Obama's Regulatory Tsunami

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know if you're intentionally being this dumb or whether you're actually this dumb but it's getting tiring.

Yes, I'm getting tired of asking you to provide proof for your claim.

That's okay, I know you're stupid, or a liar, most likely both.

Over the past couple of days I've schooled you on a variety of subjects including mark-to-mark accounting and its suspension, the costs of the bailout to the taxpayer, losses incurred by Citibank and BOA, the amount of meltdown-related debt the US government has guaranteed, the difference between total Federal taxes and income taxes, and so on. I don't think you want to get into a stupid competition here.

You're funny.

Did you ever prove the government did (and still does) guarantee all the bad debt?

I know they guaranteed a small portion of debt for a short period. Do you?

Any losses of Citibank and BOA are a problem for their shareholders, not the taxpayers, as you originally claimed.

Here is your original stupid claim......

"Bush deregulated the mortgage industry pretty much entirely. one of the major changes was that he changed the rules so that banks and mortgage originators no longer had to hold mortgages to maturity and could sell them immediately. This allowed the newly unregulated mortgage providers like Countrywide and Ameriquest to go on a huge lending spree and immediately sell their mortgages on to Wall Street firms who sliced and diced them and turned them into securities"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...te-profits-1-went-to-wages-4.html#post4154905

Back on September 17, and still no proof.
Like I said, you're funny.
And stupid and a liar.

 

[Toro]

The Bush regulatory change varied bank to bank?
Show me.
Or admit you lied.

The Bush regulatory burden didn't vary from bank to bank. The Bush administration regulators didn't regulate anybody.

Show me they did or admit you lied!

First you say it depended on the bank now you say it didn't? Wow!

Sill no proof Bush allowed banks to sell mortgages for the first time?

In 2004, the SEC - voting 3:2 along party lines, with the Republicans in the majority - allowed the 5 largest Wall Street investment banks to increase their leverage from 12:1-15:1 to 30:1-40:1. This allowed these firms to leverage up their balance sheets to take on structured products stuffed full of mortgages. Within four years, Lehman was bankrupt, Bear Stearns was taken under in a deal backstopped by the Fed, Merrill Lynch was forced into the arms of Bank of America, Morgan Stanley wasn't honouring cash calls and Goldman was rumoured to be a few days from being out of business.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know if you're intentionally being this dumb or whether you're actually this dumb but it's getting tiring.

Yes, I'm getting tired of asking you to provide proof for your claim.

That's okay, I know you're stupid, or a liar, most likely both.

Over the past couple of days I've schooled you on a variety of subjects including mark-to-mark accounting and its suspension, the costs of the bailout to the taxpayer, losses incurred by Citibank and BOA, the amount of meltdown-related debt the US government has guaranteed, the difference between total Federal taxes and income taxes, and so on. I don't think you want to get into a stupid competition here.

As far as your ridiculous claim of having "schooled" me, you would first have to show where I made an incorrect claim
and next where you corrected my claim.

I challenge you to provide proof of either.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Yes, I'm getting tired of asking you to provide proof for your claim.

That's okay, I know you're stupid, or a liar, most likely both.

Over the past couple of days I've schooled you on a variety of subjects including mark-to-mark accounting and its suspension, the costs of the bailout to the taxpayer, losses incurred by Citibank and BOA, the amount of meltdown-related debt the US government has guaranteed, the difference between total Federal taxes and income taxes, and so on. I don't think you want to get into a stupid competition here.

You're funny.

Did you ever prove the government did (and still does) guarantee all the bad debt?

I know they guaranteed a small portion of debt for a short period. Do you?

Any losses of Citibank and BOA are a problem for their shareholders, not the taxpayers, as you originally claimed.

Here is your original stupid claim......

"Bush deregulated the mortgage industry pretty much entirely. one of the major changes was that he changed the rules so that banks and mortgage originators no longer had to hold mortgages to maturity and could sell them immediately. This allowed the newly unregulated mortgage providers like Countrywide and Ameriquest to go on a huge lending spree and immediately sell their mortgages on to Wall Street firms who sliced and diced them and turned them into securities"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...te-profits-1-went-to-wages-4.html#post4154905

Back on September 17, and still no proof.
Like I said, you're funny.
And stupid and a liar.

