OK Truthmatters

[Toddsterpatriot]

why is it after YEARS of me asking this question no one on ANY side can explain WHY the Bush people fought these perfectly legal American laws?

Why do you feel broker regs would have done anything to prevent the financial bubble?

 

[Avorysuds]

LOL, have any of you seen or remember when TM has apologized for being wrong with her own OP then later in the same thread RE-TAKE the position she apologized for being wrong on and attack people.... again? I do, lol.


COLD HARD FACTS!!!!

go get it BUT start a new thread about it .

This thread is about the Bush SEC and the broker rules

Don't tell me what to do you Nazi, what are you the SS?

And btw, stfu .. uhh... uhh Spongebob! HUHUHUHUHUH!

 

[Rat in the Hat]

why is it after YEARS of me asking this question no one on ANY side can explain WHY the Bush people fought these perfectly legal American laws?

 

[Truthmatters]

TM

explain how it is NOT what I say it is?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62541

Me

The Republicans were not primarily responsible for the Financial Crisis though, like the Democrats, they share some culpability. The Republicans were responsible for the deregulation that contributed to the crisis, but the Democrats were the primary guardians of the GSEs, which also played a role. However, IMO, the biggest culprit was the Fed because they have significant influence over the pricing of credit.

TM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html#vmessage62542

If the broker rules had BEEN IN PLACE this sub prime shit could not have reached the levels it did.


someday maybe you will; have the guts to talk about this right ion the board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62545

First, I've talked about this on the board numerous times.

Next, yes the Financial Crisis still would have happened, though perhaps it wouldn't have gotten as big. Structures such as RMBS and SIVs increased demand, but the primary culprit in this is the Fed IMO for three reasons.

First, the Fed kept too much liquidity into the system. This created asset inflation as liquidity flooded into the mortgage and housing markets.

Second, because interest rates were so low, investors reached for yield and increased demand for the structures you mentioned. Had interest rates not fallen so low, institutions would not have demanded higher returns from more risky products. The Fed affects pricing across the interest rate curve by nailing down short-term rates, which drags down the long end of the curve if inflation expectations remain dormant. Lower mortgage rates mean cheaper mortgages which means more credit to pump up housing prices.

Third, because of Greenspan's repeated actions to bail out the financial system whenever it got into trouble, the market believed that he would do so in the future. This was known as The Greenspan Put. It led investors to increase the leverage on their investments, which contributed greatly to the forced liquidation that caused the implosion of the financial system.

I do think deregulation played a significant factor, but it was a minor one relative to the Fed. There is a long history around the world of financial deregulation and asset bubbles and collapses. This contributed to the crisis. But the reason why it almost certainly wasn't the primary factor was because there were housing bubbles around the world where structures and derivatives played a negligible roll.

Finally, there were many other factors, including the role of the GSEs, which is mainly at the feet of the Democrats. I think this is overblown by ideologues but it wasn't zero either. Other factors included excess savings in Asia which recycled back into the US mortgage market, fraud and people's own greed.

WHY did the Bush SEC hold back the broker rules for 8 long years?

what was the impact of doing so on the sub prime securities market?


toro never answers this

 

[Truthmatters]

he always avoids it

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

TM

explain how it is NOT what I say it is?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 12, 1999. The Act provided an 18-month deadline for the adoption of implementing rules, but from 1999 until 2005, the rule-writing effort stalled repeatedly. On Oct. 13, 2006, President Bush signed into law the Regulatory Relief Act, which added the requirement that the Commission and the Board issue the proposed rules jointly, and seek the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62541

Me


TM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html#vmessage62542

If the broker rules had BEEN IN PLACE this sub prime shit could not have reached the levels it did.


someday maybe you will; have the guts to talk about this right ion the board

http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/toro.html?tab=visitor_messaging#vmessage62545

First, I've talked about this on the board numerous times.

Next, yes the Financial Crisis still would have happened, though perhaps it wouldn't have gotten as big. Structures such as RMBS and SIVs increased demand, but the primary culprit in this is the Fed IMO for three reasons.

First, the Fed kept too much liquidity into the system. This created asset inflation as liquidity flooded into the mortgage and housing markets.

