Cnbc host calls for new 'tea party';

We've been over this several times. Most subprime loans were not "forced" by the government to anyone.

Didn't you view the video? In his own words Cuomo boasted that he did exactly that. librals just say he didn't say what he said.. get it?:eusa_whistle:
The amount of subprime loans that were guaranteed by Freddie and Fannie was less than 10% of total subprime loans and accounted for about 1% of the total mortgage market.

I've seen several varieties of this answer, indicating that it was only 10% or only 20% or the expansion in the form of derivatives, etc. Tell me, exactly what percent of bad loans, at the right time in the business cycle, would cause financial ruin? What percent would you advise a bank to throw down the toilet?

Most of the problems in the housing market arose from subprime borrowers who were white,

And your point in including "white"?

This argument is propagated almost exclusively by conservatives. In the financial markets, it is an answer that never comes up other than as a tangential matter.

Surely you aren't going to say that CRA, or Dodd and the Countrywide bribe, or Barney Frank and his paramour Herb Moses, an official at Fanny Mae, the Cuomo clip above, didn’t happen or didn't matter. Your argument is "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes."

Ah, now that you bring up Conservatives, I suspect that you voted for this admin, and are of the Dem persuasion. If you are young and still suffering the effects of a liberal college, this is understandable. If you are old enough to have experienced the world there is no hope for you.

If the former, I offer this diamond of truth:
Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, as opposed to involuntary collectivism.

Bolsheviks believe in stagist ideas of this pattern: feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. Learn from history.






:lol:
 
Didn't you view the video? In his own words Cuomo boasted that he did exactly that.

A politician taking credit for something! :eek: Who would have thunk!

I look at the cold hard numbers. I don't view the world through a political lens, trying to always blame the other side for everything wrong in this country and always patting my side on the back for everything good. If you think that this is primarily the Democrats fault, I'm sorry, you're either extremely political, unknowing or not paying attention. The latter two are forgivable, the first is not. That doesn't mean the Dems are blameless but there were far bigger catalysts for this disaster.

I've seen several varieties of this answer, indicating that it was only 10% or only 20% or the expansion in the form of derivatives, etc. Tell me, exactly what percent of bad loans, at the right time in the business cycle, would cause financial ruin? What percent would you advise a bank to throw down the toilet?

Zero.

But that is besides the point. Most of the bad loans were made outside of the government structure. Blaming that small minority of loans on the disaster is not a serious answer.

And your point in including "white"?

Whites are the majority in the country. The middle class is the majority in this country. This was not a problem of lending to poor people, black, white, red or yellow.

Surely you aren't going to say that CRA, or Dodd and the Countrywide bribe, or Barney Frank and his paramour Herb Moses, an official at Fanny Mae, the Cuomo clip above, didn’t happen or didn't matter. Your argument is "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes."

Ah, now that you bring up Conservatives, I suspect that you voted for this admin, and are of the Dem persuasion. If you are young and still suffering the effects of a liberal college, this is understandable. If you are old enough to have experienced the world there is no hope for you.

If you are asking about me, I work and invest for one of the largest financial institution in the world. I looked at several of these subprime collateralized debt obligations as the underlying assets for equity swaps, and kept my institution out of all of them, saving us perhaps billions of dollars. So if you are asking me about the financial industry, I am fairly confident about this issue. And yes, I can tell you, all those that you mention above are bit players in this debacle.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I am amazed to find people still blaming the financial crisis on poor people.
No, you haven't heard? It's the fault of single mother's who couldn't keep their wallets closed.
 
Didn't you view the video? In his own words Cuomo boasted that he did exactly that.

A politician taking credit for something! :eek: Who would have thunk!

I look at the cold hard numbers. I don't view the world through a political lens, trying to always blame the other side for everything wrong in this country and always patting my side on the back for everything good. If you think that this is primarily the Democrats fault, I'm sorry, you're either extremely political, unknowing or not paying attention. The latter two are forgivable, the first is not. That doesn't mean the Dems are blameless but there were far bigger catalysts for this disaster.

I've seen several varieties of this answer, indicating that it was only 10% or only 20% or the expansion in the form of derivatives, etc. Tell me, exactly what percent of bad loans, at the right time in the business cycle, would cause financial ruin? What percent would you advise a bank to throw down the toilet?

Zero.

But that is besides the point. Most of the bad loans were made outside of the government structure. Blaming that small minority of loans on the disaster is not a serious answer.

And your point in including "white"?

Whites are the majority in the country. The middle class is the majority in this country. This was not a problem of lending to poor people, black, white, red or yellow.

Surely you aren't going to say that CRA, or Dodd and the Countrywide bribe, or Barney Frank and his paramour Herb Moses, an official at Fanny Mae, the Cuomo clip above, didn’t happen or didn't matter. Your argument is "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes."

Ah, now that you bring up Conservatives, I suspect that you voted for this admin, and are of the Dem persuasion. If you are young and still suffering the effects of a liberal college, this is understandable. If you are old enough to have experienced the world there is no hope for you.

