Do you know left wingers still blame the 2008 housing bubble on just Booooosh?

[ClosedCaption]

Darn that socialism!!

So CC, we should assume you are happy with an all time high stock market and depressed worker wages? Please explain.

Explain what? How you threw in a negative with a positive? I cant explain it.

Its like saying "Tell me how much you like apple pie and dead apple trees"

Sorry it confused you. I'll try to make it simpler. Under BO - The stock market is near an all time high. Are you happy about that, and has it helped the less fortunate? Worker wages are depressed. Are you happy about that? The wealth gap has continued to widen after nearly 8 years of a BO presidency. Are you happy about that?

The stock market isnt designed to help the less fortunate silly. Yes, I'm glad they are doing better than before. Only you see a positive as someone elses negative. Like the apple pie and apple tree. The wealth gap continues to increase, no I'm not happy about that.

What has the Republican house and Senate proposed to stop it? Nothing? So are you happy about that?

In fact when Obama spoke on Income inequality Republicans denounced it. Are you saying republicans were wrong and now want to support Obama?

Naaaw, you just using it to hit Obama for it, you have no solution...hell most repubs deny its even happening.

STRAWMAN ALERT!
I never said the stock market was designed to help the less fortunate.

Under BO - The stock market is near an all time high. Are you happy about that, and has it helped the less fortunate?

And it is the liberals who generally believe that the rich get richer at the expense of the less fortunate, or as you put it - see a positive as someone else's negative, e.g. Corporate profits versus depressed wages.

You have a hard enough time stating what you believe. So trying to say what others do is a waste of time. I asked what has the Republican house and Congress done to stop wage discrimination and wage gaps? So far all they've done is denied it exists.

I will answer your fair question regarding then GOP congress, which has had controlled both houses less than 2 years for the BO presidency. No, I am very unhappy how they have served the people's interest.

With regard to solutions- I would prefer the federal government, no matter who is incumbent, to quit trying to "fix" the economy. Most of them are attorneys who make money by pandering to special interest. They are not economist and shouldn't be trying to fix something they don't understand. You wouldn't take your car to a baker for service.

What you prefer and what republicans are offering are two different things. Obama cant do it alone and the republicans deny income inequality even exists...unless they can hang it around Obama's neck.

 

[g5000]

I mentioned the CFMA earlier. Also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.


This is from Section 117 of the CFMA:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Why does a bank need exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos? Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

This type of legislation led to the outright fraud we saw leading up to the crash.

Where were all the States Rights advocates screaming about this blatant federal pre-emption of state laws? Why was Fox News not ranting about this?

Might it have something to do with the fact it was put in there by a Republican at the behest of Wall Street?

Things that make you go hmmmmm...

 

[g5000]

The accounting scandals in the GSEs opened the door to Wall Street storming into the secondary market.

How?

Investors lost trust in the GSEs and turned to Wall Street instead.

Well sub-prime derivative market was very profitable...until it wasn't. Besides, if GSE's actually went down from internal problems they would drag down the rest of the market.

Sub-primes were less than three percent of the secondary market, until Wall Street went hog wild with CDOs.

The newly invented CDOs were a hot commodity, and there weren't enough good risks to pack into them, and so Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window, and began searching for more paper to cram into their CDOs. And this mean they needed more and more borrowers.

When you run out of good risk borrowers, and still want to lend more money out, then you inevitably lower your standards. THIS is what caused the crash. Wall Street was selling CDOs like heroin. As was every Western financial institution on the planet.

The idea the banks were FORCED to lend, as the retards claim, is outright laughable. Every time I hear a tard say that, I immediately know they are a parroting rube who is completely clueless.

Lehman Brothers bought their own mortgage broker pipeline to keep the paper flowing in. And Fuld thought he had his risks covered by credit default swaps and CDO-squareds and all kinds of other bizarre shit. He also thought that if all else failed, the US government would not allow him to collapse.

He was wrong on every count.

And when some ignorant parroting rube in Congress asked him during the hearings how much the CRA had to do with Lehman failing, Fuld responded, "De minimus."

 

[AntonToo]

The accounting scandals in the GSEs opened the door to Wall Street storming into the secondary market.

How?

Investors lost trust in the GSEs and turned to Wall Street instead.

Well sub-prime derivative market was very profitable...until it wasn't. Besides, if GSE's actually went down from internal problems they would drag down the rest of the market.

Sub-primes were less than three percent of the secondary market, until Wall Street went hog wild with CDOs.