Twelve trillion dollars is a small portion of the debt?

And once again, the change Bush brought to the mortgage market :

“This was very different from the way traditional banks operated. To your local banker, a mortgage is a reliable and secured for m of lending. With few notable exceptions, lending standards by banks had always been rigorous. When a traditional depository bank originated a mortgage, it assumed it would hold on to the loan for the full 15- or 30-year term; depository banks felt no compulsion to resell them. Guarding against default over the life of that loan was the key to not only being profitable, but staying in business.

That wasn’t how the newfangled lend-to-securitize originators worked. In one of many examples of misplaced compensation schemes we have seen, they were paid on the volume, not the quality, of their loans. Besides, they didn’t need to find a buyer who was a good risk for 30 years—they needed only to find someone who wouldn’t default before the securitization process was complete. Thus, they had very different standards from the traditional lenders. The sellers of these mortgages made warranties to the Wall Street buyers of this paper that the borrowers would not default for 90 days—enough time for the loans to be sold off and repackaged as residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs).

This was a radical change in lending standards.”

Warranty Fix for Mortgage Securitization Problems | The Big Picture

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Bush regulatory burden didn't vary from bank to bank. The Bush administration regulators didn't regulate anybody.

Show me they did or admit you lied!

First you say it depended on the bank now you say it didn't? Wow!

Sill no proof Bush allowed banks to sell mortgages for the first time?

In 2004, the SEC - voting 3:2 along party lines, with the Republicans in the majority - allowed the 5 largest Wall Street investment banks to increase their leverage from 12:1-15:1 to 30:1-40:1. This allowed these firms to leverage up their balance sheets to take on structured products stuffed full of mortgages. Within four years, Lehman was bankrupt, Bear Stearns was taken under in a deal backstopped by the Fed, Merrill Lynch was forced into the arms of Bank of America, Morgan Stanley wasn't honouring cash calls and Goldman was rumoured to be a few days from being out of business.

As awful as that vote may have been, that isn't proof of the claim Duke made.

 

[bripat9643]

You need regulators who actually enforce the regulations though. Regulators who don't take a chainsaw to them :

You mean like the way the Obama Administration chooses to not enforce voter intimidation regulations or immigration regulations?

Do you have any proof that the Bush administration did not enforce banking regulations?

Other than a motherfucker taking a chainsaw to a stack of banking regulations?

Is that how regulations are legally changed?

You're an imbecile.

 

[bripat9643]

You need regulators who actually enforce the regulations though. Regulators who don't take a chainsaw to them :

And you actually believe that's how regulations are changed, by taking a chain saw to a stack of paper?

There's no natural limit to liberal stupidity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over the past couple of days I've schooled you on a variety of subjects including mark-to-mark accounting and its suspension, the costs of the bailout to the taxpayer, losses incurred by Citibank and BOA, the amount of meltdown-related debt the US government has guaranteed, the difference between total Federal taxes and income taxes, and so on. I don't think you want to get into a stupid competition here.

You're funny.

Did you ever prove the government did (and still does) guarantee all the bad debt?

I know they guaranteed a small portion of debt for a short period. Do you?

Any losses of Citibank and BOA are a problem for their shareholders, not the taxpayers, as you originally claimed.

Here is your original stupid claim......

"Bush deregulated the mortgage industry pretty much entirely. one of the major changes was that he changed the rules so that banks and mortgage originators no longer had to hold mortgages to maturity and could sell them immediately. This allowed the newly unregulated mortgage providers like Countrywide and Ameriquest to go on a huge lending spree and immediately sell their mortgages on to Wall Street firms who sliced and diced them and turned them into securities"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...te-profits-1-went-to-wages-4.html#post4154905

Back on September 17, and still no proof.
Like I said, you're funny.
And stupid and a liar.

Twelve trillion dollars is a small portion of the debt?

