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.
You don't work in the financial sector, do you?
Private lenders are NOT regulated banks.
Your ignorance says volumes that you don't know the difference!
Bank Loans Versus Private Lenders - FinancingFactory.com
Private Lenders
Unlike banks, which are tightly regulated by the federal government, the majority of private lenders operate with far less regulation, and have more flexibility to make loans that they find satisfactory to their risk criteria.
7 Steps to Avoid Mortgage Scams by Private Lenders
7 Steps to Avoid Mortgage Scams by Private Lenders
Private Money vs. Bank Loans
Should I explain where they put those loans again or are your reading comprehension skills so bad that you simply can't carry an argument?
Ironic coming from the liar who didn't even know the difference between regulated banks and private lenders!
And if you want to pretend that F&F knew that they were being scammed go right ahead.
Only you and your fellow Wall Street Casino sycophants refuse to deal with the facts and the truth behind the largest heist in the history of the world.
jeez, first he accuses me of never working in the financial sector and then he says "Only you and your fellow Wall Street Casino sycophants." Well which one is it?
Your ignorance of the term sycophant is palpable!
Oh it is? Do tell me more about myself that I was unaware of. It makes your argument so much stronger. Indeed, your previous statements are so much more factual now that you've said that. I was lost but now I'm beginning to see the light. Wow man, you were right all along. Without the above statement i would have never realized it.
I am not being paid to provide you with an education. You have the benefit of the internet at your fingertips. Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy.
I am not being paid to provide you with an education.
Or to prove your own claim.
I understand that you can't, that's okay.
Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy
Not to mention the Democratic deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives.
Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.
Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.
Utterly irrelevant since your lies don't alter the facts that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008
it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino
Prove it.
Should I explain where they put those loans again or are your reading comprehension skills so bad that you simply can't carry an argument?
Ironic coming from the liar who didn't even know the difference between regulated banks and private lenders!
And if you want to pretend that F&F knew that they were being scammed go right ahead.
Only you and your fellow Wall Street Casino sycophants refuse to deal with the facts and the truth behind the largest heist in the history of the world.
jeez, first he accuses me of never working in the financial sector and then he says "Only you and your fellow Wall Street Casino sycophants." Well which one is it?
Your ignorance of the term sycophant is palpable!
Oh it is? Do tell me more about myself that I was unaware of. It makes your argument so much stronger. Indeed, your previous statements are so much more factual now that you've said that. I was lost but now I'm beginning to see the light. Wow man, you were right all along. Without the above statement i would have never realized it.
Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are not only profoundly ignorant of the facts and cannot defend your feckless position but that you also lack any shred of honesty and integrity.
FTR I am sore from laughing out loud at your expense but that is my problem and I have no problem dealing with it.
Have a nice day.
Hey, I'm new. One of the things that confuses me the most about the Republican Party is its stance on poverty. I want to start out by saying that I am an Indiana Republican and I grew up middle class. We lived by two common rules. Work Hard, Believe in God. These two things were not a bad thing to grow up on. I had early success in school, and I got a college degree, but my OCD became increasingly worse. I am now disabled and I am well versed in poverty.
I admit that I like watching Fox News, but people like O'Reily and Hannity seem completely clueless when discussing the poor. They think that if you have two parents and a good attitude that everyone can be successful. This is both naive and quite untrue. I think the biggest misconception is that minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers. The idea of working yourself up some kind of ladder is nice, but it is not reality for millions of people. I know many adults who would be grateful for any kind of work, not just some dream job. I want to focus on the mentally ill and those who have various forms of low IQ. If you have never been before a judge for a disability hearing, then you don't know that getting help for a mental disability is nearly impossible. For every person who cheats, there is at least another person who can't get help.
I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage. I'm not talking raising a family on one income, I'm talking food, gas, and health care for one person. I don't believe in "bad jobs" or meaningless jobs. I think the first step is to get everyone back to 40 hours a week. It is ridiculous that people have to work three part time jobs. I also think that wages can go up without the world coming to an end. I'm sick of hearing about the 100$ cheeseburger and half of all jobs as we know it will disappear. Instead of clinging so tightly to current wages, I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect. Bye the way, It is not just Fox, I have yet to see any Republican candidate or political expert view minimum wage jobs as anything other than high school kids who don't really matter.
it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino
Prove it.
I am not being paid to provide you with an education.
