Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Banks are deregulated? Really?
Does that mean Fannie and Freddie weren't handing out de facto AAA rating to No Income No Asset Loans?
Fannie and Freddie are not banks. The did not originate loans. To my knowledge, they didn't engage in any rating services. In fact, their standards were higher and more strict than those in the private sector.
Question #1
Q. What is the current amount of the national debt?
A. While the national debt continues to rise, the current national debt is:
$15.2 Trillion
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Question #2
Q. How much US household wealth was lost in the 2008 financial meltdown?
A. $14 Trillion
There is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth.[citation needed] By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45% from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22%, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[164] Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[165]
Late-2000s financial crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, the gov't engaged in a massive bailout of the financial industry AFTER it tanked the economy, and consumers took it in the shorts.
Consequently, I contend that if you want to be angry with gov't. you're anger is misplaced if you're anger is directed at "deficit spending."
You should be angry at the gov't deregulation of the banks (allowing investment banks and commercial banks to merge) which was pushed by BOTH political parties, as well as the gov't allowing derivatives to be traded in an unregulated fashion. Again, that was supported by both political parties.
Banks are deregulated? Really?
Does that mean Fannie and Freddie weren't handing out de facto AAA rating to No Income No Asset Loans?
Fannie and Freddie are not banks. The did not originate loans. To my knowledge, they didn't engage in any rating services. In fact, their standards were higher and more strict than those in the private sector.
Idiot.
Their standards were the WORST! They set the ever decreasing standard for the paper they would buy until they arrived at No Income No Asset and banks HAD to supply F/F with the paper.
What an idiot you are.
Wrong in the trillions column.
The mortgage crisis from late 2007
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report) Then in 2003-2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began.[32] The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.
As mortgage originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label MBS, GSEs lost the ability to monitor and control mortgage originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis. [33]
Investment bank securitizers were more willing to securitize risky loans because they generally retained minimal risk. Whereas the GSEs guaranteed the performance of their MBS, private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk. [33] Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern. [34]
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Care to provide some proof, or at least some evidence? And I'm not talking about some partisan website where someone offers an undocumented opinion which lacks a factual underpinning.
Until that point (assuming it ever happens), I'll offer some countervailing information.
The mortgage crisis from late 2007
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report) Then in 2003-2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began.[32] The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.
As mortgage originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label MBS, GSEs lost the ability to monitor and control mortgage originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis. [33]
Investment bank securitizers were more willing to securitize risky loans because they generally retained minimal risk. Whereas the GSEs guaranteed the performance of their MBS, private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk. [33] Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern. [34]
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fannie and Freddie are not banks. The did not originate loans. To my knowledge, they didn't engage in any rating services. In fact, their standards were higher and more strict than those in the private sector.
Idiot.
Their standards were the WORST! They set the ever decreasing standard for the paper they would buy until they arrived at No Income No Asset and banks HAD to supply F/F with the paper.
What an idiot you are.
Wrong in the trillions column.
Care to provide some proof, or at least some evidence? And I'm not talking about some partisan website where someone offers an undocumented opinion which lacks a factual underpinning.
Until that point (assuming it ever happens), I'll offer some countervailing information.
The mortgage crisis from late 2007
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report) Then in 2003-2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began.[32] The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.
As mortgage originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label MBS, GSEs lost the ability to monitor and control mortgage originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis. [33]
Investment bank securitizers were more willing to securitize risky loans because they generally retained minimal risk. Whereas the GSEs guaranteed the performance of their MBS, private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk. [33] Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern. [34]
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
#4) How much is our current GDP (total worth)?
$15.1 trillion, or $100 billion LESS than our debt.
And there's discussion of another debt-ceiling increase?!!!!
Fucking idiots.
#4) How much is our current GDP (total worth)?
$15.1 trillion, or $100 billion LESS than our debt.
And there's discussion of another debt-ceiling increase?!!!!
Fucking idiots.
The sad thing is that even if the ryan budget was passed the debt ceiling would still have to have been raised. His budget wouldn't have balanced the busget until around 2040 (or somewhere around there) so the debt ceiling would still need to be raised.
So I don't see how all of the republicans that supported this legislation are shocked and against raising the debt ceiling when their plan would have required doing just that.
#4) How much is our current GDP (total worth)?
$15.1 trillion, or $100 billion LESS than our debt.
And there's discussion of another debt-ceiling increase?!!!!
Fucking idiots.
The sad thing is that even if the ryan budget was passed the debt ceiling would still have to have been raised. His budget wouldn't have balanced the busget until around 2040 (or somewhere around there) so the debt ceiling would still need to be raised.
So I don't see how all of the republicans that supported this legislation are shocked and against raising the debt ceiling when their plan would have required doing just that.
The best thing will be watching Progressives kill each other over their cat food rations.
#4) How much is our current GDP (total worth)?
$15.1 trillion, or $100 billion LESS than our debt.
And there's discussion of another debt-ceiling increase?!!!!
Fucking idiots.
The sad thing is that even if the ryan budget was passed the debt ceiling would still have to have been raised. His budget wouldn't have balanced the busget until around 2040 (or somewhere around there) so the debt ceiling would still need to be raised.
