Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Derp]

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.!

The mortgages the GSE's bought had delinquency rates no worse (and in some cases better) than prior to the bubble.

 

[The Derp]

I agree, stop giving WalMart employees welfare.
We'll save billions!!

But then you'll have millions of workers in poverty.

 

[The Derp]

No, you won't save anything
Sure we will.
"It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 worker."
If Walmart fired 100 of their poor workers, would the taxpayers save $301,500 or $581,500?

Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired. Unless you're raising wages, you're not changing anything.

 

[The Derp]

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?
Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Hey you stupid fucking moron...do you just not understand numbers? The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged (and in some cases, even better) than the rates prior to the mortgage bubble. You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument. And your argument is stupid. It's not informed by anything, clearly.

 

[The Derp]

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

So rather than talk in hypothetical "what ifs", which I know you prefer to speak in terms of, let's talk in reality. The reality is that in 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. 2004 was also the year the Bush Mortgage Bubble started, with subprimes shooting up from 8.3% of all mortgages in 2003 to 20.9% of all mortgages by 2004 to 22.7% of all mortgages by 2005. Over the same period, GSE market share went from 70% in 2003 down to 48% in 2004 down to 40% by 2005.

And Conservatives cheered it on the entire time with Larry Kudlow even calling those in 2005 warning about the housing bubble, "bubbleheads".

Conservatives were wrong then, so why would they be right today?

 

[danielpalos]

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?

So rather than talk in hypothetical "what ifs", which I know you prefer to speak in terms of, let's talk in reality. The reality is that in 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. 2004 was also the year the Bush Mortgage Bubble started, with subprimes shooting up from 8.3% of all mortgages in 2003 to 20.9% of all mortgages by 2004 to 22.7% of all mortgages by 2005. Over the same period, GSE market share went from 70% in 2003 down to 48% in 2004 down to 40% by 2005.

And Conservatives cheered it on the entire time with Larry Kudlow even calling those in 2005 warning about the housing bubble, "bubbleheads".

Conservatives were wrong then, so why would they be right today?

i would prefer to assume, but know i should check for those, "twice a day" moments.

 

[The Derp]

Nah Cupcake, just tired how right wingers like you ALWAYS try to simplify things by taking it out of context
I guess it's just the way your bumper sticker brains work

He's a sophist and he knows it. He knows his belief system is a load of crap...he doesn't care. The reason he doesn't care is because no one has ever held him accountable for anything in his privileged life. His parents were probably of the ilk that gave him all sorts of participation trophies to boost his snowflake ego, and who told him that so long as he believed in himself, he was right. That's why he ignores facts. That's why he makes deliberately deceptive arguments. That's why all Conservatives do the same thing; they're a bunch of snowflakes with fragile egos who simply have never been held to account for anything, or exercise any personal responsibility in their lives.

 

[The Derp]

And now we just got word in from Kansas. Moderate Republicans and Democrats have come together to override Brownback's veto of their repeal of his disastrous tax cuts. Here's why:

Tax cuts cause deficits. There's your proof.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.!

The mortgages the GSE's bought had delinquency rates no worse (and in some cases better) than prior to the bubble.

I know, they only needed a couple of hundred billion dollars to cover their awesome subprimes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree, stop giving WalMart employees welfare.
We'll save billions!!

But then you'll have millions of workers in poverty.

But by firing their welfare recipient employees, we'll stop subsidizing WalMart's profit.
And save billions in welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, you won't save anything
Sure we will.
"It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 worker."
If Walmart fired 100 of their poor workers, would the taxpayers save $301,500 or $581,500?

Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired. Unless you're raising wages, you're not changing anything.

Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.

We'd save a bunch. Just hire replacements not on welfare.
Easy peasy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?
Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Hey you stupid fucking moron...do you just not understand numbers? The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged (and in some cases, even better) than the rates prior to the mortgage bubble. You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument. And your argument is stupid. It's not informed by anything, clearly.

The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged

Hey, fucktard, are you not familiar with all the money the government had to send to the GSEs because of mortgage defaults?
I don't care if they had the best delinquency rates in the history of forever.

HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument.

My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.
Such a huge buyer plays a large part in inflating a bubble. To meet the demand for these crappy mortgages, not only from GSEs, but also from private label MBS securitizers, firms like Countrywide were even giving mortgages to clowns like you.

Scary, I know.

 

[The Derp]

I know, they only needed a couple of hundred billion dollars to cover their awesome subprimes.

So this is how you reconcile the fact that the GSE subprimes had delinquency rates no worse (and in some cases even better) than those rates prior to the bubble? That inconvenient fact pretty much destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble. They weren't, clearly, as they defaulted at rates the same as, or better than, those issued pre-bubble.

The problems were in the subprimes issued by private labels and backed by private labels.

So why are you ignoring that very vital information? Because you have a narrative you have to preserve in order to avoid accountability for your flawed argument and premise, all in service of your fucking ego.

Get over yourself.

 

[The Derp]

Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.
We'd save a bunch. Just hire replacements not on welfare.

