40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart.

Actually, they were "regulated," but not really regulated.

They were regulated, period.

Hardly. Try this feature for details:

House Of Cards The Mortgage Mess - CBS News

Let me just clarify.... I don't want to imply you are saying something that you are not.

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations Annual Edition

This web site is the Federal Code of Regulations, for the year 2000.

If you scroll down to Title 12, Banks and Banking, you will discover that the regulations come in a 6 Volume set. If you download all 6 volumes, (as I have done), you will discovered over 4,000 pages of regulations on virtually all aspects of banking.

In addition, you will discovered several government bodies created to monitor banks, including Federal Financing Bank, Federal Housing Finance Board, Department of the Treasury which has it's own regulations, FDIC which has it's own regulations, and lastly Comptroller of the Currency which has it's own regulations.

But wait! There's more!

Moving down to Title 17, you'll find a three volume set, containing over 2,400 pages exclusively to regulation on securities.
Then moving to Title 24, you'll find another three volumes, of just under 1500 pages, and while they are not all related to mortgage securities, some are, such as Government National Mortgage Association, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Office of Housing and Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, each with their own various regulations that must be followed.

And of course, if you wish to claim that the roughly 8,000 pages of regulations that existed back in 2000, regulating and over-seeing every aspect of banks was just far too limited and modest.....

Lawriter - ORC - Title 11 XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Let us add in State Level banking regulations as well. Ohio Revised Code, Title 11, contains no less than 80 Chapters regulating banks. That's just Ohio Revised Code. Many states have more regulations than Ohio.


Now.... Allow me to ask again.... Are you saying that the banks and mortgage backed securities were not regulated?

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.


It WASN'T deregulation but WHO was in charge. Weird how Dubya allowed (and cheered on) the Bankster bubble, much like Ronnie Reagan who ignored Mr Gray's warnings in 1984 AND how the "free market" guys Harding/Coolidge allowed the Banksters to create a credit bubble after WW1...


Your dodge of FACTS like F/F not causing Dubya's Bankster bubble noted Bubba!
 
There's nothing in that link that confirms your claim "(t)he sub-prime mortgage backed securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac...FIRST. Then they were given a AAA rating." Your link is also lacking in details concerning which private rating agency supplied the AAA rating; HOWEVER, your link does provide the reason why First Union choose to participate in the epidemic of mortgage fraud that caused the Great Recession:

"First Union has grown its capital markets business substantially over the
last three years. First Union's Capital Markets Group reported 1997 fee income
through Sept. 30 of $531 million, up from $464 million for the full year of
1996 and $265 million in 1995."

First Union Capital Markets Corp. Bear Stearns Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re CHARLOTTE N.C. Oct. 20 PRNewswire --

Obviously, Wall Street parasites could not have looted the US economy of trillions of dollars over the span of the Great Recession without help from government, Why are you unwilling to blame any institution other than government for that looting?

Because I'm not partisan, and I don't have a problem with greedy and envy, causing me to automatically blame everyone who makes more than my income.

That's why. I need real evidence first. Not conclusions first, and then find evidence to fit it.

First off, the banks didn't loot anything. There was no "looting". The banks made a bunch of securities based on expectations of value, created by the government. These sub-prime loans, were only given AAA ratings because government guaranteed them.

How is that looting? I'm Government. You're the bank. "Gorge, make this product, and I'll guarantee it". Do you tell me, the government, no? And risk me suing your butt? Because that's what I just did to the other banks.

No, you are going to do what I tell you to, because I'm government. When it fails, "Gorgy Looted!"? How does that make sense in your world? Explain that to me?

NOISE not based in facts. Shocking

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2007/el0711.pdf


Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.


(EXPLAIN THAT BUBBA, SHOULD BE SIMPLE RIGHT???LOL)


Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

AGAIN, YOUR DODGE ON FANNIE/FREDDIE FAILURE RATES IS NOTED BUBBA
 
There's nothing in that link that confirms your claim "(t)he sub-prime mortgage backed securities were guaranteed by Freddie Mac...FIRST. Then they were given a AAA rating." Your link is also lacking in details concerning which private rating agency supplied the AAA rating; HOWEVER, your link does provide the reason why First Union choose to participate in the epidemic of mortgage fraud that caused the Great Recession:

"First Union has grown its capital markets business substantially over the
last three years. First Union's Capital Markets Group reported 1997 fee income
through Sept. 30 of $531 million, up from $464 million for the full year of
1996 and $265 million in 1995."

First Union Capital Markets Corp. Bear Stearns Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re CHARLOTTE N.C. Oct. 20 PRNewswire --

Obviously, Wall Street parasites could not have looted the US economy of trillions of dollars over the span of the Great Recession without help from government, Why are you unwilling to blame any institution other than government for that looting?

Because I'm not partisan, and I don't have a problem with greedy and envy, causing me to automatically blame everyone who makes more than my income.

