AOC asks the bankers "why aren't more of you in jail ?"

[Indeependent]

Exxon Mobil, Wall Street and Big Pharma ....nobody is safe from this terrible young woman's wrath.

AOC GRILLS Jamie Dimon & Bank Executives On Jailing Law Breaking Bankers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other megabuck executives on their behavior since the 2008 mortgage crisis.

Because they didn't break any laws.

In fact most were following the laws, in creating the sub-prime crash. Idiotic left-wingers like AOC, don't even remember that it was their own policies that pushed bankers to make sub-prime loans. In fact, the government under Bill Clinton, was taking banks to court, to force them to make sub-prime loans.

Effectively, what idiots like AOC are asking is..... "Why didn't we throw you into prison for following our rules?"

I know many brokers who lost business because they didn’t do what the big lenders did...bypass the software rejections and rubber stamp a bad loan “Approved”.
The Directors should have been divested of their ill gotten gain and sent to prison.

Yeah, and the reason the smaller brokers did not take risky loans, might also have to do with the fact they were not the targets of lawsuits forcing them to make such risky loans.

This is the problem I have with this entire discussion....

If Obama was NOT on a lawsuit to force Citigroup to make bad loans....
If Clinton was NOT suing banks to make bad loans....
If Freddie Mac was NOT guaranteeing bad loans....
If Maxine Waters was NOT saying that Fannie Mae was doing an "outstanding job" of providing risky loans....

If it was NOT the general policy of the government to push sub-prime loans since at least 1997....

Then I would be on your side of this argument. I don't know if I'd be in favor of prison, but I would most certainly ban all of them from the banking industry.

But the problem there is, if the government didn't push sub-prime loans, I doubt any of these bankers would have been making them. After all, prior to 1997, Sub-prime loans were a niche market with little to no, growth.... because they were risky.

Something caused them to make those loans. And that something was government. You should be demanding that the Democrats be tossed in prison if anything. They are the ones that instigated the economic crash.

Nah...
Not one Director was even investigated.
7 CEOs paid a pitiful penalty.
And I know way too many people who made a killing.
Both parties engaged in the GW farce.
GW, to this day, brags that he was the “Home Ownership” President.

Not to mention that Warren Buffet, who ordered Alan Greenspan to change the Mark to Market ratio, made 15 billion dollars on the day of the crash.
You know, the “charitable” Warren Buffet who cares so much about people.

I do not know much about this claim with Buffet and Mark to Market.

However, I have seen no evidence that it was involved in the sub-prime crash directly.

And I would agree that GWB was also supportive of more home ownership. That is true. Both parties were. That is true.

However, the sub-prime crash's origins were in 1997. This is clearly documented.

In 1997, the housing prices started to spike up.

This increase in housing prices coincides directly with the increase in sup-prime mortgages that happened in 1997.

Before 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market, specifically because they were risky.

So what happened on or before 1997 that caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans?

Two things..... First Freddie Mac started guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Wachovia Press Releases

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

First Union became Wachovia, which means the two original companies involved in Freddie Mac's guarantee of sub-prime loans, both ended up crashing spectacularly during the sub-prime crash.

So to recap, the government through Freddie Mac was pushing sub-prime loans.

At the exact same time, the government was taking banks to court, for not making risky sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo, then part of the Clinton administration, forced banks through the court, to make sub-prime loans.

Between the government using Freddie Mac to guarantee sub-prime loans, and giving them implied AAA ratings, and the Government suing banks in court for not making sub-prime loans....

This is what caused the sub-prime crash.

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

 

[Toro]

Exxon Mobil, Wall Street and Big Pharma ....nobody is safe from this terrible young woman's wrath.

AOC GRILLS Jamie Dimon & Bank Executives On Jailing Law Breaking Bankers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other megabuck executives on their behavior since the 2008 mortgage crisis.

She has a good question

But we all know why

Yes, because they were paid 100 cents on the dollar for their bad assets.
Homeowners lost their homes, while the investment banks that owned the mortgages were bailed out.
There are more homes empty in America today than there are homeless.. we could literally give each homeless persona a home, and still have empty homes left over. (Not that we should)
There was never a better time in this country to be super-wealthy than 2009- now. Never.

That’s not against the law.

 

[Likkmee]

AOC is stupid. They ARE in jails everywhere. CEOs, Boards of directors, Treasurers, Property management and recruitment via the DEA and IRS !

