If Trump is elected we are so screwed.

[Procrustes Stretched]

Quoting polls selectively: "Mitt Romney's likely win in this year's presidential election over President Obama"

November 1, 2012 "I project that Romney will get 500 electoral votes, and my projections are as valid as any of these left-wing propaganda pollsters who just make up their numbers to fit their agenda." and "My predictions are just as credible as the predictions of the New York Times. Actually, they are more credible. I don't have a history of making up the facts."


bripat9643

 

[bripat9643]

Quoting polls selectively: "Mitt Romney's likely win in this year's presidential election over President Obama"

November 1, 2012 "I project that Romney will get 500 electoral votes, and my projections are as valid as any of these left-wing propaganda pollsters who just make up their numbers to fit their agenda." and "My predictions are just as credible as the predictions of the New York Times. Actually, they are more credible. I don't have a history of making up the facts."


bripat9643

Wow. You had to go back 3 whole years to find something I was wrong about? I've submitted about 45,000 posts since then.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jeb Bush couldn't beat a cockroach. The problem with libs is that they believe Americans actually like this shit they dish out.

bripat9643

This bripat joker has been wrong so often on so many things it makes one wonder just how well Jeb is actually doing.

We'll see when the votes get in

Dante keeper post Jeb Bush

What have I been wrong about, asshole?

a search engine just may be your best friend on this one

Quoting polls selectively: "Mitt Romney's likely win in this year's presidential election over President Obama"

November 1, 2012 "I project that Romney will get 500 electoral votes, and my projections are as valid as any of these left-wing propaganda pollsters who just make up their numbers to fit their agenda." and "My predictions are just as credible as the predictions of the New York Times. Actually, they are more credible. I don't have a history of making up the facts."


bripat9643

Wow. You had to go back 3 whole years to find something I was wrong about? I've submitted about 45,000 posts since then.

"What have I been wrong about, asshole?"

repeat: a search engine just may be your best friend on this one

no one but you would be surprised at how many wrongs are recent

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I don't have a history of making up the facts."

You do have a history of ignoring facts and propagating ridiculous lies, however.

 

[bripat9643]

Jeb Bush couldn't beat a cockroach. The problem with libs is that they believe Americans actually like this shit they dish out.

bripat9643

This bripat joker has been wrong so often on so many things it makes one wonder just how well Jeb is actually doing.

We'll see when the votes get in

Dante keeper post Jeb Bush

What have I been wrong about, asshole?

a search engine just may be your best friend on this one

Quoting polls selectively: "Mitt Romney's likely win in this year's presidential election over President Obama"

November 1, 2012 "I project that Romney will get 500 electoral votes, and my projections are as valid as any of these left-wing propaganda pollsters who just make up their numbers to fit their agenda." and "My predictions are just as credible as the predictions of the New York Times. Actually, they are more credible. I don't have a history of making up the facts."


bripat9643

Wow. You had to go back 3 whole years to find something I was wrong about? I've submitted about 45,000 posts since then.

"What have I been wrong about, asshole?"

repeat: a search engine just may be your best friend on this one

no one but you would be surprised at how many wrongs are recent

Apparently you would be too since you were unable to find any.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

bripat has also been celebrating the end of Hillary Clinton's campaign since at least May of 2014

over a year ago

Benghazi Commission: The End Of Hillary Clinton’s Political Career | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jeb Bush couldn't beat a cockroach. The problem with libs is that they believe Americans actually like this shit they dish out.

bripat9643

This bripat joker has been wrong so often on so many things it makes one wonder just how well Jeb is actually doing.

We'll see when the votes get in

Dante keeper post Jeb Bush

What have I been wrong about, asshole?

a search engine just may be your best friend on this one

Quoting polls selectively: "Mitt Romney's likely win in this year's presidential election over President Obama"

November 1, 2012 "I project that Romney will get 500 electoral votes, and my projections are as valid as any of these left-wing propaganda pollsters who just make up their numbers to fit their agenda." and "My predictions are just as credible as the predictions of the New York Times. Actually, they are more credible. I don't have a history of making up the facts."


bripat9643

Wow. You had to go back 3 whole years to find something I was wrong about? I've submitted about 45,000 posts since then.

"What have I been wrong about, asshole?"

repeat: a search engine just may be your best friend on this one

no one but you would be surprised at how many wrongs are recent

Apparently you would be too since you were unable to find any.

they're there...

trust me.

we all know you can't trust yourself

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the imbecility here is priceless and prolonged

The truth about Lincoln and his worshippers | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JoeB131]

But here are the facts: The housing price bubble started in 1997. The first sub-prime MBS was created in 1997. I can find no record of them before 1997.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find much of anything from before 1997, when the internet really took off.

this is the best you have?