Or to prove your own claim.
I understand that you can't, that's okay.
Nothing stopping you from googling the role that the Republican deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives played in destroying the economy
Not to mention the Democratic deregulated Wall Street Casino derivatives.
Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
But thanks for exposing that you are just another dishonest extremist rightwinger with zero credibility.
Your lies don't alter the reality that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008.
Your failure to prove your claim hasn't helped your case.
Utterly irrelevant since your lies don't alter the facts that it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino that caused the economic meltdown in 2008
it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino
Prove it.
Already done so multiple times in the links in this thread. Please feel free to read them and then ask any questions you may subsequently have.
How many times have I explained this?Bush? Republicans held all three branches of government. They used reconciliation three times. Do you remember what for? Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives. But once again, ignorant Republicans have fallen to the old GOP shell game of hide the truth be cause truth makes it our fault and they fall for it again and again.Bush s polices of Wall Street deregulation and allowing Frannie Freddie to expand with another 440 Billion American Dream act caused the Crash of 2008.
In 2001, Speculation was deregulated, controls set in place by FDR to prevent another Great Depression were removed. Speculation increased 400%(leveraging at 20:1), with WS holding 80% of the futures, speculating oil, food prices up as much as 400%. Health insurance increased 300%. Increases not seen over decades!
In 2001, Speculation was deregulated,
That's an interesting claim, but I didn't see any specifics in your link.
Speculation increased 400%
That's awful, but speculation was allowed, even under FDR.
As expected you never bothered to read the linked article and by failing to do so you disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation since you have nothing of any value to add. Have a nice day.
I read the "article". It didn't explain the so called 2001 deregulation of speculation.
It's okay if you can't prove your claim, I understand.
I agree about Fannie and Freddie, Bush should have killed those lib corps, instead of expanding them.
Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives.
How were derivatives the problem?
When a 17 trillion dollar economy crashes, it doesn't happen overnight. It takes years. Republicans held both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court. They used reconciliation three times. Do you know what for? You can't debate Republicans when they are so ignorant, they don't even know what their party did or why.it was Republican deregulation of the Wall Street Casino
Prove it.
actually it was govt regulation that caused Fan Fred to own 76% of Alt and Sub prime mortgages!!!
See why we have to be 100% that liberalism will be based in pure ignorance??
How many times have I explained this?Bush? Republicans held all three branches of government. They used reconciliation three times. Do you remember what for? Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives. But once again, ignorant Republicans have fallen to the old GOP shell game of hide the truth be cause truth makes it our fault and they fall for it again and again.In 2001, Speculation was deregulated,
That's an interesting claim, but I didn't see any specifics in your link.
Speculation increased 400%
That's awful, but speculation was allowed, even under FDR.
As expected you never bothered to read the linked article and by failing to do so you disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation since you have nothing of any value to add. Have a nice day.
I read the "article". It didn't explain the so called 2001 deregulation of speculation.
It's okay if you can't prove your claim, I understand.
I agree about Fannie and Freddie, Bush should have killed those lib corps, instead of expanding them.
Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives.
How were derivatives the problem?
You can read about derivatives here:
The terrible cost the U.S. pays for derivatives - Fortune
But it's complicated.
But let's simplify it. An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime. See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie, since Freddie/Fannie's regulations insisted anyone buying a house had to be able to pay for it.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up. This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Lehman One Big Derivatives Mess - Businessweek
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush. Otherwise, it would have happened before. Remember, Republicans hate regulation.
Republicans and poverty are very strange companions.Hey, I'm new. One of the things that confuses me the most about the Republican Party is its stance on poverty. I want to start out by saying that I am an Indiana Republican and I grew up middle class. We lived by two common rules. Work Hard, Believe in God. These two things were not a bad thing to grow up on. I had early success in school, and I got a college degree, but my OCD became increasingly worse. I am now disabled and I am well versed in poverty.
I admit that I like watching Fox News, but people like O'Reily and Hannity seem completely clueless when discussing the poor. They think that if you have two parents and a good attitude that everyone can be successful. This is both naive and quite untrue. I think the biggest misconception is that minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers. The idea of working yourself up some kind of ladder is nice, but it is not reality for millions of people. I know many adults who would be grateful for any kind of work, not just some dream job. I want to focus on the mentally ill and those who have various forms of low IQ. If you have never been before a judge for a disability hearing, then you don't know that getting help for a mental disability is nearly impossible. For every person who cheats, there is at least another person who can't get help.