The newly invented CDOs were a hot commodity, and there weren't enough good risks to pack into them, and so Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window, and began searching for more paper to cram into their CDOs. And this mean they needed more and more borrowers.

When you run out of good risk borrowers, and still want to lend more money out, then you inevitably lower your standards. THIS is what caused the crash.

The idea the banks were FORCED to lend, as the retards claim, is ourtight laughable. Every time I hear a tard say that, I immediately know they are a parroting rube who is completely clueless.

Lehman Brothers bought their own mortgage broker pipeline to keep the paper flowing in. And Fuld thought he had his risks covered by credit default swaps and CDO-squareds and all kinds of other bizarre shit. He also thought that if all else failed, the US government would not allow him to collapse.

He was wrong on every count.

And when some ignorant parroting rube in Congress asked him during the hearing how much the CRA had to do with Lehman failing, Fuld responded, "De minimus."

Ok, but CDOs are still here today and we aren't crashing, right?

 

[g5000]

Here is who is to blame for the derivatives bubble crash:

Investors

Borrowers

Banks

Ratings agencies

Congress

Bill Clinton

George Bush

Broker-dealers

Real estate agents

Home builders

Mortgage brokers

The Democrats

The Republicans


I may have left a few people out.

 

[g5000]

The accounting scandals in the GSEs opened the door to Wall Street storming into the secondary market.

How?

Investors lost trust in the GSEs and turned to Wall Street instead.

Well sub-prime derivative market was very profitable...until it wasn't. Besides, if GSE's actually went down from internal problems they would drag down the rest of the market.

Sub-primes were less than three percent of the secondary market, until Wall Street went hog wild with CDOs.

The newly invented CDOs were a hot commodity, and there weren't enough good risks to pack into them, and so Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window, and began searching for more paper to cram into their CDOs. And this mean they needed more and more borrowers.

When you run out of good risk borrowers, and still want to lend more money out, then you inevitably lower your standards. THIS is what caused the crash.

The idea the banks were FORCED to lend, as the retards claim, is ourtight laughable. Every time I hear a tard say that, I immediately know they are a parroting rube who is completely clueless.

Lehman Brothers bought their own mortgage broker pipeline to keep the paper flowing in. And Fuld thought he had his risks covered by credit default swaps and CDO-squareds and all kinds of other bizarre shit. He also thought that if all else failed, the US government would not allow him to collapse.

He was wrong on every count.

And when some ignorant parroting rube in Congress asked him during the hearing how much the CRA had to do with Lehman failing, Fuld responded, "De minimus."

Ok, but CDOs are still here today and we aren't crashing, right?

CDS are still here today, too, and they shouldn't be.

CDOs were working just fine before the bubble. They had a very specific purpose and carried no risk whatsoever. They were a righteous tool in the hands of people with integrity.

But then the dumb and greedy took over.

Credit Default Swaps should definitely be banned, though.

CDOs should be sold on an open exchange with transparent chains of collateral.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So CC, we should assume you are happy with an all time high stock market and depressed worker wages? Please explain.

Explain what? How you threw in a negative with a positive? I cant explain it.

Its like saying "Tell me how much you like apple pie and dead apple trees"

Sorry it confused you. I'll try to make it simpler. Under BO - The stock market is near an all time high. Are you happy about that, and has it helped the less fortunate? Worker wages are depressed. Are you happy about that? The wealth gap has continued to widen after nearly 8 years of a BO presidency. Are you happy about that?

The stock market isnt designed to help the less fortunate silly. Yes, I'm glad they are doing better than before. Only you see a positive as someone elses negative. Like the apple pie and apple tree. The wealth gap continues to increase, no I'm not happy about that.

What has the Republican house and Senate proposed to stop it? Nothing? So are you happy about that?

In fact when Obama spoke on Income inequality Republicans denounced it. Are you saying republicans were wrong and now want to support Obama?

Naaaw, you just using it to hit Obama for it, you have no solution...hell most repubs deny its even happening.

STRAWMAN ALERT!
I never said the stock market was designed to help the less fortunate.

Under BO - The stock market is near an all time high. Are you happy about that, and has it helped the less fortunate?

And it is the liberals who generally believe that the rich get richer at the expense of the less fortunate, or as you put it - see a positive as someone else's negative, e.g. Corporate profits versus depressed wages.

You have a hard enough time stating what you believe. So trying to say what others do is a waste of time. I asked what has the Republican house and Congress done to stop wage discrimination and wage gaps? So far all they've done is denied it exists.

