Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

To which you are wrong. The mortgages that caused the bubble were the ones that went delinquent. GSE-backed loans had delinquency rates the same throughout the bubble years. You ignore GSE loan performance because it's the only way your bullshit argument makes sense.

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.

So here's more of your sophistry on display. Not every subprime loan was crappy. A subprime loan only became crappy when the borrower failed to repay (delinquency). From 2004-7, the delinquency rates for GSE-backed subprime loans remained at the levels prior to 2004, whereas delinquency and default rates for private labels skyrocketed. So you are trying to lump in all subprimes together as part of a guilt-by-association argument, but you're being knowingly dishonest when you do that. A "garbage loan" in this context is a loan that defaults or goes into delinquency. Risk isn't what we're talking about. Not now, when we know the actual figures and facts.

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.

No, you have failed to pin GSE's because you ignore loan performance. GSE-backed loans performed at the same rates they did before the bubble. Private label loans didn't. Fact.

The bubble popped 2008-2009. Your chart shows delinquencies rising across the board then. DURR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So I say this: Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income.
You say this: Bullshit.
But then you also say this: Plenty of WalMart employees don't qualify for welfare in Illinois based solely on their income.

So it is determined by income, then. You contradict yourself in your own fucking post!

Yes, in my post.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides temporary financial and Healthcare Coverage for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children.

If you have low income, aren't pregnant and have no children, you don't qualify in Illinois.
Thanks for proving you can't read.

 

[The Derp]

Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),
Fuck you're a moron.
During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.

You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans to live in. That's not true at all. These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping. You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans but paid those loans with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal. You do that because you are a sophist. GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance. And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.

We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.

NO! We are talking about the mortgages that caused the bubble to burst. Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans. You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst and why. This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly. What happened after the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place. What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency. That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow before the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.

GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped. In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were decreasing.

You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.

The part you are purposefully leaving out is when those rates started growing. The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007. That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater". But they only went "underwater" after the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting first. And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that only then saw people default on loans from other entities.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.
Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.

But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop. They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't. That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.

 

[The Derp]

The bubble popped 2008-2009. Your chart shows delinquencies rising across the board then. DURR.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! The bubble popped in 2007, jackass, not 2008. That's why you see delinquency rates for private-label loans start growing in 2006.

Seriously, I know you know you're being dishonest. So why are you continuing to do it? Does it really mean that much to you? Are you so defensive like this because you recognize that once we pull the thread here, the entire Conservative sweater begins to unravel and your ego cannot handle that?

 

[The Derp]

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides temporary financial and Healthcare Coverage for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children.
If you have low income, aren't pregnant and have no children, you don't qualify in Illinois.

Not for TANF, but you do for SNAP, which was another program on that page that you didn't bother to mention in your post. So why did you just not mention it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),
Fuck you're a moron.
During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.

You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans to live in. That's not true at all. These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping. You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans but paid those loans with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal. You do that because you are a sophist. GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance. And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.

We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.

NO! We are talking about the mortgages that caused the bubble to burst. Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans. You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst and why. This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly. What happened after the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place. What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency. That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow before the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.

GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped. In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were decreasing.

You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.

The part you are purposefully leaving out is when those rates started growing. The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007. That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater". But they only went "underwater" after the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting first. And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that only then saw people default on loans from other entities.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.
Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.

But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop. They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't. That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides temporary financial and Healthcare Coverage for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children.
If you have low income, aren't pregnant and have no children, you don't qualify in Illinois.

Not for TANF, but you do for SNAP, which was another program on that page that you didn't bother to mention in your post. So why did you just not mention it?

You said, "Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income"

I just showed you a program that isn't.

Why can't you answer my question?
If WalMart fired every welfare recipient and replaced them with non-recipients, how much will welfare costs decline?

Are you afraid to answer because it will expose the idiocy of your subsidy claim?

 

[JonKoch]

Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),
Fuck you're a moron.
During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.

You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans to live in. That's not true at all. These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping. You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans but paid those loans with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal. You do that because you are a sophist. GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance. And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.

We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.

NO! We are talking about the mortgages that caused the bubble to burst. Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans. You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst and why. This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly. What happened after the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place. What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency. That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow before the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.

GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped. In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were decreasing.

You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.

The part you are purposefully leaving out is when those rates started growing. The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007. That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater". But they only went "underwater" after the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting first. And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that only then saw people default on loans from other entities.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.
Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.

But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop. They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't. That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.

Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES.

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief" and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years.

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake

 

[danielpalos]

Which ones? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? And what does cutting them accomplish, exactly?

How about this. Eliminate all plans that overlap.

We have EIGHTY programs that supposedly serve people living below the welfare level.

Do you think we really NEED that many? Do you think that at least fifty or sixty of them overlap and could be done away with or merged with several other programs?