I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage. I'm not talking raising a family on one income, I'm talking food, gas, and health care for one person. I don't believe in "bad jobs" or meaningless jobs. I think the first step is to get everyone back to 40 hours a week. It is ridiculous that people have to work three part time jobs. I also think that wages can go up without the world coming to an end. I'm sick of hearing about the 100$ cheeseburger and half of all jobs as we know it will disappear. Instead of clinging so tightly to current wages, I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect. Bye the way, It is not just Fox, I have yet to see any Republican candidate or political expert view minimum wage jobs as anything other than high school kids who don't really matter.
Oh fuck. I explained what happened and Toddsterpatriot asked:How many times have I explained this?Bush? Republicans held all three branches of government. They used reconciliation three times. Do you remember what for? Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives. But once again, ignorant Republicans have fallen to the old GOP shell game of hide the truth be cause truth makes it our fault and they fall for it again and again.As expected you never bothered to read the linked article and by failing to do so you disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation since you have nothing of any value to add. Have a nice day.
I read the "article". It didn't explain the so called 2001 deregulation of speculation.
It's okay if you can't prove your claim, I understand.
I agree about Fannie and Freddie, Bush should have killed those lib corps, instead of expanding them.
Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives.
How were derivatives the problem?
You can read about derivatives here:
The terrible cost the U.S. pays for derivatives - Fortune
But it's complicated.
But let's simplify it. An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime. See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie, since Freddie/Fannie's regulations insisted anyone buying a house had to be able to pay for it.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up. This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Lehman One Big Derivatives Mess - Businessweek
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush. Otherwise, it would have happened before. Remember, Republicans hate regulation.
How many times have I explained this?
Zero times.
An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie,
And nothing to do with derivatives.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up.
Yes, AIG and other mortgage insurers had big losses.
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
They weren't insuring mortgages.
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush.
Which deregulation? When did it pass?
Oh fuck. I explained what happened and Toddsterpatriot asked:How many times have I explained this?Bush? Republicans held all three branches of government. They used reconciliation three times. Do you remember what for? Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives. But once again, ignorant Republicans have fallen to the old GOP shell game of hide the truth be cause truth makes it our fault and they fall for it again and again.I read the "article". It didn't explain the so called 2001 deregulation of speculation.
It's okay if you can't prove your claim, I understand.
I agree about Fannie and Freddie, Bush should have killed those lib corps, instead of expanding them.
Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives.
How were derivatives the problem?
You can read about derivatives here:
The terrible cost the U.S. pays for derivatives - Fortune
But it's complicated.
But let's simplify it. An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime. See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie, since Freddie/Fannie's regulations insisted anyone buying a house had to be able to pay for it.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up. This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Lehman One Big Derivatives Mess - Businessweek
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush. Otherwise, it would have happened before. Remember, Republicans hate regulation.
How many times have I explained this?
Zero times.
An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie,
And nothing to do with derivatives.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up.
Yes, AIG and other mortgage insurers had big losses.
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
They weren't insuring mortgages.
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush.
Which deregulation? When did it pass?
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
and then I said:
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
and then Toddsterpatriot, said:
They weren't insuring mortgages.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
-----------------------
I'll tell you what, instead of trying to argue without knowing anything, go look stuff up. That's why I provided links. You should learn to do the same.
And it said I explained this 0 times. Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least.
Oh fuck. I explained what happened and Toddsterpatriot asked:How many times have I explained this?Bush? Republicans held all three branches of government. They used reconciliation three times. Do you remember what for? Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives. But once again, ignorant Republicans have fallen to the old GOP shell game of hide the truth be cause truth makes it our fault and they fall for it again and again.I read the "article". It didn't explain the so called 2001 deregulation of speculation.
It's okay if you can't prove your claim, I understand.
I agree about Fannie and Freddie, Bush should have killed those lib corps, instead of expanding them.
Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives.
How were derivatives the problem?
You can read about derivatives here:
The terrible cost the U.S. pays for derivatives - Fortune
But it's complicated.
But let's simplify it. An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime. See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie, since Freddie/Fannie's regulations insisted anyone buying a house had to be able to pay for it.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up. This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Lehman One Big Derivatives Mess - Businessweek
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush. Otherwise, it would have happened before. Remember, Republicans hate regulation.