I will answer your fair question regarding then GOP congress, which has had controlled both houses less than 2 years for the BO presidency. No, I am very unhappy how they have served the people's interest.

With regard to solutions- I would prefer the federal government, no matter who is incumbent, to quit trying to "fix" the economy. Most of them are attorneys who make money by pandering to special interest. They are not economist and shouldn't be trying to fix something they don't understand. You wouldn't take your car to a baker for service.

What you prefer and what republicans are offering are two different things. Obama cant do it alone and the republicans deny income inequality even exists...unless they can hang it around Obama's neck.

Please show your reference for republicans denying income inequality. They don't deny it, but just like BO, they have no solution for it. You are clearly a hardcore democrat, good for you. I am a conservative, but not a Republican, so I don't need to defend them the way you need to defend BO, Hellary, Barney Frank, or any other Dems.

The rest of your preceding post is a butt hurt rant, but I bet you feel better.

 

[AntonToo]

How?

Investors lost trust in the GSEs and turned to Wall Street instead.

Well sub-prime derivative market was very profitable...until it wasn't. Besides, if GSE's actually went down from internal problems they would drag down the rest of the market.

Sub-primes were less than three percent of the secondary market, until Wall Street went hog wild with CDOs.

The newly invented CDOs were a hot commodity, and there weren't enough good risks to pack into them, and so Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window, and began searching for more paper to cram into their CDOs. And this mean they needed more and more borrowers.

When you run out of good risk borrowers, and still want to lend more money out, then you inevitably lower your standards. THIS is what caused the crash.

The idea the banks were FORCED to lend, as the retards claim, is ourtight laughable. Every time I hear a tard say that, I immediately know they are a parroting rube who is completely clueless.

Lehman Brothers bought their own mortgage broker pipeline to keep the paper flowing in. And Fuld thought he had his risks covered by credit default swaps and CDO-squareds and all kinds of other bizarre shit. He also thought that if all else failed, the US government would not allow him to collapse.

He was wrong on every count.

And when some ignorant parroting rube in Congress asked him during the hearing how much the CRA had to do with Lehman failing, Fuld responded, "De minimus."

Ok, but CDOs are still here today and we aren't crashing, right?

CDS are still here today, too, and they shouldn't be.

CDOs were working just fine before the bubble. They had a very specific purpose and carried no risk whatsoever. They were a righteous tool in the hands of people with integrity.

But then the dumb and greedy took over.

Credit Default Swaps should definitely be banned, though.

CDOs should be sold on an open exchange with transparent chains of collateral.

But if they aren't going away and we aren't crashing doesn't that mean they aren't the definitive cause?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Concentrate on this

STRAWMAN ALERT!
I never said the stock market was designed to help the less fortunate.

Under BO - The stock market is near an all time high. Are you happy about that, and has it helped the less fortunate?

You just lie and then deny it only to come back with more bullshit. I'm not interested in kicking the ball when you keep moving it

 

[AntonToo]

no, but it was accounting that painted the picture that these institutions were healthy when indeed they were not.

Lets go over this AGAIN - did accounting rate sub-prime backed securities (or any securities)?

The answer is NO, so therefore when those AAA assets turned into junk overnight....you can go ahead and finish that sentence if you like your own ideas more that someone else's.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clinton was just as responsible, for the regulatory framework that lead to the housing boom and dotcom crash.

Clinton, the Lame Duck, dogged by impeachment proceedings over the Lewinsky Scandal, signed the legislation which originated in the Republican House and Senate, into law. But make no mistake - this was a Republican bill.

Bush made it a goal to make every American a home owner. He pushed it hard.

Clinton, the Lame Duck, dogged by impeachment proceedings over the Lewinsky Scandal, signed the legislation which originated in the Republican House and Senate, into law.

Which legislation is that?

The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, for one.

Caused the housing bubble?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As I previously stated primary view of economists is that it was general market exuberance combined with poor risk management.

Not related to the repeal of parts of Glass-Steagall?

I don't think you understand that government regulation and GSE are part of the general market.

It takes politico right wingers specifically to claim that the crash stemmed from poor accounting at GSE's

The poor accounting allowed corrupt Dems at the GSEs to get bonuses they did not deserve.

Did the GSEs add to the bubble by buying a lot of the crappy mortgages?

Silly, even if what you claim is true, democrat bonuses did not cause the real estate collapse.

And like I said GSEs are part of the general market, but for their part they were late to the sub-prime securities party compared to private institutions. In 2003 Bush admin has even specifically criticized them for it.

