millionaires 5.4 pct surtax

[Mr.Fitnah]

It should be real simple for you since you are so certain it is there as plain as day.

 

[Nik]

So then you admit that your source lies when it equates CRA loans with subprime loans?

No I missed that..Feel free to repost it.

You posted this:

In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office – a five fold increase.

The site that you posted it from had that hyperlinked. The hyperlink went to this graph.

Thats not a graph of CRA mortgages, as the link claims. Its a link of subprime mortgages.

Republican spin is OH so fact based, eh?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yeah ,I can see how they are trying to hide the fact that the graph is of sub prime loan by the words at the of of the graph.
Why those dirty rotten scondrels

 

[Nik]

Yeah ,I can see how they are trying to hide the fact that the graph is of sub prime loan by the words at the of of the graph.
Why those dirty rotten scondrels

If its so incredibly obvious, why didn't you notice it? Why did you post a source that outright lied?

And the blog where the graph is from wasn't trying to claim they were CRA loans. The blog that you specifically linked too was trying to claim they were CRA loans. A lie you bought into hook, line, and sinker despite being incredibly easy to disprove.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Sorry forgot the[sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags
Here is the post agian
Yeah ,I can see how they are trying to hide the fact that the graph is of sub prime loan by the words at the of of the graph.
[sarcasm]Why those dirty rotten scondrels[/sarcasm]

 

[Nik]

Sorry forgot the[sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags
Here is the post agian
Yeah ,I can see how they are trying to hide the fact that the graph is of sub prime loan by the words at the of of the graph.
[sarcasm]Why those dirty rotten scondrels[/sarcasm]

I caught the sarcasm, thanks.

Care to answer my questions now, dipshit?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

How I did not detect the lie that you are unable or unwilling to post?
Im not sure how to do that.

 

[jeffrockit]

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the banks were pressuring them to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

And the banks were pressured by who? Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? As usual, it comes back to our great government/politicians.

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

How many years did it take for the car companies to collapse? It is cumulative through the years. That should not be that hard to understand.

 

[Nik]

How I did not detect the lie that you are unable or unwilling to post?
Im not sure how to do that.

I already posted it, dumbass.

You posted this statement

In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office – a five fold increase.

Which is a lie. Its shown to be a lie because the evidence shown to support that statement refers to subprime mortgages, not CRA mortgages.

 

[Nik]

And the banks were pressured by who? Ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act? As usual, it comes back to our great government/politicians.

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

How many years did it take for the car companies to collapse? It is cumulative through the years. That should not be that hard to understand.

Evidence for this assertion?

By the way, the CRA just made banks loan to minorities and underserved communities. Do you think minorities are more likely to default than whites? If so, why?

 

[jeffrockit]

They weren't pressured by anyone. The CRA was to prevent redlining.

The CRA was enacted in 1977. You think it took 30 years to have any effect?

How many years did it take for the car companies to collapse? It is cumulative through the years. That should not be that hard to understand.

Evidence for this assertion?

By the way, the CRA just made banks loan to minorities and underserved communities. Do you think minorities are more likely to default than whites? If so, why?

The evidence for this assertion is the number of home loans that are in foreclosure...that was easy. Don't ask for a link, just drive through neighborhoods throughout the country.

I think those who are not qualified for the loan amount in a contract, default on loans. Has nothing to do with race but thanks for trying.The government trying "to help", created more of a mess. The CRA created the environment where community activists tied up bank lobbies, threatened lawsuits and denied branch expansion, until the banks gave in.

When I first heard of interest only loans about 6 or 8 years ago, for the purchase of a house , I knew problems would occur. When you have people (of all races) getting into 2, 3, 4 hundred thousand dollar houses, paying only the interest, it doesn't take an economist to predict a collapse. It serves no one well, to do this. I know the CRA was not the only problem or fault in this but it definitely had a big role.

 

[Care4all]

the CRA had nearly no roll in this crisis.