 

[WillPower]

Bush had Hank Paulson lock the banksters in a conference room in the WH and told them they weren't leaving until they signed notes borrowing millions of dollars at interest (10%) from the Fed to guarantee their solvency. Both Bear Stearns and Lehman were going under and a run on the banks was underway. They all signed.....Paulson wasn't screwing around....thats what kept us from total collapse. Obama called them all in for a come-to-Jesus type of meeting, mumbled some incoherent threats and then approached them for campaign funds. They left laughing their asses off. That's the difference between having a government who understands basic finance, the difference between commercial and investment banking, when to kick some ass, and the democrats who don't have a clue about any of it as evidenced by morons like AOC and Maxine Waters (who's husband's tiny bank got bailed out thanks to her influence, which is a felony).

 

[Indeependent]

AOC is stupid. They ARE in jails everywhere. CEOs, Boards of directors, Treasurers, Property management and recruitment via the DEA and IRS !

Jaime Diemon is in jail for foreclosing on 2.5 million houses that JP Morgan didn’t give out mortgages for.
Seriously, who’s in jail?

 

[McRocket]

She's right. They should all be in prison...Big Ears not only saved their worthless asses from prison time, he made sure they got even more wealthy and powerful.

Don't forget the Fed.

They are more to blame then anyone, IMO.

 

[McRocket]

Exxon Mobil, Wall Street and Big Pharma ....nobody is safe from this terrible young woman's wrath.

AOC GRILLS Jamie Dimon & Bank Executives On Jailing Law Breaking Bankers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other megabuck executives on their behavior since the 2008 mortgage crisis.

I am not her biggest fan and TOTALLY disagree with her Green New Deal as well-intentioned, but out-of-touch with reality and totally unrealistic (though I DO like her style - very much).

But what the hell did she ask or say in that video that was so awful?

She read statistics and asked some questions...so fucking what?

 

[McRocket]

AOC is stupid. They ARE in jails everywhere. CEOs, Boards of directors, Treasurers, Property management and recruitment via the DEA and IRS !

She is far from stupid. I am by no means her biggest fan...but calling the woman stupid is ridiculous.

'She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics'.

You do not graduate cum laude from a respected university in the subjects she chose if you are 'stupid'.

Sheesh.

(though I am strongly suspecting that you do not even know what cum laude means)


Try doing a tiny bit of research before you type/speak and you will not sound so ignorant/stupid.

 

[Andylusion]

Because they didn't break any laws.

In fact most were following the laws, in creating the sub-prime crash. Idiotic left-wingers like AOC, don't even remember that it was their own policies that pushed bankers to make sub-prime loans. In fact, the government under Bill Clinton, was taking banks to court, to force them to make sub-prime loans.

Effectively, what idiots like AOC are asking is..... "Why didn't we throw you into prison for following our rules?"

I know many brokers who lost business because they didn’t do what the big lenders did...bypass the software rejections and rubber stamp a bad loan “Approved”.
The Directors should have been divested of their ill gotten gain and sent to prison.

Yeah, and the reason the smaller brokers did not take risky loans, might also have to do with the fact they were not the targets of lawsuits forcing them to make such risky loans.

This is the problem I have with this entire discussion....

If Obama was NOT on a lawsuit to force Citigroup to make bad loans....
If Clinton was NOT suing banks to make bad loans....
If Freddie Mac was NOT guaranteeing bad loans....
If Maxine Waters was NOT saying that Fannie Mae was doing an "outstanding job" of providing risky loans....

If it was NOT the general policy of the government to push sub-prime loans since at least 1997....

Then I would be on your side of this argument. I don't know if I'd be in favor of prison, but I would most certainly ban all of them from the banking industry.

But the problem there is, if the government didn't push sub-prime loans, I doubt any of these bankers would have been making them. After all, prior to 1997, Sub-prime loans were a niche market with little to no, growth.... because they were risky.

Something caused them to make those loans. And that something was government. You should be demanding that the Democrats be tossed in prison if anything. They are the ones that instigated the economic crash.

Nah...
Not one Director was even investigated.
7 CEOs paid a pitiful penalty.
And I know way too many people who made a killing.
Both parties engaged in the GW farce.
GW, to this day, brags that he was the “Home Ownership” President.

