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.
Remind me again who forced the banks to spread all of these mortgages throughout the market?
The same PEOPLE that forced thm to loan the money. Banks are in the business to MAKE money, they were forded to make bad loans and then given a means to offload those bad loans..... Sounds like the bad loans were and remain the problem. Loans forced by Liberals, loans forced by Liberal lawyers threats to sue. Obama being a BIG player in that.
You claim 50 and 50 when the fact is Liberals created the mess and then refused to allow anyone to fix it until to late. Frank was claiming as late as spring 2008 the Housing loan market was solvent and JUST FINE. In fact he blamed Republicans for suggesting otherwise. He and Dodd blocked 3 attempts to regulate the mess.
Banks are in the business to make money, force them to make bad loans and then provide them the means to offload those bad loans and they will do it. It makes sound business sense. The banks are not to blame, the liberals are for forcing the problem on them and then providing them the means to spread the problem around.
Then show me the legislation that forced the banks to give those loans. What law specifically was it?
what would you do if powerful politicians and political groups forced you by intimidation to loan money that would not be paid back? doyathink?
Same to you:
Then show me the legislation that forced the banks to give those loans. What law specifically was it?
You are amazingly stupid. But then we already knew that. Obama as a lawyer threatened banks with law suits if they did not loan money to people unable to repay the loans. Been posted here several times. In fact as I recall YOU were in the threads discussing stuff to. Now as usual, the leftbot method is to try and obfusicate, try to divert. Pretend things are not how they are.
Prior to Clinton Banks could NOT bundle those loans and dump them. Prior to Clinton Banks were not making bad loans on a National level and regulations of those banks was not watered down to allow such bad loans and the bundling of them to be passed off to others.
Disengenious bullshit by a Liberal, who would of THUNK IT possible.
Remind me again who forced the banks to spread all of these mortgages throughout the market?
The same PEOPLE that forced thm to loan the money. Banks are in the business to MAKE money, they were forded to make bad loans and then given a means to offload those bad loans..... Sounds like the bad loans were and remain the problem. Loans forced by Liberals, loans forced by Liberal lawyers threats to sue. Obama being a BIG player in that.
You claim 50 and 50 when the fact is Liberals created the mess and then refused to allow anyone to fix it until to late. Frank was claiming as late as spring 2008 the Housing loan market was solvent and JUST FINE. In fact he blamed Republicans for suggesting otherwise. He and Dodd blocked 3 attempts to regulate the mess.
Banks are in the business to make money, force them to make bad loans and then provide them the means to offload those bad loans and they will do it. It makes sound business sense. The banks are not to blame, the liberals are for forcing the problem on them and then providing them the means to spread the problem around.
Bullshit.
Those banks were falling all over themselves to lend money to unqaulified buyers.
Why?
Because they knew they wouldn't be holding the paper.
You people who are buying into this ACORN explaination are either very stupid or choosing to believe a lie.
The same PEOPLE that forced thm to loan the money. Banks are in the business to MAKE money, they were forded to make bad loans and then given a means to offload those bad loans..... Sounds like the bad loans were and remain the problem. Loans forced by Liberals, loans forced by Liberal lawyers threats to sue. Obama being a BIG player in that.
You claim 50 and 50 when the fact is Liberals created the mess and then refused to allow anyone to fix it until to late. Frank was claiming as late as spring 2008 the Housing loan market was solvent and JUST FINE. In fact he blamed Republicans for suggesting otherwise. He and Dodd blocked 3 attempts to regulate the mess.
Banks are in the business to make money, force them to make bad loans and then provide them the means to offload those bad loans and they will do it. It makes sound business sense. The banks are not to blame, the liberals are for forcing the problem on them and then providing them the means to spread the problem around.
Then show me the legislation that forced the banks to give those loans. What law specifically was it?
now you are acting the asshole,, you know there was no law,, it was done by threats, and intimidation and sheer political pressure to make loans available to people who could not pay them back.. retribution would come in the form of name calling and boycotting, and slander..
"Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters."
--Internal email, Wall Street, 12/15/06
Wall Street
Lenders were more than happy to issue mortgages and Wall Street was more than happy to have a new supply of mortgages to package up and sell to hungry investors around the world. It seemed everyone was spending…and making money.
But, just like many homeowners, a lot of investors didn't quite understand what kind of mortgages they were buying.
Origins of the Financial Crisis "Then and Now" - House of Cards Slideshow - CNBC.com
Wall Street Banks
Michael Francis spent years at a major Wall Street bank that ramped up its business in mortgage-back securities. Francis enlisted lenders on the West Coast to supply him with mortgages he could sell to investors. His bank was so eager that it dropped many requirements for the mortgages it was willing to sell. Francis: "We removed the litmus test. No income, no asset. Not verifying income... breathe on a mirror and if there's fog you sort of get a loan."