So I don't see how all of the republicans that supported this legislation are shocked and against raising the debt ceiling when their plan would have required doing just that.
#4) How much is our current GDP (total worth)?
$15.1 trillion, or $100 billion LESS than our debt.
And there's discussion of another debt-ceiling increase?!!!!
Fucking idiots.
The sad thing is that even if the ryan budget was passed the debt ceiling would still have to have been raised. His budget wouldn't have balanced the busget until around 2040 (or somewhere around there) so the debt ceiling would still need to be raised.
So I don't see how all of the republicans that supported this legislation are shocked and against raising the debt ceiling when their plan would have required doing just that.
True to the bolded, but I'm talking about renewed talks for yet another raise to the debt ceiling.
Idiot.
Their standards were the WORST! They set the ever decreasing standard for the paper they would buy until they arrived at No Income No Asset and banks HAD to supply F/F with the paper.
What an idiot you are.
Wrong in the trillions column.
Care to provide some proof, or at least some evidence? And I'm not talking about some partisan website where someone offers an undocumented opinion which lacks a factual underpinning.
Until that point (assuming it ever happens), I'll offer some countervailing information.
The mortgage crisis from late 2007
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report) Then in 2003-2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began.[32] The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.
As mortgage originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label MBS, GSEs lost the ability to monitor and control mortgage originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis. [33]
Investment bank securitizers were more willing to securitize risky loans because they generally retained minimal risk. Whereas the GSEs guaranteed the performance of their MBS, private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk. [33] Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern. [34]
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes linking to Wiki, how did I not think of that?
Let's do this very slowly:
Fannie and Freddie carried a defacto US AAA Guarantee.
With me so far?
Care to provide some proof, or at least some evidence? And I'm not talking about some partisan website where someone offers an undocumented opinion which lacks a factual underpinning.
Until that point (assuming it ever happens), I'll offer some countervailing information.
The mortgage crisis from late 2007
Following their mission to meet federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing goals, GSEs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) have striven to improve home ownership of low and middle income families, underserved areas, and generally through special affordable methods such as "the ability to obtain a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a low down payment... and the continuous availability of mortgage credit under a wide range of economic conditions." (HUD 2002 Annual Housing Activities Report) Then in 2003-2004, the subprime mortgage crisis began.[32] The market shifted away from regulated GSEs and radically toward Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) issued by unregulated private-label securitization conduits, typically operated by investment banks.
As mortgage originators began to distribute more and more of their loans through private label MBS, GSEs lost the ability to monitor and control mortgage originators. Competition between the GSEs and private securitizers for loans further undermined GSEs power and strengthened mortgage originators. This contributed to a decline in underwriting standards and was a major cause of the financial crisis. [33]
Investment bank securitizers were more willing to securitize risky loans because they generally retained minimal risk. Whereas the GSEs guaranteed the performance of their MBS, private securitizers generally did not, and might only retain a thin slice of risk. [33] Often, banks would offload this risk to insurance companies or other counterparties through credit default swaps, making their actual risk exposures extremely difficult for investors and creditors to discern. [34]
Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freddie Mac - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Care to provide some proof, or at least some evidence? And I'm not talking about some partisan website where someone offers an undocumented opinion which lacks a factual underpinning.
Until that point (assuming it ever happens), I'll offer some countervailing information.
Erudition is not your forté, is it?
Question #1
Q. What is the current amount of the national debt?
A. While the national debt continues to rise, the current national debt is:
$15.2 Trillion
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Question #2
Q. How much US household wealth was lost in the 2008 financial meltdown?
A. $14 Trillion
There is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth.[citation needed] By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45% from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22%, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[164] Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[165]
Late-2000s financial crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, the gov't engaged in a massive bailout of the financial industry AFTER it tanked the economy, and consumers took it in the shorts.
Consequently, I contend that if you want to be angry with gov't. you're anger is misplaced if you're anger is directed at "deficit spending."
You should be angry at the gov't deregulation of the banks (allowing investment banks and commercial banks to merge) which was pushed by BOTH political parties, as well as the gov't allowing derivatives to be traded in an unregulated fashion. Again, that was supported by both political parties.
#2 is wrong...
How about where was the national debt in 2006??
Where is it today??
question #1
q. What is the current amount of the national debt?
A. While the national debt continues to rise, the current national debt is:
$15.2 trillion
u.s. National debt clock : Real time
question #2
q. How much us household wealth was lost in the 2008 financial meltdown?
A. $14 trillion
there is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between june 2007 and november 2008, americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth.[citation needed] by early november 2008, a broad u.s. Stock index the s&p 500, was down 45% from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the united states, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22%, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion.[164] since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion.[165]
late-2000s financial crisis - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
so, the gov't engaged in a massive bailout of the financial industry after it tanked the economy, and consumers took it in the shorts.
Consequently, i contend that if you want to be angry with gov't. You're anger is misplaced if you're anger is directed at "deficit spending."
you should be angry at the gov't deregulation of the banks (allowing investment banks and commercial banks to merge) which was pushed by both political parties, as well as the gov't allowing derivatives to be traded in an unregulated fashion. Again, that was supported by both political parties.