Second, because interest rates were so low, investors reached for yield and increased demand for the structures you mentioned. Had interest rates not fallen so low, institutions would not have demanded higher returns from more risky products. The Fed affects pricing across the interest rate curve by nailing down short-term rates, which drags down the long end of the curve if inflation expectations remain dormant. Lower mortgage rates mean cheaper mortgages which means more credit to pump up housing prices.

Third, because of Greenspan's repeated actions to bail out the financial system whenever it got into trouble, the market believed that he would do so in the future. This was known as The Greenspan Put. It led investors to increase the leverage on their investments, which contributed greatly to the forced liquidation that caused the implosion of the financial system.

I do think deregulation played a significant factor, but it was a minor one relative to the Fed. There is a long history around the world of financial deregulation and asset bubbles and collapses. This contributed to the crisis. But the reason why it almost certainly wasn't the primary factor was because there were housing bubbles around the world where structures and derivatives played a negligible roll.

Finally, there were many other factors, including the role of the GSEs, which is mainly at the feet of the Democrats. I think this is overblown by ideologues but it wasn't zero either. Other factors included excess savings in Asia which recycled back into the US mortgage market, fraud and people's own greed.

WHY did the Bush SEC hold back the broker rules for 8 long years?

what was the impact of doing so on the sub prime securities market?


toro never answers this

what was the impact of doing so on the sub prime securities market?


Minimal if any.

 

[Avorysuds]

lol, now TM is talking about people avoiding... Yet TM avoids Obama doing more military spending than Bush/Republicans, starting more wars, expanding the patriot act, bailing people out, corruption, secrets and so on.

It just can’t get any better!

 

[Truthmatters]

why did the Bush SEC fight these perfectly constitutional laws for 8 long years?


if they were UNIMPORTANT why did they fight so hard?

 

[Truthmatters]

Not one of you can answer with any facts to back your claims.


NEVER seen one person on ANY side produce a reasoning for fighting these laws like the Bush SEC did

 

[Truthmatters]

they didnt want the protections agreed upon by our representatives to be implimented.

YET they fought for years to deregulate the banks like this.

What was the result of deregualting the banks?

we got fucked

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Silly TM thinks the broker laws alone would have saved the day and prevented the crisis.

The little girl doesn't understand that had they been implemented, the banksters would have found a way around them. Or bought off enough congresscritters on both sides of the aisle to repeal them.

 

[Truthmatters]

dear fucking idiot.

why did they reinstate them after the fact then?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

dear fucking idiot.

why did they reinstate them after the fact then?

To give the impression that they were doing something to "fix" the crisis.


It's called closing the barn door after the horses have run off.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

why did the Bush SEC fight these perfectly constitutional laws for 8 long years?


if they were UNIMPORTANT why did they fight so hard?

Who says they fought them?
Why do you feel they mattered?

 

[Truthmatters]

tod read the damn thread and quit asking stupid questions

 

[Truthmatters]

dear fucking idiot.

why did they reinstate them after the fact then?

To give the impression that they were doing something to "fix" the crisis.


It's called closing the barn door after the horses have run off.

You just contridicted your self you idiot

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

tod read the damn thread and quit asking stupid questions

I read your stupid thread and still haven't seen your stupid proof. Try again?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

dear fucking idiot.

why did they reinstate them after the fact then?

To give the impression that they were doing something to "fix" the crisis.


It's called closing the barn door after the horses have run off.

You just contridicted your self you idiot

No I didn't, moron.

The Rep & Dem congresscritters knew putting the laws into effect after the crisis would have no bearing on what the banks did in the past, and they knew the banks would radically change the way they did business after the crash in an attempt to find new revenue.

So putting the laws into effect was just window dressing.

 

[Avorysuds]

they didnt want the protections agreed upon by our representatives to be implimented.

YET they fought for years to deregulate the banks like this.

What was the result of deregualting the banks?

we got fucked

You are just mad because Democrats caused a global depression by crashing the US economy... We understand TM.

 

[Toro]

LOL, have any of you seen or remember when TM has apologized for being wrong with her own OP then later in the same thread RE-TAKE the position she apologized for being wrong on and attack people.... again? I do, lol.


COLD HARD FACTS!!!!

go get it BUT start a new thread about it .

This thread is about the Bush SEC and the broker rules

No that's not what this thread is about.