Origins of the Financial Crisis "Then and Now" - House of Cards Slideshow - CNBC.com
You're lying. The lawsuits filed had to do with redlining, which was a practice of refusing loans to people or charging them more simply because they were black.what would you do if powerful politicians and political groups forced you by intimidation to loan money that would not be paid back? doyathink?
Same to you:
Then show me the legislation that forced the banks to give those loans. What law specifically was it?
You are amazingly stupid. But then we already knew that. Obama as a lawyer threatened banks with law suits if they did not loan money to people unable to repay the loans. Been posted here several times. In fact as I recall YOU were in the threads discussing stuff to. Now as usual, the leftbot method is to try and obfusicate, try to divert. Pretend things are not how they are.
Prior to Clinton Banks could NOT bundle those loans and dump them. Prior to Clinton Banks were not making bad loans on a National level and regulations of those banks was not watered down to allow such bad loans and the bundling of them to be passed off to others.
Disengenious bullshit by a Liberal, who would of THUNK IT possible.
Krugman nevertheless concludes that the GSEs aren't responsible for our current mess:
But here's the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
Partly that's because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn't meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.
Then show me the legislation that forced the banks to give those loans. What law specifically was it?
now you are acting the asshole,, you know there was no law,, it was done by threats, and intimidation and sheer political pressure to make loans available to people who could not pay them back.. retribution would come in the form of name calling and boycotting, and slander..
No, it's that I suspect there is something more to this than what you are saying.
I'm finding it hard to believe that the banks would just buckle to threats and pressure unless they were in the wrong somehow. That's why I'm asking for something to back it up.
Show me one loan that was forced upon the banks that defaulted.
now you are acting the asshole,, you know there was no law,, it was done by threats, and intimidation and sheer political pressure to make loans available to people who could not pay them back.. retribution would come in the form of name calling and boycotting, and slander..
No, it's that I suspect there is something more to this than what you are saying.
I'm finding it hard to believe that the banks would just buckle to threats and pressure unless they were in the wrong somehow. That's why I'm asking for something to back it up.
Show me one loan that was forced upon the banks that defaulted.
bullshit, it's been posted many many times, in the congressional hearings.. If you are at all interested in learning look it up,, otherwise continue making your demands,, meanwhile for obvious reasons there is zero credibility in your parties ability to fix the mess you created. Kerry On.
No, it's that I suspect there is something more to this than what you are saying.
I'm finding it hard to believe that the banks would just buckle to threats and pressure unless they were in the wrong somehow. That's why I'm asking for something to back it up.
Show me one loan that was forced upon the banks that defaulted.
bullshit, it's been posted many many times, in the congressional hearings.. If you are at all interested in learning look it up,, otherwise continue making your demands,, meanwhile for obvious reasons there is zero credibility in your parties ability to fix the mess you created. Kerry On.
what was the date of those hearings? before this crisis began or after? hmmmm....
DID YOU EVER watch the ENTIRE hearings on cspan INSTEAD of the cleaverly cut and pasted clips from the hearing, taken out of context for the purpose of deceiving you?
fannie and freddie's 30 billion in bailout needed PROVES HOW VERY LITTLE they were involved in this 9 trillion to 60 trillion fiasco...
please remove your head out of the sand....you are wayyyyy smarter than this ...!!!!
No, it's that I suspect there is something more to this than what you are saying.
I'm finding it hard to believe that the banks would just buckle to threats and pressure unless they were in the wrong somehow. That's why I'm asking for something to back it up.
Show me one loan that was forced upon the banks that defaulted.
bullshit, it's been posted many many times, in the congressional hearings.. If you are at all interested in learning look it up,, otherwise continue making your demands,, meanwhile for obvious reasons there is zero credibility in your parties ability to fix the mess you created. Kerry On.
what was the date of those hearings? before this crisis began or after? hmmmm....
DID YOU EVER watch the ENTIRE hearings on cspan INSTEAD of the cleaverly cut and pasted clips from the hearing, taken out of context for the purpose of deceiving you?
fannie and freddie's 30 billion in bailout needed PROVES HOW VERY LITTLE they were involved in this 9 trillion to 60 trillion fiasco...
please remove your head out of the sand....you are wayyyyy smarter than this ...!!!!
bullshit, it's been posted many many times, in the congressional hearings.. If you are at all interested in learning look it up,, otherwise continue making your demands,, meanwhile for obvious reasons there is zero credibility in your parties ability to fix the mess you created. Kerry On.
what was the date of those hearings? before this crisis began or after? hmmmm....