That's why. I need real evidence first. Not conclusions first, and then find evidence to fit it.

First off, the banks didn't loot anything. There was no "looting". The banks made a bunch of securities based on expectations of value, created by the government. These sub-prime loans, were only given AAA ratings because government guaranteed them.

How is that looting? I'm Government. You're the bank. "Gorge, make this product, and I'll guarantee it". Do you tell me, the government, no? And risk me suing your butt? Because that's what I just did to the other banks.

No, you are going to do what I tell you to, because I'm government. When it fails, "Gorgy Looted!"? How does that make sense in your world? Explain that to me?

AGAIN

IF Gov't guaranteed them, Banksters wouldn't had lost money. Oops
 
IF Gov't guaranteed them, Banksters wouldn't had lost money. Oops

dear, govt was so heavily involved in housing through GSE's buying, guaranteeing, financing and rating mortgages and through printing money to always keep prices going up that the Republican free market was non-existent.

Now do you understand?
 
IF Gov't guaranteed them, Banksters wouldn't had lost money. Oops

dear, govt was so heavily involved in housing through GSE's buying, guaranteeing, financing and rating mortgages and through printing money to always keep prices going up that the Republican free market was non-existent.

Now do you understand?

Your right wing nonsense is noted, and again thrown out the window with the rest of the trash Bubba

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


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."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
Your right wing nonsense is noted, and again thrown out the window with the rest of the trash Bubba

dear, you forgot to say why its trash?? Are you too stupid to know that you must be able to say why? A cut and paste rant on another subject is 100% worthless. You must always change the subject becuase you are too stupid for the subject. In court you have to answer the questions or be held in contempt. Do you understand??
 
Your right wing nonsense is noted, and again thrown out the window with the rest of the trash Bubba

dear, you forgot to say why its trash?? Are you too stupid to know that you must be able to say why? A cut and paste rant on another subject is 100% worthless. You must always change the subject becuase you are too stupid for the subject. In court you have to answer the questions or be held in contempt. Do you understand??


YES BUBBA, YOU JUST DID WHAT YOU CLAIMED I DID. DO YOU UNDERSTAND BUBBA?



Why did EVERY single GOPer vote for Dubya's ADDI (dream down payment) in 2004 again? lol
 
Why did EVERY single GOPer vote for Dubya's ADDI (dream down payment) in 2004 again? lol

too stupid!!! Because they were not conservative. See how stupid you are?? You get the same answer 1000 times but trick yourself 1000 times into ignoring it because you are stupid and have no integrity.

So why not ask the same question 2000 times. Maybe by then you'll know the answer??
 
Why did EVERY single GOPer vote for Dubya's ADDI (dream down payment) in 2004 again? lol

too stupid!!! Because they were not conservative. See how stupid you are?? You get the same answer 1000 times but trick yourself 1000 times into ignoring it because you are stupid and have no integrity.

So why not ask the same question 2000 times. Maybe by then you'll know the answer??



You mean EVERY one of the republicans refused to follow "Republican market" policy? Weird

World wide Bankster bubble that was cheered on by the republican Dubya in the US, HMM
 
You mean EVERY one of the republicans refused to follow "Republican market" policy?

too stupid if everyone voted for a liberal measure than everyone refused to follow conservative market policy. Are still unabale to follow this??

Time for a cut paste with colors on another subject rather than face your liberal ignorance??
 
Technological revolution displaced low skilled workers. So what else is new? Not only the advancement in technology and subsequent displacement of unskilled work force but the realization that to remain in manufacturing one needed to exit mainland USA or perish.
 
You mean EVERY one of the republicans refused to follow "Republican market" policy?

too stupid if everyone voted for a liberal measure than everyone refused to follow conservative market policy. Are still unabale to follow this??

Time for a cut paste with colors on another subject rather than face your liberal ignorance??

Sure, they ignored regulator warnings AND cheered on the Banksters (in their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, YOU KEEP MISSING THAT PART??? LOL), can't get more conservative than that Bubba!
 
Technological revolution displaced low skilled workers. So what else is new? Not only the advancement in technology and subsequent displacement of unskilled work force but the realization that to remain in manufacturing one needed to exit mainland USA or perish.


Yet the "job creators" tripled their share of income WHILE the GOP gutted their tax burden!! Weird
 
Technological revolution displaced low skilled workers.

not really. Liberals invited in 20 million illegals to take 20 million of low skilled jobs and to drive down wages. It drives Americans to the liberal welfare rolls so liberals love it for the votes.
 
First off, the banks didn't loot anything. There was no "looting". The banks made a bunch of securities based on expectations of value, created by the government. These sub-prime loans, were only given AAA ratings because government guaranteed them.
Why, then, did investment banks conduct many of their government regulated transactions in ways that did not appear on their conventional balance sheet accounting methods, rendering these transactions invisible to government regulators and investors alike?
 

Forum List

Back
Top