Not to mention that Warren Buffet, who ordered Alan Greenspan to change the Mark to Market ratio, made 15 billion dollars on the day of the crash.
You know, the “charitable” Warren Buffet who cares so much about people.

I do not know much about this claim with Buffet and Mark to Market.

However, I have seen no evidence that it was involved in the sub-prime crash directly.

And I would agree that GWB was also supportive of more home ownership. That is true. Both parties were. That is true.

However, the sub-prime crash's origins were in 1997. This is clearly documented.

In 1997, the housing prices started to spike up.

This increase in housing prices coincides directly with the increase in sup-prime mortgages that happened in 1997.

Before 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market, specifically because they were risky.

So what happened on or before 1997 that caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans?

Two things..... First Freddie Mac started guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Wachovia Press Releases

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

First Union became Wachovia, which means the two original companies involved in Freddie Mac's guarantee of sub-prime loans, both ended up crashing spectacularly during the sub-prime crash.

So to recap, the government through Freddie Mac was pushing sub-prime loans.

At the exact same time, the government was taking banks to court, for not making risky sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo, then part of the Clinton administration, forced banks through the court, to make sub-prime loans.

Between the government using Freddie Mac to guarantee sub-prime loans, and giving them implied AAA ratings, and the Government suing banks in court for not making sub-prime loans....

This is what caused the sub-prime crash.

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

 

[the other mike]

She's smart enough to realize that every attack on her character or intelligence only makes her stronger. The right has made her the underdog, the innocent victim --and her popularity has grown to where everything she says, whether taken in or out of context, is national headlines.

My hope is that she along with Bernie, Tulsi, Rand Paul and Libertarians, and the other progressives join or form a third party and really shake the apple cart in Washington.

 

[Issa]

Exxon Mobil, Wall Street and Big Pharma ....nobody is safe from this terrible young woman's wrath.

AOC GRILLS Jamie Dimon & Bank Executives On Jailing Law Breaking Bankers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other megabuck executives on their behavior since the 2008 mortgage crisis.

She is super right, are you a banker?

 

[Indeependent]

I know many brokers who lost business because they didn’t do what the big lenders did...bypass the software rejections and rubber stamp a bad loan “Approved”.
The Directors should have been divested of their ill gotten gain and sent to prison.

Yeah, and the reason the smaller brokers did not take risky loans, might also have to do with the fact they were not the targets of lawsuits forcing them to make such risky loans.

This is the problem I have with this entire discussion....

If Obama was NOT on a lawsuit to force Citigroup to make bad loans....
If Clinton was NOT suing banks to make bad loans....
If Freddie Mac was NOT guaranteeing bad loans....
If Maxine Waters was NOT saying that Fannie Mae was doing an "outstanding job" of providing risky loans....

If it was NOT the general policy of the government to push sub-prime loans since at least 1997....

Then I would be on your side of this argument. I don't know if I'd be in favor of prison, but I would most certainly ban all of them from the banking industry.

But the problem there is, if the government didn't push sub-prime loans, I doubt any of these bankers would have been making them. After all, prior to 1997, Sub-prime loans were a niche market with little to no, growth.... because they were risky.

Something caused them to make those loans. And that something was government. You should be demanding that the Democrats be tossed in prison if anything. They are the ones that instigated the economic crash.

Nah...
Not one Director was even investigated.
7 CEOs paid a pitiful penalty.
And I know way too many people who made a killing.
Both parties engaged in the GW farce.
GW, to this day, brags that he was the “Home Ownership” President.

Not to mention that Warren Buffet, who ordered Alan Greenspan to change the Mark to Market ratio, made 15 billion dollars on the day of the crash.
You know, the “charitable” Warren Buffet who cares so much about people.

I do not know much about this claim with Buffet and Mark to Market.

However, I have seen no evidence that it was involved in the sub-prime crash directly.

And I would agree that GWB was also supportive of more home ownership. That is true. Both parties were. That is true.

However, the sub-prime crash's origins were in 1997. This is clearly documented.

In 1997, the housing prices started to spike up.

This increase in housing prices coincides directly with the increase in sup-prime mortgages that happened in 1997.

Before 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market, specifically because they were risky.

So what happened on or before 1997 that caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans?

Two things..... First Freddie Mac started guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Wachovia Press Releases

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

First Union became Wachovia, which means the two original companies involved in Freddie Mac's guarantee of sub-prime loans, both ended up crashing spectacularly during the sub-prime crash.