And once again, the change Bush brought to the mortgage market :

“This was very different from the way traditional banks operated. To your local banker, a mortgage is a reliable and secured for m of lending. With few notable exceptions, lending standards by banks had always been rigorous. When a traditional depository bank originated a mortgage, it assumed it would hold on to the loan for the full 15- or 30-year term; depository banks felt no compulsion to resell them. Guarding against default over the life of that loan was the key to not only being profitable, but staying in business.

That wasn’t how the newfangled lend-to-securitize originators worked. In one of many examples of misplaced compensation schemes we have seen, they were paid on the volume, not the quality, of their loans. Besides, they didn’t need to find a buyer who was a good risk for 30 years—they needed only to find someone who wouldn’t default before the securitization process was complete. Thus, they had very different standards from the traditional lenders. The sellers of these mortgages made warranties to the Wall Street buyers of this paper that the borrowers would not default for 90 days—enough time for the loans to be sold off and repackaged as residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs).

This was a radical change in lending standards.”

Warranty Fix for Mortgage Securitization Problems | The Big Picture

The Treasury never guaranteed $12 trillion in debt.

"And once again, the change Bush brought to the mortgage market"

Awful. Just terrible. I'll never vote for Bush again.
You know what else it is?
Not proof for your claim.
Keep trying?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Yes, I'm getting tired of asking you to provide proof for your claim.

That's okay, I know you're stupid, or a liar, most likely both.

Over the past couple of days I've schooled you on a variety of subjects including mark-to-mark accounting and its suspension, the costs of the bailout to the taxpayer, losses incurred by Citibank and BOA, the amount of meltdown-related debt the US government has guaranteed, the difference between total Federal taxes and income taxes, and so on. I don't think you want to get into a stupid competition here.

As far as your ridiculous claim of having "schooled" me, you would first have to show where I made an incorrect claim
and next where you corrected my claim.

I challenge you to provide proof of either.

Just read back through the other thread baby. You had no idea about mark to market, the amount of money banks lost, everything I already mentioned. Let's take mark to market. You challenged me to show you how it had been suspended, you were claiming that the banks were marking their assets to market. I showed you it had been suspended. Show me where they reinstated mark to market rules after their suspension. I challenge you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Over the past couple of days I've schooled you on a variety of subjects including mark-to-mark accounting and its suspension, the costs of the bailout to the taxpayer, losses incurred by Citibank and BOA, the amount of meltdown-related debt the US government has guaranteed, the difference between total Federal taxes and income taxes, and so on. I don't think you want to get into a stupid competition here.

As far as your ridiculous claim of having "schooled" me, you would first have to show where I made an incorrect claim
and next where you corrected my claim.

I challenge you to provide proof of either.

Just read back through the other thread baby. You had no idea about mark to market, the amount of money banks lost, everything I already mentioned. Let's take mark to market. You challenged me to show you how it had been suspended, you were claiming that the banks were marking their assets to market. I showed you it had been suspended. Show me where they reinstated mark to market rules after their suspension. I challenge you.

You see, if you want to prove your claim, you would have to read through the thread, baby.
And prove it.

"Let's take mark to market. You challenged me to show you how it had been suspended, you were claiming that the banks were marking their assets to market"

OMG! STFU!
Prove I claimed that.
It should be right there in the thread.
Get going! Let me know when you find it.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

You're funny.

Did you ever prove the government did (and still does) guarantee all the bad debt?

I know they guaranteed a small portion of debt for a short period. Do you?

Any losses of Citibank and BOA are a problem for their shareholders, not the taxpayers, as you originally claimed.

Here is your original stupid claim......

"Bush deregulated the mortgage industry pretty much entirely. one of the major changes was that he changed the rules so that banks and mortgage originators no longer had to hold mortgages to maturity and could sell them immediately. This allowed the newly unregulated mortgage providers like Countrywide and Ameriquest to go on a huge lending spree and immediately sell their mortgages on to Wall Street firms who sliced and diced them and turned them into securities"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...te-profits-1-went-to-wages-4.html#post4154905

Back on September 17, and still no proof.
Like I said, you're funny.
And stupid and a liar.