DID YOU EVER watch the ENTIRE hearings on cspan INSTEAD of the cleaverly cut and pasted clips from the hearing, taken out of context for the purpose of deceiving you?
fannie and freddie's 30 billion in bailout needed PROVES HOW VERY LITTLE they were involved in this 9 trillion to 60 trillion fiasco...
please remove your head out of the sand....you are wayyyyy smarter than this ...!!!!
Try 400 Billion swetheart.Treasury ups Fannie/Freddie bailout funds to $400 billion - San Antonio Business Journal:
now did you purposefully pull 30 billion out of your ass to deceive me? you are waaaaayyyyyyyyy smarter than that.. or so I thought.
what was the date of those hearings? before this crisis began or after? hmmmm....
DID YOU EVER watch the ENTIRE hearings on cspan INSTEAD of the cleaverly cut and pasted clips from the hearing, taken out of context for the purpose of deceiving you?
fannie and freddie's 30 billion in bailout needed PROVES HOW VERY LITTLE they were involved in this 9 trillion to 60 trillion fiasco...
please remove your head out of the sand....you are wayyyyy smarter than this ...!!!!
Try 400 Billion swetheart.Treasury ups Fannie/Freddie bailout funds to $400 billion - San Antonio Business Journal:
now did you purposefully pull 30 billion out of your ass to deceive me? you are waaaaayyyyyyyyy smarter than that.. or so I thought.
borrowed.....
even so, are not even the tip of the iceburg...they did not buy subprime, adjustable loans, their charter does not permit such, their charter only permists conventional 30 year mortgages for the most part....they did go in to buy some mortgaged backed securities several years after the other banks had been packaging and selling them off to the world... that did have some risky loans as a part of them, but these were RATED AAA, so they were not suppose to be risky, this was not their fault, but the fault of the banks that paid these agencies to rate them....and the fault of their private owners pushing them to get in on all of this easy money that all the other banks were making off of this business, so that did lead to buying some conventional mortgages that did not have money down for them, but again, this was later in the game and after the mortgage companies and banks had been funding this upswing.
Just so you know, none of these other banks and mortgage companies had a charter to sell to the poor or any kind of requirement to do such and fannie and freddie is not who was buying their loans that were risky in the first place...they were putting them in to securities and selling them off ot others...NOT FANNIE and freddie....
These banks kept trying to beat their previous years sales so each year they became more creative and more and more laxed in their mortgage standards and the mortgages they bought from these fly by night mortgage companies...the banks GREED and/ or stupidity due to greed is what drove this risky business, and NOTHING ELSE.
Care
Try 400 Billion swetheart.Treasury ups Fannie/Freddie bailout funds to $400 billion - San Antonio Business Journal:
now did you purposefully pull 30 billion out of your ass to deceive me? you are waaaaayyyyyyyyy smarter than that.. or so I thought.
borrowed.....
even so, are not even the tip of the iceburg...they did not buy subprime, adjustable loans, their charter does not permit such, their charter only permists conventional 30 year mortgages for the most part....they did go in to buy some mortgaged backed securities several years after the other banks had been packaging and selling them off to the world... that did have some risky loans as a part of them, but these were RATED AAA, so they were not suppose to be risky, this was not their fault, but the fault of the banks that paid these agencies to rate them....and the fault of their private owners pushing them to get in on all of this easy money that all the other banks were making off of this business, so that did lead to buying some conventional mortgages that did not have money down for them, but again, this was later in the game and after the mortgage companies and banks had been funding this upswing.
Just so you know, none of these other banks and mortgage companies had a charter to sell to the poor or any kind of requirement to do such and fannie and freddie is not who was buying their loans that were risky in the first place...they were putting them in to securities and selling them off ot others...NOT FANNIE and freddie....
These banks kept trying to beat their previous years sales so each year they became more creative and more and more laxed in their mortgage standards and the mortgages they bought from these fly by night mortgage companies...the banks GREED and/ or stupidity due to greed is what drove this risky business, and NOTHING ELSE.
Care
so fannie and freddie are guiltless, they gave mortgages only to those who could repay them, did not sell off toxic paper nor buy toxic paper, everything at fannie and freddie were on the up and up,, and nothing at all was amiss? do I read you right??? then why did we have to bail said fannie and freddie out to the tune of 400 billion dollars doyathink... ????? HUH? hello,, you got your head so far up your ass I bet you can do a flouoscopy on yer tonsils!
Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble.
Partly that's because regulators, responding to accounting scandals at the companies, placed temporary restraints on both Fannie and Freddie that curtailed their lending just as housing prices were really taking off. Also, they didn't do any subprime lending, because they can't: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn't meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income.