How many times have I explained this?
Zero times.
An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie,
And nothing to do with derivatives.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up.
Yes, AIG and other mortgage insurers had big losses.
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
They weren't insuring mortgages.
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush.
Which deregulation? When did it pass?
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
and then I said:
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
and then Toddsterpatriot, said:
They weren't insuring mortgages.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
-----------------------
I'll tell you what, instead of trying to argue without knowing anything, go look stuff up. That's why I provided links. You should learn to do the same.
And it said I explained this 0 times. Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least.
Oh fuck. I explained what happened and Toddsterpatriot asked:How many times have I explained this?Bush? Republicans held all three branches of government. They used reconciliation three times. Do you remember what for? Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives. But once again, ignorant Republicans have fallen to the old GOP shell game of hide the truth be cause truth makes it our fault and they fall for it again and again.
Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives.
How were derivatives the problem?
You can read about derivatives here:
The terrible cost the U.S. pays for derivatives - Fortune
But it's complicated.
But let's simplify it. An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime. See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie, since Freddie/Fannie's regulations insisted anyone buying a house had to be able to pay for it.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up. This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Lehman One Big Derivatives Mess - Businessweek
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush. Otherwise, it would have happened before. Remember, Republicans hate regulation.
How many times have I explained this?
Zero times.
An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie,
And nothing to do with derivatives.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up.
Yes, AIG and other mortgage insurers had big losses.
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
They weren't insuring mortgages.
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush.
Which deregulation? When did it pass?
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
and then I said:
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
and then Toddsterpatriot, said:
They weren't insuring mortgages.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
-----------------------
I'll tell you what, instead of trying to argue without knowing anything, go look stuff up. That's why I provided links. You should learn to do the same.
And it said I explained this 0 times. Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least.
Cretins like Toddster and Publius lack the ability to learn from their mistakes which is why they will remain appallingly ignorant for their entire lives.
“Who really owns your home?” This would be simple to answer before the mortgage-backed security (MBS). These MBS’s were mortgages that were bundled together and sold to investors such as pension and bond funds by big banks. They were considered as safe as U.S. Treasuries but paid a much higher interest rate. The big banks received gigantic profits from MBS’s especially in the 2005 to 2008 time frame when most of the bundling was done. It was all about the fees, and damn the paperwork.Oh fuck. I explained what happened and Toddsterpatriot asked:How many times have I explained this?Bush? Republicans held all three branches of government. They used reconciliation three times. Do you remember what for? Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives. But once again, ignorant Republicans have fallen to the old GOP shell game of hide the truth be cause truth makes it our fault and they fall for it again and again.
Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives.
How were derivatives the problem?
You can read about derivatives here:
The terrible cost the U.S. pays for derivatives - Fortune
But it's complicated.
But let's simplify it. An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime. See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie, since Freddie/Fannie's regulations insisted anyone buying a house had to be able to pay for it.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up. This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Lehman One Big Derivatives Mess - Businessweek
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush. Otherwise, it would have happened before. Remember, Republicans hate regulation.
How many times have I explained this?
Zero times.
An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie,
And nothing to do with derivatives.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up.
Yes, AIG and other mortgage insurers had big losses.
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
They weren't insuring mortgages.
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush.
Which deregulation? When did it pass?
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
and then I said:
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
and then Toddsterpatriot, said:
They weren't insuring mortgages.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
-----------------------
I'll tell you what, instead of trying to argue without knowing anything, go look stuff up. That's why I provided links. You should learn to do the same.
And it said I explained this 0 times. Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
Ummmm....If I want to create MBS, I buy mortgages, not houses. Durr.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
Lehmann wasn't insuring mortgage backed securities.
Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least
If those other explanations were as confused and error filled as this one, you haven't managed to explain anything, yet. You have shown your ignorance on the topic.
That's why I provided links.
Yes, links that don't back up your claims are always funny.
“Who really owns your home?” This would be simple to answer before the mortgage-backed security (MBS). These MBS’s were mortgages that were bundled together and sold to investors such as pension and bond funds by big banks. They were considered as safe as U.S. Treasuries but paid a much higher interest rate. The big banks received gigantic profits from MBS’s especially in the 2005 to 2008 time frame when most of the bundling was done. It was all about the fees, and damn the paperwork.Oh fuck. I explained what happened and Toddsterpatriot asked:How many times have I explained this?Freddie and Fannie were not the problems behind the economic meltdown. The problem was derivatives.