If you are asking about me, I work and invest for one of the largest financial institution in the world. I looked at several of these subprime collateralized debt obligations as the underlying assets for equity swaps, and kept my institution out of all of them, saving us perhaps billions of dollars. So if you are asking me about the financial industry, I am fairly confident about this issue. And yes, I can tell you, all those that you mention above are bit players in this debacle.

And with that, there is only one thing left to say:

$owned-tank.jpg
 
Wow, I am amazed to find people still blaming the financial crisis on poor people.

It's not like there aren't poor people that deserve some of the blame for being financially stupid. But no, they aren't solely to blame.
 
A politician taking credit for something! :eek: Who would have thunk!

Be clear. Are you denying that the Clinton Admin brought suit to force those banks to increase risky loans?

That doesn't mean the Dems are blameless but there were far bigger catalysts for this disaster.

So there is a kernel of agreement here. We only disagree about the degree.

And you agree that a financial institution should be forced to give "zero" risky loans. Again, I see agreement.
Most of the bad loans...
Now here we disagree. If you agree that zero is the correct number of advisable risky loans, where does the word "most' enter the argument? If none is correct, then "most "implies that some were forced, and would be the cause of at least some of the crisis.

It was a very weak defense of your insertion ot the term "white," except if you are attempting to claim that whites are the cause of the crisis.

If you are asking about me, ...
No, I can tell that you feel that you know a great deal about finance, and I like the way you write, but actually I was implying that your political bent colors your view of the intertwined political and economic environment. As do mine.

At the extreme risk of redundancy, let me say that a Conservative political climate would be most efficacious for the economy.
So, aside from the business cycle, what were the main causes of the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis?
 
to say that the roots of economic crisis problem isn't buried from the popping of the housing bubble is ludicrous. It all stems from that. Trillions of dollars in bad loans that were "guaranteed" from institutuions like fannie and freddy then put out into the market as mortgage backed securities which turned to shit when everything exploded.

THose assests now had no value and were toxic, then intrest rates changed on people who didn't understand their contract or made bad decisions and they got forclosed on, diminishing property value all around them.

The biggest indicator of wealth has and will always been land...ie real estate....if you have forclosures all around you, your property value goes down, which means your wealth goes down.

All these brokerages that were deeply involved in the mortgage backed securities like Merril, and Lehman, and bear all went to shit with Fannie and Freddy saying they were broke.

THere are certianly other aspects of the economic crunch we are in but this is by far the main factor to it.

And to say the CRA had nothing to fucking do with it is just as ludicrous....when Clinton made his ammendements to the CRA, it forced backs to diversify their loan portfolio to lower income areas or they were not allowed to expand.

Both parties are to blame because it was moronic of Bush to sign his bill for easy buying homes requiring less or no downs as well.
 
Wow, I am amazed to find people still blaming the financial crisis on poor people.

It's not like there aren't poor people that deserve some of the blame for being financially stupid. But no, they aren't solely to blame.
Some poor people deserve blame for being financially stupid. No poor people deserve the blame for the financial crisis.

Enjoyable thread...watching Toro being called a liberal is always funny. Interesting how often the rational are thought to be liberals.
 
Wow, I am amazed to find people still blaming the financial crisis on poor people.

It's not like there aren't poor people that deserve some of the blame for being financially stupid. But no, they aren't solely to blame.
Some poor people deserve blame for being financially stupid. No poor people deserve the blame for the financial crisis.

Enjoyable thread...watching Toro being called a liberal is always funny. Interesting how often the rational are thought to be liberals.

What we really need is a way to tell those who could not afford the home they bought in the first place, and let them be foreclosed on. while saving those who could afford it, before this financial Crisis made it impossible for them.

Millions of Americans, who did live with in their means, are now suffering, and being asked to bail out those who did not. That is why this Idea is so unpopular.

Having worked in construction in the years leading up to today. I saw both sides. I saw people buy houses they could afford, but I also saw many people buy houses, it was clear they could only afford if the interest rates never went up, and even then just barely.

When a family living on 50k a year, buys a 600k house. You have to question both their wisdom, and the wisdom of bailing them out to try and keep them in that house in the first place.
 
Some poor people deserve blame for being financially stupid. No poor people deserve the blame for the financial crisis.
:lol: that borders on retarded.

Those poor 'poor people'. They can do no wrong! :rolleyes:
 
Trouble with your idea Charles, is that foreclosed homes all over the neighborhoods will increase crime and lower property values...so people who do have jobs and can pay their mortgages will end up being hurt as well.
 
to say that the roots of economic crisis problem isn't buried from the popping of the housing bubble is ludicrous. It all stems from that. Trillions of dollars in bad loans that were "guaranteed" from institutuions like fannie and freddy then put out into the market as mortgage backed securities which turned to shit when everything exploded.

Of course, Fannie and Freddie played some role. But this is not exclusively a Democrat issue. Republicans exclusively controlled the White House and the House and the Senate for four years, yet did nothing while home prices exploded. The GOP could have tackled this problem but chose not to.