Twelve trillion dollars is a small portion of the debt?

And once again, the change Bush brought to the mortgage market :

“This was very different from the way traditional banks operated. To your local banker, a mortgage is a reliable and secured for m of lending. With few notable exceptions, lending standards by banks had always been rigorous. When a traditional depository bank originated a mortgage, it assumed it would hold on to the loan for the full 15- or 30-year term; depository banks felt no compulsion to resell them. Guarding against default over the life of that loan was the key to not only being profitable, but staying in business.

That wasn’t how the newfangled lend-to-securitize originators worked. In one of many examples of misplaced compensation schemes we have seen, they were paid on the volume, not the quality, of their loans. Besides, they didn’t need to find a buyer who was a good risk for 30 years—they needed only to find someone who wouldn’t default before the securitization process was complete. Thus, they had very different standards from the traditional lenders. The sellers of these mortgages made warranties to the Wall Street buyers of this paper that the borrowers would not default for 90 days—enough time for the loans to be sold off and repackaged as residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs).

This was a radical change in lending standards.”

Warranty Fix for Mortgage Securitization Problems | The Big Picture

The Treasury never guaranteed $12 trillion in debt.

"And once again, the change Bush brought to the mortgage market"

Awful. Just terrible. I'll never vote for Bush again.
You know what else it is?
Not proof for your claim.
Keep trying?

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31. The total includes about $2 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in

I'm happy that I proved my claim.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

As far as your ridiculous claim of having "schooled" me, you would first have to show where I made an incorrect claim
and next where you corrected my claim.

I challenge you to provide proof of either.

Just read back through the other thread baby. You had no idea about mark to market, the amount of money banks lost, everything I already mentioned. Let's take mark to market. You challenged me to show you how it had been suspended, you were claiming that the banks were marking their assets to market. I showed you it had been suspended. Show me where they reinstated mark to market rules after their suspension. I challenge you.

You see, if you want to prove your claim, you would have to read through the thread, baby.
And prove it.

"Let's take mark to market. You challenged me to show you how it had been suspended, you were claiming that the banks were marking their assets to market"

OMG! STFU!
Prove I claimed that.
It should be right there in the thread.
Get going! Let me know when you find it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-17.html#post4173105

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Twelve trillion dollars is a small portion of the debt?

And once again, the change Bush brought to the mortgage market :

“This was very different from the way traditional banks operated. To your local banker, a mortgage is a reliable and secured for m of lending. With few notable exceptions, lending standards by banks had always been rigorous. When a traditional depository bank originated a mortgage, it assumed it would hold on to the loan for the full 15- or 30-year term; depository banks felt no compulsion to resell them. Guarding against default over the life of that loan was the key to not only being profitable, but staying in business.

That wasn’t how the newfangled lend-to-securitize originators worked. In one of many examples of misplaced compensation schemes we have seen, they were paid on the volume, not the quality, of their loans. Besides, they didn’t need to find a buyer who was a good risk for 30 years—they needed only to find someone who wouldn’t default before the securitization process was complete. Thus, they had very different standards from the traditional lenders. The sellers of these mortgages made warranties to the Wall Street buyers of this paper that the borrowers would not default for 90 days—enough time for the loans to be sold off and repackaged as residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs).

This was a radical change in lending standards.”

Warranty Fix for Mortgage Securitization Problems | The Big Picture

The Treasury never guaranteed $12 trillion in debt.

"And once again, the change Bush brought to the mortgage market"

Awful. Just terrible. I'll never vote for Bush again.
You know what else it is?
Not proof for your claim.
Keep trying?

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31. The total includes about $2 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in

I'm happy that I proved my claim.

You know what $12.8 trillion in loans, spending or guarantees is?

Not $12 trillion in guarantees.

Let me know when you find out the actual amount of the guarantees.
I'll be waiting.

At least you know that BOA has more than $2.2 trillion in assets.
Just a bit more than your original claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just read back through the other thread baby. You had no idea about mark to market, the amount of money banks lost, everything I already mentioned. Let's take mark to market. You challenged me to show you how it had been suspended, you were claiming that the banks were marking their assets to market. I showed you it had been suspended. Show me where they reinstated mark to market rules after their suspension. I challenge you.