So to recap, the government through Freddie Mac was pushing sub-prime loans.

At the exact same time, the government was taking banks to court, for not making risky sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo, then part of the Clinton administration, forced banks through the court, to make sub-prime loans.

Between the government using Freddie Mac to guarantee sub-prime loans, and giving them implied AAA ratings, and the Government suing banks in court for not making sub-prime loans....

This is what caused the sub-prime crash.

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

I will presume that people I your area were not buying houses left and right that they couldn’t afford;
and I’m not talking just minorities.
It’s difficult for me to imagine you live in such a dilapidated region.

 

[Indeependent]

I know many brokers who lost business because they didn’t do what the big lenders did...bypass the software rejections and rubber stamp a bad loan “Approved”.
The Directors should have been divested of their ill gotten gain and sent to prison.

Yeah, and the reason the smaller brokers did not take risky loans, might also have to do with the fact they were not the targets of lawsuits forcing them to make such risky loans.

This is the problem I have with this entire discussion....

If Obama was NOT on a lawsuit to force Citigroup to make bad loans....
If Clinton was NOT suing banks to make bad loans....
If Freddie Mac was NOT guaranteeing bad loans....
If Maxine Waters was NOT saying that Fannie Mae was doing an "outstanding job" of providing risky loans....

If it was NOT the general policy of the government to push sub-prime loans since at least 1997....

Then I would be on your side of this argument. I don't know if I'd be in favor of prison, but I would most certainly ban all of them from the banking industry.

But the problem there is, if the government didn't push sub-prime loans, I doubt any of these bankers would have been making them. After all, prior to 1997, Sub-prime loans were a niche market with little to no, growth.... because they were risky.

Something caused them to make those loans. And that something was government. You should be demanding that the Democrats be tossed in prison if anything. They are the ones that instigated the economic crash.

Nah...
Not one Director was even investigated.
7 CEOs paid a pitiful penalty.
And I know way too many people who made a killing.
Both parties engaged in the GW farce.
GW, to this day, brags that he was the “Home Ownership” President.

Not to mention that Warren Buffet, who ordered Alan Greenspan to change the Mark to Market ratio, made 15 billion dollars on the day of the crash.
You know, the “charitable” Warren Buffet who cares so much about people.

I do not know much about this claim with Buffet and Mark to Market.

However, I have seen no evidence that it was involved in the sub-prime crash directly.

And I would agree that GWB was also supportive of more home ownership. That is true. Both parties were. That is true.

However, the sub-prime crash's origins were in 1997. This is clearly documented.

In 1997, the housing prices started to spike up.

This increase in housing prices coincides directly with the increase in sup-prime mortgages that happened in 1997.

Before 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market, specifically because they were risky.

So what happened on or before 1997 that caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans?

Two things..... First Freddie Mac started guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Wachovia Press Releases

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

First Union became Wachovia, which means the two original companies involved in Freddie Mac's guarantee of sub-prime loans, both ended up crashing spectacularly during the sub-prime crash.

So to recap, the government through Freddie Mac was pushing sub-prime loans.

At the exact same time, the government was taking banks to court, for not making risky sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo, then part of the Clinton administration, forced banks through the court, to make sub-prime loans.

Between the government using Freddie Mac to guarantee sub-prime loans, and giving them implied AAA ratings, and the Government suing banks in court for not making sub-prime loans....

This is what caused the sub-prime crash.

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

The fact that you’re only blaming the Democrats.

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, and the reason the smaller brokers did not take risky loans, might also have to do with the fact they were not the targets of lawsuits forcing them to make such risky loans.

This is the problem I have with this entire discussion....

If Obama was NOT on a lawsuit to force Citigroup to make bad loans....
If Clinton was NOT suing banks to make bad loans....
If Freddie Mac was NOT guaranteeing bad loans....
If Maxine Waters was NOT saying that Fannie Mae was doing an "outstanding job" of providing risky loans....

If it was NOT the general policy of the government to push sub-prime loans since at least 1997....

Then I would be on your side of this argument. I don't know if I'd be in favor of prison, but I would most certainly ban all of them from the banking industry.

But the problem there is, if the government didn't push sub-prime loans, I doubt any of these bankers would have been making them. After all, prior to 1997, Sub-prime loans were a niche market with little to no, growth.... because they were risky.

Something caused them to make those loans. And that something was government. You should be demanding that the Democrats be tossed in prison if anything. They are the ones that instigated the economic crash.