How were derivatives the problem?
You can read about derivatives here:
The terrible cost the U.S. pays for derivatives - Fortune
But it's complicated.
But let's simplify it. An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime. See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie, since Freddie/Fannie's regulations insisted anyone buying a house had to be able to pay for it.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up. This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Lehman One Big Derivatives Mess - Businessweek
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush. Otherwise, it would have happened before. Remember, Republicans hate regulation.
How many times have I explained this?
Zero times.
An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie,
And nothing to do with derivatives.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up.
Yes, AIG and other mortgage insurers had big losses.
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
They weren't insuring mortgages.
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush.
Which deregulation? When did it pass?
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
and then I said:
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
and then Toddsterpatriot, said:
They weren't insuring mortgages.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
-----------------------
I'll tell you what, instead of trying to argue without knowing anything, go look stuff up. That's why I provided links. You should learn to do the same.
And it said I explained this 0 times. Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
Ummmm....If I want to create MBS, I buy mortgages, not houses. Durr.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
Lehmann wasn't insuring mortgage backed securities.
Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least
If those other explanations were as confused and error filled as this one, you haven't managed to explain anything, yet. You have shown your ignorance on the topic.
That's why I provided links.
Yes, links that don't back up your claims are always funny.
Mortgage and Foreclosures Who Really Owns Your Home Greg Hunter s USAWatchdog
How come I provide links and you don't? Cuz I'm not a dipshit?
I tried. You're a dipshit. End of story.“Who really owns your home?” This would be simple to answer before the mortgage-backed security (MBS). These MBS’s were mortgages that were bundled together and sold to investors such as pension and bond funds by big banks. They were considered as safe as U.S. Treasuries but paid a much higher interest rate. The big banks received gigantic profits from MBS’s especially in the 2005 to 2008 time frame when most of the bundling was done. It was all about the fees, and damn the paperwork.Oh fuck. I explained what happened and Toddsterpatriot asked:How many times have I explained this?
You can read about derivatives here:
The terrible cost the U.S. pays for derivatives - Fortune
But it's complicated.
But let's simplify it. An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime. See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie, since Freddie/Fannie's regulations insisted anyone buying a house had to be able to pay for it.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up. This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Lehman One Big Derivatives Mess - Businessweek
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush. Otherwise, it would have happened before. Remember, Republicans hate regulation.
How many times have I explained this?
Zero times.
An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie,
And nothing to do with derivatives.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up.
Yes, AIG and other mortgage insurers had big losses.
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
They weren't insuring mortgages.
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush.
Which deregulation? When did it pass?
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
and then I said:
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
and then Toddsterpatriot, said:
They weren't insuring mortgages.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
-----------------------
I'll tell you what, instead of trying to argue without knowing anything, go look stuff up. That's why I provided links. You should learn to do the same.
And it said I explained this 0 times. Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
Ummmm....If I want to create MBS, I buy mortgages, not houses. Durr.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
Lehmann wasn't insuring mortgage backed securities.
Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least
If those other explanations were as confused and error filled as this one, you haven't managed to explain anything, yet. You have shown your ignorance on the topic.
That's why I provided links.
Yes, links that don't back up your claims are always funny.
Mortgage and Foreclosures Who Really Owns Your Home Greg Hunter s USAWatchdog
How come I provide links and you don't? Cuz I'm not a dipshit?
The big banks received gigantic profits from MBS’s especially in the 2005 to 2008 time frame when most of the bundling was done.
Big banks lost tens of billions when homeowners defaulted on their mortgages.
How come I provide links
How come your links don't back up your claims?
I tried. You're a dipshit. End of story.“Who really owns your home?” This would be simple to answer before the mortgage-backed security (MBS). These MBS’s were mortgages that were bundled together and sold to investors such as pension and bond funds by big banks. They were considered as safe as U.S. Treasuries but paid a much higher interest rate. The big banks received gigantic profits from MBS’s especially in the 2005 to 2008 time frame when most of the bundling was done. It was all about the fees, and damn the paperwork.Oh fuck. I explained what happened and Toddsterpatriot asked:How many times have I explained this?
Zero times.