If your securitized holdings go from Tripple A to Junk overnight then no amount of proper accounting could have saved you and GSE's were always highly leveraged and will continue to be so, backed by the good faith in US of A.

democrat bonuses did not cause the real estate collapse.

Didn't say they caused the collapse.
The poor accounting you mentioned allowed Dem insiders to commit fraud without consequence.

And like I said GSEs are part of the general market, but for their part they were late to the sub-prime securities party compared to private institutions.

When they got to the party, did they add to the bubble? A little? A lot?

When they finally did, 25%, their halved share of the market. GOP finally got them involved in their scam.

When they finally did, 25%

They bought 25% of the crappy mortgages? Dollar wise, how much?

GOP finally got them involved in their scam.

Did they pass a law? Link?

Your continued obliviousness to reality is noted...

Yes, assuming you have an actual point makes me oblivious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course we know that. Aren't they pathetic?

Lets play a keep-em-honest experiment:

Mentally switch the name of the person who was in White House 2001-2009 from Bush to Obama.

Ready? Ok who's fault was 2008 Great Recession...GO!

Barney Frank & his ilk

I just don't understand how this can be said, when Barney Franks, even in his famous video on Fannie and Freddie, was in the MINORITY, in the House....there was NOTHING at all that Barney could stop Republicans from doing, if they proposed to do it....

So how could Barney Frank and his ilk, in the minority, do any thing at all to affect any thing at all in this mess?

How did the minority Republican party prevent Obama from raising taxes?

The exact same way.

In 2005, Wall Street was moving into the secondary mortgage market in a big way. CDOs were selling like hot cakes and Wall Street needed as much paper to pack into them as possible.

They saw the GSEs as their competition in the secondary mortgage market. So, gee, what a coincidence, George Bush started saying the GSE portfolios were too big and might become a "systemic risk". The Bush Administration then pushed legislation to reduce the GSE portfolios. If the GSEs were forced to reduce their market share, that left more for Wall Street to gobble up.

This is very important to understand: Forcing the GSEs to reduce their portfolios would not have done fuck-all to cool the secondary mortgage market. It would not stopped the housing bubble one bit.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd put the kibosh on that legislation to reduce the GSE portfolios, using the power of filibuster.

At the same time, Bush's SEC lifted the reserve capital requirements for the five biggest banks on Wall Street! This is how you know Bush's talk about "systemic risk" was just so much bullshit.

By the end of 2005, the GSEs had become bit players in the secondary market, when they used to be 90+ percent of the market.

You know who those five Wall Street financial institutions were? Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch. And that waiver directly led to Lehman and Merrill and Bear going under, and the others having to be bailed out.

But who do the rubes focus on? They focus on the bit players, the GSEs.

And the rubes were told it was all the negroes' fault, by way of the CRA. Despite the fact this derivatives bubble was GLOBAL, and despite the fact that not one of the firms I just named were subject to the CRA.

This wasn't just a housing bubble. If it was just a housing bubble, the collapse would have been more than manageable.

This was a global derivatives bubble. Something way too complicated for the simple minds to understand. They have the intellectual bandwidth of a bumper sticker, and so about two weeks after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Fox News invented the "because negroes CRA" meme. Again, despite the fact Lehman Brothers and Bear and Merrill and Goldman and Morgan were not even subject to the CRA.

The CRA meme persists among the dumber beasts of the rube herd to this day.

But who do the rubes focus on? They focus on the bit players, the GSEs.

Of their annual purchases, how much sub-prime paper did the government force those bit players to purchase?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The accounting scandals in the GSEs opened the door to Wall Street storming into the secondary market.

How?

Investors lost trust in the GSEs and turned to Wall Street instead.

GSEs had to reduce their purchases, until Congress let them off the hook.

 

[Fueri]

no, but it was accounting that painted the picture that these institutions were healthy when indeed they were not.

Lets go over this AGAIN - did accounting rate sub-prime backed securities (or any securities)?

The answer is NO, so therefore....you can go ahead and finish that sentence is you like your own ideas more.

FFS- I never said it did. What I said the fraudulent accounting at fannie did was misrepresent fannies position. said it in my first post to you and then all along the way here. never once did I claim anything else, so nice try deflecting yet again.

The watchdog for any group always requires financial records, so continuing to go this route that they are somehow unimportant is just plain stupid.

Fannie overstated by profits by 9 billion dollars, which represented 40 percent of it's earning for the period of 2001 up until the crash.