Look, guy, even the Banking Industry isn't blaming the CRA for the crash.

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

.....

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

 

[SwimExpert]

How would you know? Trump has never been in office.

I can tell that you've never interviewed anyone for a job before.

Sure I have, and I almost always pick good employees.

I call bullshit. If you have to wait until after someone is doing the job before you can assess their competency, then there is no way that your above post can have any semblance of truth.

Democrats screamed that Reagan would start WW III and destroy the economy. That didn't happen. They claimed Obama would bring in the golden age. That didn't happen. One thing you can count on is that liberal judgement about politicians is invariably wrong.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what is known as a red herring.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SwimExpert bripat9643

[

Democrats screamed that Reagan would start WW III and destroy the economy. That didn't happen. They claimed Obama would bring in the golden age. That didn't happen. One thing you can count on is that liberal judgement about politicians is invariably wrong.

Did Reagan's economy triple the national debt? Mises Institute: "Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight."

 

[Andylusion]

But here are the facts: The housing price bubble started in 1997. The first sub-prime MBS was created in 1997. I can find no record of them before 1997.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find much of anything from before 1997, when the internet really took off.

this is the best you have?

Look, guy, even the Banking Industry isn't blaming the CRA for the crash.

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

.....

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Sub-prime loans performed well, when the prices of homes was going up. They performed well because if the person ran into trouble, they could sell the house for more than the value of the mortgage, because prices were going up.

Thus, the bank made a great return on the loan with high interest rates (because they were sub-prime), and got their money back when they sold the home for more than the original loan.

The foreclosure rate on loans in the 90s wasn't all that great. They still performed well, only because lowering the mortgage standards, brought tons of people into the market, driving up prices. That's all.

The government could do the whole thing all over again, and drive up housing prices, and during the up swing in prices, sub-prime mortgages would all perform well, all over again.

None of the rest of your response changes or contradicts anything I said. So I'm not sure why you bothered posting it.

A: There is plenty of information on mortgages before 1997. I know... I read it.

B: When the law was created is irrelevant compared to the fact that until 1997, sub-prime loans were never securitized, or sold in MBSs.

C: Doesn't matter what portion of loans came from where. Once the government guaranteed the loans, they were legitimized in the broader market.

Remember Collateralized Debt Obligations themselves, were created by government. Government created them, and the market adopted them. Banks learned how to sell securities from the government. Without government, a Mortgage Backed Security, would have never existed.

My point, is that the private market takes it's que from the government. When Government put their name behind sub-prime loans, in the name of CRA, they legitimacy to those loans.

See? Something had to happen in 1997. You can't explain that with Bush did xxx. And you can't tell me that all the mortgage lenders on in the country magically all decided at one magic moment, to start flooding the market with sub-prime loans.

When I read the accounts from mortgage lenders before 1997, the common answer is that no sub-prime loans were ever sent in for rating by rating agencies, because they were already assumed to be junk on the risk rating. Why rate anything that you know has a junk status before it is ever rated?

Getting that key rating is absolutely required to getting money for sub-prime loans. Remember, most mortgage companies do not make mortgages to own.... they make them to sell. Without that AAA rating, you can't sell your mortgage backed securities. Without being able to sell those mortgage backed securities, you can't make new loans.

So prior to 1997, the sub-prime market was completely flat, and I argue, would have stayed that way forever, if not for one change. In 1997, Freddie Mac signed a deal with Bear Stearns and First Union (Wachovia), to guarantee sub-prime loans under the CRA.

Suddenly, sub-prime loans bundled in mortgage backed securities could get a AAA rating, and guaranteed by a Government Sponsored Enterprise. Then you say "most sub-prime loans were not at institutions governed by the CRA"? Of course. We would expect that.
Most Mortgage Backed Securities are not created at GSEs, and yet the government created MBS to begin with. They never existed before government made GSEs. The market followed governments lead. This is normal and expected.

And isn't interesting that some of the biggest failures came with institutions with direct government ties? Countrywide was one of the leading mortgage originators, praised by Fannie Mae for meeting their lending goals. Bear Stearns, and Wachovia? Two of the first banks to sign the deal selling sub-prime loans with guarantees by Freddie Mac? Coincidence?