Also, Fannie and Freddie did not guarantee home prices in Spain or Ireland or Canada or Australia or many other countries which saw outsized home price gains.

Finally, and most importantly, GSE qualifying mortgages were not the driver of the housing bubble. Subprime mortgages, Alt-A mortgages - which are primarily outside the purview of the GSEs - and jumbo mortgages - which are completely outside the GSEs - were the drivers of the housing bubble.

You can see it empirically in the price of homes. Qualifying home prices - which are those guaranteed and held by the GSEs - have fallen about half as much as all home prices. These homes have fallen by about 10%

2q08.jpg

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

whereas all homes - which include those financed by jumbo, subprime and Alt-A mortgages - have fallen by 25%.

caseshillerhpi.gif


So, yeah, as conduits of credit creation, the GSEs were a player in all this, but not a major one.

And to say the CRA had nothing to fucking do with it is just as ludicrous....when Clinton made his ammendements to the CRA, it forced backs to diversify their loan portfolio to lower income areas or they were not allowed to expand.

Both parties are to blame because it was moronic of Bush to sign his bill for easy buying homes requiring less or no downs as well.

The San Francisco Fed says that the CRA was not a primary contributor to the housing bubble.

A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data “should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.” Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.

Among the specific findings in “Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown”:
# Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.
# Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were “significantly less likely to be in foreclosure” than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.
# Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were “half as likely to go into foreclosure” as those made by the independent mortgage companies.
# 28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.
# 12% of the loans made by CRA lenders in these areas were high-priced loans, a technical definition of subprime, compared with 29% of the loans made by those lenders outside their assessment areas and 52.4% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low-income areas.

Real Time Economics : Don't Blame CRA (The Sequel)

Federal Reserve governor, Randall Kroszner, says the CRA had little effect on home prices.

The “striking result,” Kroszner said: “Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes.”

“This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.” Banks can also meet CRA obligations by buying loans from mortgage brokers, he noted. But less than 2% of the higher-priced loans (those would help banks meet CRA requirements) sold by independent mortgage companies were purchased by CRA-covered institutions.

Real Time Economics : Fed's Kroszner: Don't Blame CRA

FDIC Chairwoman, Sheila Bair, and Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan say that the CRA was not a significant factor.

FDIC’s Bair Sets to Shatter CRA “Myth” : HousingWire || financial news for the mortgage market
 
Be clear. Are you denying that the Clinton Admin brought suit to force those banks to increase risky loans?

No, I am not. What I am saying is that those loans were too small to trigger a housing bubble, as I stated above.

Now here we disagree. If you agree that zero is the correct number of advisable risky loans, where does the word "most' enter the argument? If none is correct, then "most "implies that some were forced, and would be the cause of at least some of the crisis.

Most loans used to fund the housing bubble were not risky CRA loans. Thus, they did not cause the housing bubble.

It was a very weak defense of your insertion ot the term "white," except if you are attempting to claim that whites are the cause of the crisis.

The housing bubble did not occur because of "white" people. However, the CRA was created to expand borrowing to minorities. Here is why.

In the 1960s and 70s, banks would redline neighborhoods. They would literally put a map on a wall, and with a red magic marker, draw a redline enveloping certain neighborhoods. If you lived within the redlined areas, regardless of your income, credit score, assets, debt servicing ability, if you were in the redlined area you could not qualify for a mortgage.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/more-cra-idiocy/

These neighborhoods were disproportionately poor. They were also disproportionately black. Many blacks saw the CRA as racist, and criticisms that the CRA caused the housing debacle as coded racism, even if you and most whites do not.

So, aside from the business cycle, what were the main causes of the mortgage meltdown and financial crisis?

The causes are complex, but the primary cause was the Federal Reserve, which cut rates too low and flooded the financial system with too much money, and the financial system, which took on too much debt and allowed borrowing standards to collapse. The financial system was allowed by regulators to increase the amount of debt they could put on their balance sheets while the regulators did not crack down on lax lending standards. Both non-actions occurred because the government believed that the financial system could regulate itself better than the government. It was a failure of philosophy that the free market could regulate itself best in the financial markets.
 
Last edited:
My God... a voice of reason shouting from the depths... it's almost enough to give me hope.

And I'm pretty close to Chicago, Lake Michigan. If there's a Tea Party in July, I WILL BE THERE!



:lol::lol::lol::lol:


A bunch rich, fat ass white guy stock brockers are going to instigate a revolution? :lol:


Don't make me laugh. These fat fucks wouldn't even have the balls to volunteer to go fight our real enemies in afghanistan. LOL. These fat fucks aren't going to do shit except get on cable TV and thump their hairy man boobs for the camera.

Stockbrockers rioting in the street?:lol: These fucks are only worried about saving their own skins, blaming poor people, and wondering how their going to keep the payments up on their vacation homes because of the economic meltdown they caused.
 

Forum List

Back
Top