, I took the risk.

I have no idea how much of the melt was refies, but I do have a sense that it was a fair bit in that so many went upside down so quickly.

In any case, the higher the refies, the more the meltdown is on the shoulders of the nutsuckers and their bankrupt ideas of no regulation. CRAs had absolutely nothing to do with this and it is massively and credibly proven, this is a nutsucker epic fail, as all nutsuckerisms are epic fail.

Because we the citizens must bear the externalities in a nutsucker world.

(Since you've all degenerated into opinion with no citations because you have no provable points, I'll not cite here either.) The leftists have been running housing scams for decades. Barney Frank bought his first suit and tie to put his hand out for housing money. Hell, that's what Obama did in Chicago. His only experience before becoming president was having his hand out for housing money. The CRA was merely the legal start to the whole new scam of subprimes. Those of you who believe that's okay, well good on ya. Those of you who say you believe you want government hands out of the pockets of big money, shame on you. You accept this just because it was a scam your side ran.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Sure...I said patrician liar and you're going to cite that for me. Sure...you've picked a source. Other "sources" have been cited. I suppose since you've picked the terms patrician liar, that's how you see them..

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Sure...I said patrician liar and you're going to cite that for me. Sure...you've picked a source. Other "sources" have been cited. I suppose since you've picked the terms patrician liar, that's how you see them..

Actually, the federal reserve has no partisan incentive on this long answered question. The terms of any debate without the rancor is to be as objective as possible.

The federal reserve study quite objectively researched every possible aspect of just where CRA loans ranked in the over all financial meltdown and came to the conclusion I cited...[it] and those loans were in no way responsible for and in no way had any substantial effect on, bringing wall street to it knees and begging to the taxpayers.

Oh and just for the fun of it.....

Not being a person of noble or high rank or otherwise an aristocrat, even though I am a person of decently good background, education, and refinement, I am not and never was, a member of the original senatorial aristocracy in ancient Rome or have I spoken to the emperor in many, many years.

Therefore I am not a patrician.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Sure...I said patrician liar and you're going to cite that for me. Sure...you've picked a source. Other "sources" have been cited. I suppose since you've picked the terms patrician liar, that's how you see them..

Actually, the federal reserve has no partisan incentive on this long answered question. The terms of any debate without the rancor is to be as objective as possible.

The federal reserve study quite objectively researched every possible aspect of just where CRA loans ranked in the over all financial meltdown and came to the conclusion I cited...[it] and those loans were in no way responsible for and in no way had any substantial effect on, bringing wall street to it knees and begging to the taxpayers.

Oh and just for the fun of it.....

Not being a person of noble or high rank or otherwise an aristocrat, even though I am a person of decently good background, education, and refinement, I am not and never was, a member of the original senatorial aristocracy in ancient Rome or have I spoken to the emperor in many, many years.

Therefore I am not a patrician.

Well, then take the "Mr" out of your title. Still haven't answered two questions. What moral code and where the requirement for subprime lending came from?