You see, if you want to prove your claim, you would have to read through the thread, baby.
And prove it.

"Let's take mark to market. You challenged me to show you how it had been suspended, you were claiming that the banks were marking their assets to market"

OMG! STFU!
Prove I claimed that.
It should be right there in the thread.
Get going! Let me know when you find it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-17.html#post4173105

Excellent!
I don't see a claim they were marking to market.
Perhaps you can show where I wrote that?
Keep trying?

 

[Raoul_Duke]

The Treasury never guaranteed $12 trillion in debt.

"And once again, the change Bush brought to the mortgage market"

Awful. Just terrible. I'll never vote for Bush again.
You know what else it is?
Not proof for your claim.
Keep trying?

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31. The total includes about $2 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in

I'm happy that I proved my claim.

You know what $12.8 trillion in loans, spending or guarantees is?

Not $12 trillion in guarantees.

Let me know when you find out the actual amount of the guarantees.
I'll be waiting.

At least you know that BOA has more than $2.2 trillion in assets.
Just a bit more than your original claim.

I'm happy that I've shown that the government have guaranteed twelve trillion dollars worth of various debt.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

You see, if you want to prove your claim, you would have to read through the thread, baby.
And prove it.

"Let's take mark to market. You challenged me to show you how it had been suspended, you were claiming that the banks were marking their assets to market"

OMG! STFU!
Prove I claimed that.
It should be right there in the thread.
Get going! Let me know when you find it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-17.html#post4173105

Excellent!
I don't see a claim they were marking to market.
Perhaps you can show where I wrote that?
Keep trying?

Why did you ask me to prove they'd suspended mark to market if you knew that they'd suspended it then?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Government loans, spending or guarantees to rescue the U.S. financial system total more than $12.8 trillion since the international credit crisis began in August 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg as of March 31. The total includes about $2 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet.

Fed Shrouding $2 Trillion in Bank Loans in

I'm happy that I proved my claim.

You know what $12.8 trillion in loans, spending or guarantees is?

Not $12 trillion in guarantees.

Let me know when you find out the actual amount of the guarantees.
I'll be waiting.

At least you know that BOA has more than $2.2 trillion in assets.
Just a bit more than your original claim.

I'm happy that I've shown that the government have guaranteed twelve trillion dollars worth of various debt.

You proved no such thing.

And didn't you originally claim the government guaranteed all the bad debt?
And still did?
I know that several guarantee programs expired and none were open ended.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...e-profits-1-went-to-wages-17.html#post4173105

Excellent!
I don't see a claim they were marking to market.
Perhaps you can show where I wrote that?
Keep trying?

Why did you ask me to prove they'd suspended mark to market if you knew that they'd suspended it then?

Because most people have no idea what they did with mark-to-market.

You probably think none of the securities on their books are marked-to-market.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

You know what $12.8 trillion in loans, spending or guarantees is?

Not $12 trillion in guarantees.

Let me know when you find out the actual amount of the guarantees.
I'll be waiting.

At least you know that BOA has more than $2.2 trillion in assets.
Just a bit more than your original claim.

I'm happy that I've shown that the government have guaranteed twelve trillion dollars worth of various debt.

You proved no such thing.

And didn't you originally claim the government guaranteed all the bad debt?
And still did?
I know that several guarantee programs expired and none were open ended.

The Fed just offered unlimited dollar loans to foreign banks a few days ago to try and calm things down so of course all US debt is backed by the government in times of financial crisis. That's to calm markets down and prevent runs on banks, capital markets etc. It's just central banking 101. I can't imagine how a smart guy like you is unaware of it.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Excellent!
I don't see a claim they were marking to market.
Perhaps you can show where I wrote that?
Keep trying?

Why did you ask me to prove they'd suspended mark to market if you knew that they'd suspended it then?

Because most people have no idea what they did with mark-to-market.

You probably think none of the securities on their books are marked-to-market.

And you were one of them.