 

[Andylusion]

SwimExpert bripat9643

[

Democrats screamed that Reagan would start WW III and destroy the economy. That didn't happen. They claimed Obama would bring in the golden age. That didn't happen. One thing you can count on is that liberal judgement about politicians is invariably wrong.

Did Reagan's economy triple the national debt? Mises Institute: "Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight."

Who controls government spending? Use the constitution to justify your answer.

 

[SwimExpert]

SwimExpert bripat9643

[

Democrats screamed that Reagan would start WW III and destroy the economy. That didn't happen. They claimed Obama would bring in the golden age. That didn't happen. One thing you can count on is that liberal judgement about politicians is invariably wrong.

Did Reagan's economy triple the national debt? Mises Institute: "Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight."

Who controls government spending? Use the constitution to justify your answer.

Who controls it? Well, I will say that the President controls it. The constitution stipulates that in order for a bill to become law, it must be passed by both houses of the legislature, and then signed by the President. The President has full discretion to either sign the legislation, and thus giving his approval, or to veto the legislation, thus giving his disapproval. While a Presidential veto can be subsequently overridden by a sufficient super majority of Congress, this is both difficult and rare. This creates a significant constitutional responsibility on the President to control government spending. The President is the individual who is afforded the most power by the constitution to prevent overly inflated spending bills from becoming law.

Meanwhile, the President's constitutionally prescribed ability to control government spending continues on, even after a bill has become law. As the chief executive of the federal government, the President is responsible for implementing and executing the appropriations provided by Congress. Thus, the President is responsible for actually running the government as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. Furthermore, it is the President, as executive, who actually does the spending. Congress appropriates funding to be spent, but the President spends what is allotted. The constitution provides separation of powers between the three branches of government, with checks and balances. Congress directs the President's actions no more than the President directs the actions of Congress. Therefore, the burden falls squarely on the President to control spending even after Congress has passed appropriations, even if the President himself signed the legislation into law. Because while Congress may allocate money to be spent for certain endeavors, the President is under no obligation to actually do any spending at all, if he sees fit to not take up the project. If Congress were to allocate $50 billion to landscaping the White House, it would be the Executive Branch that would carry out hiring a team of people to do the work. If the President decided that there was no reason to spend $50 billion on such a trivial chore, he/she could simply decline to spend the money, and let it simply remain in the treasury.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sub-prime loans performed well, when the prices of homes was going up.

...

The government could do the whole thing all over again, and drive up...

...

Remember Collateralized Debt Obligations themselves, were created by government. Government created them, and the market adopted them. Banks learned how to sell securities from the government. Without government, a Mortgage Backed Security, would have never existed.

My point, is that the private market takes it's que from the government.

...

Is any of the above true? Did the government start the CDO biz?

And the sub Prime thing is almost always convoluted and pushed as teh fault of government as if the gov told Angelo R. Mozilo to lie cheat and steal

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SwimExpert bripat9643

[

Democrats screamed that Reagan would start WW III and destroy the economy. That didn't happen. They claimed Obama would bring in the golden age. That didn't happen. One thing you can count on is that liberal judgement about politicians is invariably wrong.

Did Reagan's economy triple the national debt? Mises Institute: "Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight."

Who controls government spending? Use the constitution to justify your answer.

Controls? Is that word found in the US Constitution describing the duties of each branch?

try your An-delusions elsewhere

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who controls government spending? Use the constitution to justify your answer.

Who controls it? Well, I will say that the President controls it.

we have a BINGO

 

[g5000]

Trump promises that by the time he takes office, he will study up and be ready when he starts.

What's stopping him from studying NOW?

This is actually a very good question.

Trump should have been prepared before he announced.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If Trump is elected we are so screwed.

Trump says he will make foreign countries respect America more.

But how can he do that when nobody respects HIM.

Marco Rubio has deep knowledge of what's going on in the Middle East.

Trump promises that by the time he takes office, he will study up and be ready when he starts.

What's stopping him from studying NOW?

Trump's solution to the immigration crisis is to insult millions of Hispanics and turn them off the Republican Party.

Trump is a big loudmouth who thinks he's a big success story, but he has had to file for bankrupty four times.

Trump is a complete disaster waiting to happen.

Trump's insults of women show he doesn't even know how to act like a civilized person.

Every candidate promises the Moon while running. But the ones who get elected very rapidly get a reality check their first week in office.

Obama talked a great game as a candidate. The reality is he sucks. Presidency isn't a monarchy and their power is considerably more limited than laypeople assume.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Trump promises that by the time he takes office, he will study up and be ready when he starts.

What's stopping him from studying NOW?

Time set aside for doing his hair?