Nah...
Not one Director was even investigated.
7 CEOs paid a pitiful penalty.
And I know way too many people who made a killing.
Both parties engaged in the GW farce.
GW, to this day, brags that he was the “Home Ownership” President.

Not to mention that Warren Buffet, who ordered Alan Greenspan to change the Mark to Market ratio, made 15 billion dollars on the day of the crash.
You know, the “charitable” Warren Buffet who cares so much about people.

I do not know much about this claim with Buffet and Mark to Market.

However, I have seen no evidence that it was involved in the sub-prime crash directly.

And I would agree that GWB was also supportive of more home ownership. That is true. Both parties were. That is true.

However, the sub-prime crash's origins were in 1997. This is clearly documented.

In 1997, the housing prices started to spike up.

This increase in housing prices coincides directly with the increase in sup-prime mortgages that happened in 1997.

Before 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market, specifically because they were risky.

So what happened on or before 1997 that caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans?

Two things..... First Freddie Mac started guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Wachovia Press Releases

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

First Union became Wachovia, which means the two original companies involved in Freddie Mac's guarantee of sub-prime loans, both ended up crashing spectacularly during the sub-prime crash.

So to recap, the government through Freddie Mac was pushing sub-prime loans.

At the exact same time, the government was taking banks to court, for not making risky sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo, then part of the Clinton administration, forced banks through the court, to make sub-prime loans.

Between the government using Freddie Mac to guarantee sub-prime loans, and giving them implied AAA ratings, and the Government suing banks in court for not making sub-prime loans....

This is what caused the sub-prime crash.

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

I will presume that people I your area were not buying houses left and right that they couldn’t afford;
and I’m not talking just minorities.
It’s difficult for me to imagine you live in such a dilapidated region.

Which still changes nothing of what I said, nor the facts I provided.

I don't even see that you have an argument to make about.... anything, at this point.

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, and the reason the smaller brokers did not take risky loans, might also have to do with the fact they were not the targets of lawsuits forcing them to make such risky loans.

This is the problem I have with this entire discussion....

If Obama was NOT on a lawsuit to force Citigroup to make bad loans....
If Clinton was NOT suing banks to make bad loans....
If Freddie Mac was NOT guaranteeing bad loans....
If Maxine Waters was NOT saying that Fannie Mae was doing an "outstanding job" of providing risky loans....

If it was NOT the general policy of the government to push sub-prime loans since at least 1997....

Then I would be on your side of this argument. I don't know if I'd be in favor of prison, but I would most certainly ban all of them from the banking industry.

But the problem there is, if the government didn't push sub-prime loans, I doubt any of these bankers would have been making them. After all, prior to 1997, Sub-prime loans were a niche market with little to no, growth.... because they were risky.

Something caused them to make those loans. And that something was government. You should be demanding that the Democrats be tossed in prison if anything. They are the ones that instigated the economic crash.

Nah...
Not one Director was even investigated.
7 CEOs paid a pitiful penalty.
And I know way too many people who made a killing.
Both parties engaged in the GW farce.
GW, to this day, brags that he was the “Home Ownership” President.

Not to mention that Warren Buffet, who ordered Alan Greenspan to change the Mark to Market ratio, made 15 billion dollars on the day of the crash.
You know, the “charitable” Warren Buffet who cares so much about people.

I do not know much about this claim with Buffet and Mark to Market.

However, I have seen no evidence that it was involved in the sub-prime crash directly.

And I would agree that GWB was also supportive of more home ownership. That is true. Both parties were. That is true.

However, the sub-prime crash's origins were in 1997. This is clearly documented.

In 1997, the housing prices started to spike up.

This increase in housing prices coincides directly with the increase in sup-prime mortgages that happened in 1997.

Before 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market, specifically because they were risky.

So what happened on or before 1997 that caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans?

Two things..... First Freddie Mac started guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Wachovia Press Releases

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

First Union became Wachovia, which means the two original companies involved in Freddie Mac's guarantee of sub-prime loans, both ended up crashing spectacularly during the sub-prime crash.

So to recap, the government through Freddie Mac was pushing sub-prime loans.

At the exact same time, the government was taking banks to court, for not making risky sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo, then part of the Clinton administration, forced banks through the court, to make sub-prime loans.