Is it reasonable to think that this overstated their earnings? yep

is it reasonable to think it misrepresented their liquidity? yep

is it reasonable to think that these numbers were misleading to the same people tasked with assessing their viability. sure as hell is.

even fannie talked about their accounting as if it was actually important. after Freddie shit the bed Fannie accused Freddie of 'collateral damage' because of their accounting scandal, which we haven't even discussed here.

"Fannie responded to Freddie's problems with astonishing self-righteousness. Raines held a press conference in which he accused Freddie of causing "collateral damage." The Frequently Asked Questions section of Fannie's website included the following statement: "Fannie Mae's reported financial results follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles to the letter.... There should be no question about our accounting."

In fact it was questions on the accounting that led to the investigation of Freddie, which started the dominoes falling with these 2 organizations.

and then this about Fannie:

"In 2002 accounting sleuths and short-sellers became suspicious of Fannie's smoothly growing earnings. Fannie's duration gap made it clear that the company had been on the wrong side of interest rate bets during a period of rapidly declining rates in the fall of that year. Yet that didn't seem to have had any effect on Fannie's earnings. John Barnett, then an analyst at the Center for Financial Research and Analysis, which produces detailed accounting reports for institutional investors, suggested that Fannie Mae was distorting economic reality by putting billions of dollars in derivative losses on its balance sheet instead of on its income statement."

People knew they were dirty because their accounting made no sense, and they knew it well before '08. This fraudulent accounting, fed into the picture seen by regulators and congress. And that's what I've been saying all along, your disingenuous attempts to reframe the conversation aside.

continuing to claim otherwise is indicative of a brain tumor at this point.

see a doctor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How?

Investors lost trust in the GSEs and turned to Wall Street instead.

Well sub-prime derivative market was very profitable...until it wasn't. Besides, if GSE's actually went down from internal problems they would drag down the rest of the market.

Sub-primes were less than three percent of the secondary market, until Wall Street went hog wild with CDOs.

The newly invented CDOs were a hot commodity, and there weren't enough good risks to pack into them, and so Wall Street threw the underwriting laws of the Universe out the window, and began searching for more paper to cram into their CDOs. And this mean they needed more and more borrowers.

When you run out of good risk borrowers, and still want to lend more money out, then you inevitably lower your standards. THIS is what caused the crash.

The idea the banks were FORCED to lend, as the retards claim, is ourtight laughable. Every time I hear a tard say that, I immediately know they are a parroting rube who is completely clueless.

Lehman Brothers bought their own mortgage broker pipeline to keep the paper flowing in. And Fuld thought he had his risks covered by credit default swaps and CDO-squareds and all kinds of other bizarre shit. He also thought that if all else failed, the US government would not allow him to collapse.

He was wrong on every count.

And when some ignorant parroting rube in Congress asked him during the hearing how much the CRA had to do with Lehman failing, Fuld responded, "De minimus."

Ok, but CDOs are still here today and we aren't crashing, right?

CDS are still here today, too, and they shouldn't be.

CDOs were working just fine before the bubble. They had a very specific purpose and carried no risk whatsoever. They were a righteous tool in the hands of people with integrity.

But then the dumb and greedy took over.

Credit Default Swaps should definitely be banned, though.

CDOs should be sold on an open exchange with transparent chains of collateral.

CDOs were working just fine before the bubble. They had a very specific purpose and carried no risk whatsoever.

That's not true.

Credit Default Swaps should definitely be banned, though.

Why?

 

[CowboyTed]

Of course we know that. Aren't they pathetic?

Of course Asshole:

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


By JO BECKER, SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and STEPHEN LABATONDEC. 21, 2008

WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

- President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?_r=0


Are we living in fucking dreamland?

 

[rdean]

Clinton was just as responsible, for the regulatory framework that lead to the housing boom and dotcom crash.

With a GOP majority in both houses?

Try again.

 

[Fueri]

Clinton was just as responsible, for the regulatory framework that lead to the housing boom and dotcom crash.

With a GOP majority in both houses?

Try again.

Clinton has admitted some culpability

“I think that the responsibility that the Democrats had may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” – Former President Bill Clinton (D-AR), September 25, 2008

 

[Dragonlady]

Bush was the guy who lowered the interest rates to practically zero so that anybody and everybody could qualify for a mortgage on the basis of income. The result was that the market was flooded with new buyers who couldn't previously qualify for a mortgage, and this resulted in bidding wars, and properties selling at way over asking. IOW's, the housing bubble.