 

[Nik]

How many years did it take for the car companies to collapse? It is cumulative through the years. That should not be that hard to understand.

Evidence for this assertion?

By the way, the CRA just made banks loan to minorities and underserved communities. Do you think minorities are more likely to default than whites? If so, why?

The evidence for this assertion is the number of home loans that are in foreclosure...that was easy. Don't ask for a link, just drive through neighborhoods throughout the country.

Incorrect. You are trying to prove a casual link between the CRA and foreclosures. That foreclosures exist doesn't mean they were caused by the CRA.

Care to try again?

I think those who are not qualified for the loan amount in a contract, default on loans. Has nothing to do with race but thanks for trying.The government trying "to help", created more of a mess. The CRA created the environment where community activists tied up bank lobbies, threatened lawsuits and denied branch expansion, until the banks gave in.

Yes, actually, the CRA had a lot to do with race. Read up a little bit on it, educate yourself.

When I first heard of interest only loans about 6 or 8 years ago, for the purchase of a house , I knew problems would occur. When you have people (of all races) getting into 2, 3, 4 hundred thousand dollar houses, paying only the interest, it doesn't take an economist to predict a collapse. It serves no one well, to do this. I know the CRA was not the only problem or fault in this but it definitely had a big role.

Of course. Because you say so, right?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

How I did not detect the lie that you are unable or unwilling to post?
Im not sure how to do that.

I already posted it, dumbass.

You posted this statement

In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office – a five fold increase.

Which is a lie. Its shown to be a lie because the evidence shown to support that statement refers to subprime mortgages, not CRA mortgages.

No, I cannot detect the lie.
I see you do not like the graph, or the statement or both.
To prove your assertion there is a lie I would have to know

The value of the entire 1996/1997mortgage market.
The value of the /1996/1997 CRA loans.
The link does not state the graph is a CRA graph it.
Although you insist it does.
Im trying to help.

 

[Nik]

How I did not detect the lie that you are unable or unwilling to post?
Im not sure how to do that.

I already posted it, dumbass.

You posted this statement

In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%. Fannie’s and Freddie’s combined portfolios went from about $200 billion to over $1 trillion during Clinton’s term in office – a five fold increase.

Which is a lie. Its shown to be a lie because the evidence shown to support that statement refers to subprime mortgages, not CRA mortgages.

No, I cannot detect the lie.
I see you do not like the graph, or the statement or both.
To prove your assertion there is a lie I would have to know

The value of the entire 1996/1997mortgage market.
The value of the /1996/1997 CRA loans.
The link does not state the graph is a CRA graph it.
Although you insist it does.
Im trying to help.

.................

The statement links to the graph as evidence. Hence, it is a lie.

You are rather slow, aren't you?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

In the realm of inventing facts, yes real slow.

 

[Nik]

In the realm of inventing facts, yes real slow.

God you are stupid.

Ok, then. Back up your claim. You claimed that CRA grew to 15% of mortgages. Back it up.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

In the realm of inventing facts, yes real slow.

God you are stupid.

Ok, then. Back up your claim. You claimed that CRA grew to 15% of mortgages. Back it up.

That is not what the statment says.
I have not been able to determine the values of all 1996.1997 mortgages
or the value of the 1996/1997 CRA loans

 

[Nik]

In the realm of inventing facts, yes real slow.

God you are stupid.

Ok, then. Back up your claim. You claimed that CRA grew to 15% of mortgages. Back it up.

That is not what the statment says.

Quoting you.

In 1997, Democrat Bill Clinton increased the market share of these CRA loans from almost zero to almost 15%

Hey....funny, thats exactly what it says.

Next lie?

 

[Nik]

In the realm of inventing facts, yes real slow.

God you are stupid.

Ok, then. Back up your claim. You claimed that CRA grew to 15% of mortgages. Back it up.

That is not what the statment says.
I have not been able to determine the values of all 1996.1997 mortgages
or the value of the 1996/1997 CRA loans

And yet you posted claims about them. Why?