Between the government using Freddie Mac to guarantee sub-prime loans, and giving them implied AAA ratings, and the Government suing banks in court for not making sub-prime loans....

This is what caused the sub-prime crash.

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

The fact that you’re only blaming the Democrats.

Again... what part of my post, and the documented facts that I laid out, would you claim was untrue? Be specific.

 

[Andylusion]

She's smart enough to realize that every attack on her character or intelligence only makes her stronger. The right has made her the underdog, the innocent victim --and her popularity has grown to where everything she says, whether taken in or out of context, is national headlines.

My hope is that she along with Bernie, Tulsi, Rand Paul and Libertarians, and the other progressives join or form a third party and really shake the apple cart in Washington.

No.... False attacks on her character make her stronger.

True and accurate attacks on her character, while refusing to learn from those true and correct attacks.... makes her an idiot.

When you are right about something, and people attack you, standing by what you know is true makes you stronger.
When you are completely wrong about something, and people attack you for it, standing by what is completely wrong, just means you are fool who refuses to learn anything.

 

[22lcidw]

You Progs love the social programs and the expansion of more of it. But part of the deal with a fiat currency is the massive interest you pay for what you take a loan out with. And hones are part of it. Homes were affordable at one time but people had to put a percentage down on them. All of the excess fiat currency printed has to go somewhere and one of the places is homes.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Exxon Mobil, Wall Street and Big Pharma ....nobody is safe from this terrible young woman's wrath.

AOC GRILLS Jamie Dimon & Bank Executives On Jailing Law Breaking Bankers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other megabuck executives on their behavior since the 2008 mortgage crisis.

How about she go before the banksters at the Fed and ask the same questions?

What she's doing is going after the street peddler and ignoring the cartel at the top....But she excels at saying and doing stupid shit that creates more buzz than solutions.

Billionaire CEOs are street peddlers. WTF! Really?

The bank CEOs are only dealing in the worthless fiat "money" that legal tender laws force them to.....Their relative wealth is irrelevant to the model.

Who are the super-wealthy running the cartel at the top, which supplies them with the money?

Once again you show how uneducated and incredibly stupid you are. This time, you manage to also highlight how much of a maladjusted crybaby you are. You sound like a teenage reject whining about how his crush won't give him the time of day. But it's not her fault, because she's beautiful and perfect and can do no wrong. Blame the jocks with their big muscles and funny jokes who make it harder for everyone else!

All money is inherently worthless beyond what value a society gives it. Just like all language is inherently meaningless beyond what meaning a society gives it. But go ahead and double down on your backwoods redneck fantasies about how you've magically cracked the code with your 7th grade edumuhcachion that disproves the sum total of all human knowledge.

 

[the other mike]

Once again you show how uneducated and incredibly stupid you are. This time, you manage to also highlight how much of a maladjusted crybaby you are. You sound like a teenage reject whining about how his crush won't give him the time of day. But it's not her fault, because she's beautiful and perfect and can do no wrong. Blame the jocks with their big muscles and funny jokes who make it harder for everyone else!

All money is inherently worthless beyond what value a society gives it. Just like all language is inherently meaningless beyond what meaning a society gives it. But go ahead and double down on your backwoods redneck fantasies about how you've magically cracked the code with your 7th grade edumuhcachion that disproves the sum total of all human knowledge.

I finally had to put our friend oddball on ignore yesterday-- a very annoying little troll isn't he ?

 

[Oddball]

Once again you show how uneducated and incredibly stupid you are. This time, you manage to also highlight how much of a maladjusted crybaby you are. You sound like a teenage reject whining about how his crush won't give him the time of day. But it's not her fault, because she's beautiful and perfect and can do no wrong. Blame the jocks with their big muscles and funny jokes who make it harder for everyone else!

Irrelevant Freudian ad homenim attack is irrelevant.

All money is inherently worthless beyond what value a society gives it. Just like all language is inherently meaningless beyond what meaning a society gives it. But go ahead and double down on your backwoods redneck fantasies about how you've magically cracked the code with your 7th grade edumuhcachion that disproves the sum total of all human knowledge.

The grand philosophical meta-point is irrelevant to how the Fed creates "money" out of thin air, and how our monetary system is based upon debt instead of accumulated wealth.

You're an ignoramus monkey, more interested in flinging your own poop than understanding how the truly incomprehensibly wealthy get and stay that way, while saddling sad sack chumps like you with mountains of debt.