Why not solve simple poverty on an at-will basis.

 

[danielpalos]

People who aren't collecting welfare

Why not fire capilas

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?

State TANF Spending in FY 2015. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program is a $16.5 billion block grant to states, territories, and eligible tribes to provide assistance to low-income families and support a range of services to improve employment and other child and family outcomes.

SAME AMOUNT IT WAS IN 1995 AFTER "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant


Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Yes, I love that moronic "study".
When WalMart fires all the welfare recipients, we'll save billions on welfare.
How many billions?

why not simply jail employers who don't hire enough labor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),
Fuck you're a moron.
During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.

You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans to live in. That's not true at all. These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping. You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans but paid those loans with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal. You do that because you are a sophist. GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance. And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.

We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.

NO! We are talking about the mortgages that caused the bubble to burst. Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans. You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst and why. This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly. What happened after the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place. What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency. That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow before the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.

GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped. In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were decreasing.

You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.

The part you are purposefully leaving out is when those rates started growing. The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007. That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater". But they only went "underwater" after the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting first. And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that only then saw people default on loans from other entities.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.
Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.

But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop. They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't. That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.

Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES.

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief" and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years.

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault,

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.
He was wrong.
So were the Dems who agreed it was a great idea.

 

[JonKoch]

Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),
Fuck you're a moron.
During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.

You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans to live in. That's not true at all. These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping. You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans but paid those loans with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal. You do that because you are a sophist. GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance. And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.

We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.

NO! We are talking about the mortgages that caused the bubble to burst. Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans. You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst and why. This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly. What happened after the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place. What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency. That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow before the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.

GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped. In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were decreasing.

You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.

The part you are purposefully leaving out is when those rates started growing. The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007. That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater". But they only went "underwater" after the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting first. And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that only then saw people default on loans from other entities.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.
Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.

But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop. They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't. That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.

Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES.

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief" and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years.

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault,

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.
He was wrong.
So were the Dems who agreed it was a great idea.

Yeah Cupcake you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters subprime bubble

Hint when Dems push more people to become homeowners, they do it with GOOD OVERSIGHT and good outcomes

GOP? Not so much

BTW, Dubya didn't care how it turned out, he was just more interested in hiding his failed economic policies by cheering on the ponzi scheme!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),
Fuck you're a moron.
During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.

You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans to live in. That's not true at all. These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping. You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans but paid those loans with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal. You do that because you are a sophist. GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance. And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.

We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.

NO! We are talking about the mortgages that caused the bubble to burst. Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans. You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst and why. This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly. What happened after the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place. What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency. That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow before the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.

GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped. In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were decreasing.

You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.

The part you are purposefully leaving out is when those rates started growing. The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007. That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater". But they only went "underwater" after the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting first. And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that only then saw people default on loans from other entities.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.
Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.

But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop. They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't. That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.

Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES.

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief" and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years.

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault,

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.
He was wrong.
So were the Dems who agreed it was a great idea.

Yeah Cupcake you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters subprime bubble

Hint when Dems push more people to become homeowners, they do it with GOOD OVERSIGHT and good outcomes

GOP? Not so much

BTW, Dubya didn't care how it turned out, he was just more interested in hiding his failed economic policies by cheering on the ponzi scheme!

you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters

The Dems had no power to stop Bush from doing what the Dems also wanted to do.

 

[JonKoch]

You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans to live in. That's not true at all. These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping. You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans but paid those loans with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal. You do that because you are a sophist. GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance. And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.



NO! We are talking about the mortgages that caused the bubble to burst. Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans. You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst and why. This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly. What happened after the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place. What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency. That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow before the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.

GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped. In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were decreasing.



The part you are purposefully leaving out is when those rates started growing. The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007. That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater". But they only went "underwater" after the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting first. And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that only then saw people default on loans from other entities.


But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop. They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't. That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.

Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES.

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief" and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years.

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault,

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.
He was wrong.
So were the Dems who agreed it was a great idea.

Yeah Cupcake you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters subprime bubble

Hint when Dems push more people to become homeowners, they do it with GOOD OVERSIGHT and good outcomes

GOP? Not so much

BTW, Dubya didn't care how it turned out, he was just more interested in hiding his failed economic policies by cheering on the ponzi scheme!

you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters

The Dems had no power to stop Bush from doing what the Dems also wanted to do.

Sure Cupcake, the Dems fought ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in predatory lenders, GUTTED the FBI white collar division (MORTGAGE FRAUD DIV) by 1/3rd, REVERSED CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT FORBID F/F FROM USING SUBPRIMES FROM COUNTING TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS, etc

Keep "believing what the Dems wanted was UNREGULATED FREE MARKET BS CUPCAKE

 

[JonKoch]

You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans to live in. That's not true at all. These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping. You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans but paid those loans with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal. You do that because you are a sophist. GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance. And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.