Income is how someone qualifies for welfare. Do you even know that? Doesn't seem like it.

 

[The Derp]

The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged
Hey, fucktard, are you not familiar with all the money the government had to send to the GSEs because of mortgage defaults?
I don't care if they had the best delinquency rates in the history of forever.

So it doesn't sound like you even understand what a delinquent mortgage is.

You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument.
My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.

And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble, and in some cases were even better. And they were forced to buy those by Bush who was desperate to inflate a mortgage bubble to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them. Your entire argument falls apart because the mortgages the GSE's were "forced to buy" defaulted at the same rates as the mortgages they bought prior to the bubble. You have been unable to reconcile those figures. In fact, you wholly ignore them specifically because they undermine your argument. So you exercise sophistry and pretend you don't even see them. Pathetic and SAD! At this point, why are you even responding to this thread? It's clear you are outclassed.

Such a huge buyer plays a large part in inflating a bubble.

But those mortgages were not the ones that caused the market to collapse because they weren't delinquent. That's the part you are leaving out because including it would contradict your entire premise. You are a sophist, and not a very good one at that. You can't even do sophistry correctly. That's how much of a failure you are as a person.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know, they only needed a couple of hundred billion dollars to cover their awesome subprimes.

So this is how you reconcile the fact that the GSE subprimes had delinquency rates no worse (and in some cases even better) than those rates prior to the bubble? That inconvenient fact pretty much destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble. They weren't, clearly, as they defaulted at rates the same as, or better than, those issued pre-bubble.

The problems were in the subprimes issued by private labels and backed by private labels.

So why are you ignoring that very vital information? Because you have a narrative you have to preserve in order to avoid accountability for your flawed argument and premise, all in service of your fucking ego.

Get over yourself.

destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.

I didn't say they were responsible. I said their huge purchases contributed to the bubble.
Even if we had privatized the GSEs and eliminated any possibility of a government guarantee of their securities and even if Congress didn't force them to buy crappy mortgages, the bubble would still have happened.
It probably would have been smaller. We'll never know.

Your claim that they didn't buy crappy mortgages, despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly.

The problems were in the subprimes issued by private labels and backed by private labels.

The problem was both private and GSE purchases feeding the bubble.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.
We'd save a bunch. Just hire replacements not on welfare.

Income is how someone qualifies for welfare. Do you even know that? Doesn't seem like it.

Income is how someone qualifies for welfare.

So reducing their income, by firing them, would actually increase the government's welfare expense. Good point.

It shows the complete idiocy of blaming WalMart for welfare expense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged
Hey, fucktard, are you not familiar with all the money the government had to send to the GSEs because of mortgage defaults?
I don't care if they had the best delinquency rates in the history of forever.

So it doesn't sound like you even understand what a delinquent mortgage is.

You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument.
My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.

And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble, and in some cases were even better. And they were forced to buy those by Bush who was desperate to inflate a mortgage bubble to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them. Your entire argument falls apart because the mortgages the GSE's were "forced to buy" defaulted at the same rates as the mortgages they bought prior to the bubble. You have been unable to reconcile those figures. In fact, you wholly ignore them specifically because they undermine your argument. So you exercise sophistry and pretend you don't even see them. Pathetic and SAD! At this point, why are you even responding to this thread? It's clear you are outclassed.

Such a huge buyer plays a large part in inflating a bubble.

But those mortgages were not the ones that caused the market to collapse because they weren't delinquent. That's the part you are leaving out because including it would contradict your entire premise. You are a sophist, and not a very good one at that. You can't even do sophistry correctly. That's how much of a failure you are as a person.

And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble

Yup, those crappy mortgages were crappy even before the bubble burst.

And they were forced to buy those by Bush

Yup. And the Dems fought to stop him. Oh, right, they liked it too.

 

[JonKoch]

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?
Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Hey you stupid fucking moron...do you just not understand numbers? The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged (and in some cases, even better) than the rates prior to the mortgage bubble. You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument. And your argument is stupid. It's not informed by anything, clearly.

The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged

Hey, fucktard, are you not familiar with all the money the government had to send to the GSEs because of mortgage defaults?
I don't care if they had the best delinquency rates in the history of forever.

HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument.

My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.
Such a huge buyer plays a large part in inflating a bubble. To meet the demand for these crappy mortgages, not only from GSEs, but also from private label MBS securitizers, firms like Countrywide were even giving mortgages to clowns like you.

Scary, I know.

"HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!"

All paid back and paying down the deficits today Cupcake


"My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool."

Bad argument Cupcake, they weren't forced to buy that much from the subprime pool by Dubya but buy for affordable housing goals

They were losing market share GREATLY as the Dubya bubble exploded, has that "a large part in inflating a bubble" Cupcake?


"The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06."

....Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.




WAPO

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

 

[The Derp]

[But by firing their welfare recipient employees, we'll stop subsidizing WalMart's profit.
And save billions in welfare.

No we won't because those workers qualify for welfare benefits if they are getting the same wages as the ones before.