An investor buys up a lot of houses, bundles the mortgages together as securities, insures the securities and sells them overseas as securities and then sells the houses to anyone with a dime.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
See? Nothing to do with Freddie/Fannie,
And nothing to do with derivatives.
When the securities tanked, insurance companies had to pay up.
Yes, AIG and other mortgage insurers had big losses.
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
They weren't insuring mortgages.
And the reason all this was able to happen was due to deregulation under Bush.
Which deregulation? When did it pass?
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
and then I said:
This is why the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
and then Toddsterpatriot, said:
They weren't insuring mortgages.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
-----------------------
I'll tell you what, instead of trying to argue without knowing anything, go look stuff up. That's why I provided links. You should learn to do the same.
And it said I explained this 0 times. Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least.
Why would an investor buy the houses?
To create securities.
Ummmm....If I want to create MBS, I buy mortgages, not houses. Durr.
Of course they weren't. They sere insuring securities. But the securities were bundled mortgages.
Lehmann wasn't insuring mortgage backed securities.
Since 2010, I bet I explained it 20 times at least
If those other explanations were as confused and error filled as this one, you haven't managed to explain anything, yet. You have shown your ignorance on the topic.
That's why I provided links.
Yes, links that don't back up your claims are always funny.
Mortgage and Foreclosures Who Really Owns Your Home Greg Hunter s USAWatchdog
How come I provide links and you don't? Cuz I'm not a dipshit?
The big banks received gigantic profits from MBS’s especially in the 2005 to 2008 time frame when most of the bundling was done.
Big banks lost tens of billions when homeowners defaulted on their mortgages.
How come I provide links
How come your links don't back up your claims?
But here's the funny thing about that, Republicans don't have respect for education and views it a "librul bastion".Hey, I'm new. One of the things that confuses me the most about the Republican Party is its stance on poverty. I want to start out by saying that I am an Indiana Republican and I grew up middle class. We lived by two common rules. Work Hard, Believe in God. These two things were not a bad thing to grow up on. I had early success in school, and I got a college degree, but my OCD became increasingly worse. I am now disabled and I am well versed in poverty.
I admit that I like watching Fox News, but people like O'Reily and Hannity seem completely clueless when discussing the poor. They think that if you have two parents and a good attitude that everyone can be successful. This is both naive and quite untrue. I think the biggest misconception is that minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers. The idea of working yourself up some kind of ladder is nice, but it is not reality for millions of people. I know many adults who would be grateful for any kind of work, not just some dream job. I want to focus on the mentally ill and those who have various forms of low IQ. If you have never been before a judge for a disability hearing, then you don't know that getting help for a mental disability is nearly impossible. For every person who cheats, there is at least another person who can't get help.
I'm going to tie everything up by going to the wage debate. I firmly believe that if you work hard for 40 hours a week, then you deserve a living wage. I'm not talking raising a family on one income, I'm talking food, gas, and health care for one person. I don't believe in "bad jobs" or meaningless jobs. I think the first step is to get everyone back to 40 hours a week. It is ridiculous that people have to work three part time jobs. I also think that wages can go up without the world coming to an end. I'm sick of hearing about the 100$ cheeseburger and half of all jobs as we know it will disappear. Instead of clinging so tightly to current wages, I do not think it is too difficult for fellow Republicans to treat minimum wage earners with respect. Bye the way, It is not just Fox, I have yet to see any Republican candidate or political expert view minimum wage jobs as anything other than high school kids who don't really matter.
Without a doubt, if a person works 40 hours per week, they should be able to afford a roof over their head, food on the table, and have an assurance that they will receive proper healthcare should they become sick. I don't care if their job is shoveling shit or shoveling burgers; if they do it full-time, they should be able to afford the simple basics. Republicans seem to have a real big problem with this concept and believe if you cannot better yourself through education, then you have no value to society.
Funny that.
No....we respect education...what you have now in too many public schools are democrat controlled teachers unions using the education of children to push their political agenda and filter tax money to politicians who pay teachers salaries....
and then they don't educate children and protect bad teachers simply because they are sources of money through their dues....
Schools are supposed to teach children...that is their purpose...it is not to support the salaries of union leadership and to give money to democrat politicians.....
We want children who can survive when they grow up...democrats want adults who vote democrat because they can't provide for themselves, and have to bow their heads to democrat politicians in order to survive...