NO! We are talking about the mortgages that caused the bubble to burst. Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans. You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst and why. This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly. What happened after the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place. What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency. That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow before the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.

GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped. In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were decreasing.



The part you are purposefully leaving out is when those rates started growing. The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007. That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater". But they only went "underwater" after the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting first. And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that only then saw people default on loans from other entities.


But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop. They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't. That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.

Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES.

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief" and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years.

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault,

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.
He was wrong.
So were the Dems who agreed it was a great idea.

Yeah Cupcake you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters subprime bubble

Hint when Dems push more people to become homeowners, they do it with GOOD OVERSIGHT and good outcomes

GOP? Not so much

BTW, Dubya didn't care how it turned out, he was just more interested in hiding his failed economic policies by cheering on the ponzi scheme!

you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters

The Dems had no power to stop Bush from doing what the Dems also wanted to do.

National housing trust fund. Crowley's group also will work to pass an alternative approach to affordable housing production that was introduced in 2000 by Democratic presidential candidate Kerry. This national housing trust fund would create a dedicated source of money to build 1.5 million affordable rental units over 10 years, its backers say.

While the administration says the trust fund would duplicate other HUD programs and unwisely takes funds from an FHA mortgage insurance fund, Crowley and her allies say the idea would work.

In the House, trust fund legislation has 214 co-sponsors, but the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee has not allowed it to come up for a vote, Crowley said.

One of the coalition's big pushes next year will be to line up enough votes to bring the bill to the House floor.


WAPO


Industry Plans To Keep Up The Pressure (washingtonpost.com)



In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."


YEAH CUPCAKE, THE SAME GOALS *SHAKING HEAD*

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

You're trying to shift the argument to after the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over what caused the bubble to burst

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.

Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES.

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief" and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years.

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault,

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.
He was wrong.
So were the Dems who agreed it was a great idea.

Yeah Cupcake you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters subprime bubble

Hint when Dems push more people to become homeowners, they do it with GOOD OVERSIGHT and good outcomes

GOP? Not so much

BTW, Dubya didn't care how it turned out, he was just more interested in hiding his failed economic policies by cheering on the ponzi scheme!

you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters

The Dems had no power to stop Bush from doing what the Dems also wanted to do.

Sure Cupcake, the Dems fought ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in predatory lenders, GUTTED the FBI white collar division (MORTGAGE FRAUD DIV) by 1/3rd, REVERSED CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT FORBID F/F FROM USING SUBPRIMES FROM COUNTING TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS, etc

Keep "believing what the Dems wanted was UNREGULATED FREE MARKET BS CUPCAKE

Which Dems wanted to stop the push for more low-income home owners?
Gimme a list.......

Keep "believing what the Dems wanted was UNREGULATED FREE MARKET BS

Forcing banks to make crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
Forcing the GSEs to buy crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
Dems supported both.

 

[danielpalos]

I am just glad, the right wing, Owns the drug war.

 

[JonKoch]

Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES.

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief" and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years.

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault,

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.
He was wrong.
So were the Dems who agreed it was a great idea.

Yeah Cupcake you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters subprime bubble

Hint when Dems push more people to become homeowners, they do it with GOOD OVERSIGHT and good outcomes

GOP? Not so much

BTW, Dubya didn't care how it turned out, he was just more interested in hiding his failed economic policies by cheering on the ponzi scheme!

you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters

The Dems had no power to stop Bush from doing what the Dems also wanted to do.

Sure Cupcake, the Dems fought ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in predatory lenders, GUTTED the FBI white collar division (MORTGAGE FRAUD DIV) by 1/3rd, REVERSED CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT FORBID F/F FROM USING SUBPRIMES FROM COUNTING TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS, etc

Keep "believing what the Dems wanted was UNREGULATED FREE MARKET BS CUPCAKE

Which Dems wanted to stop the push for more low-income home owners?
Gimme a list.......

Keep "believing what the Dems wanted was UNREGULATED FREE MARKET BS

Forcing banks to make crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
Forcing the GSEs to buy crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
Dems supported both.

Your BS noted Cupcake

(BARNEY) Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."



(BARNEY) Frank and housing industry representatives such as Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, say the White House rules fail to focus financing on multifamily housing and other market segments. The regulations also don't address a decline in refinancing and other market changes, they said. “We don't see how these goals in any way put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into specific types of affordable housing,'' Howard said. The association, which represents Centex Corp.,


Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says
https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?


FACTS on Dubya's great recession


FORCING BANKS? CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE *shaking head*


The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. They developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement.




Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.

 

[JonKoch]

I am just glad, the right wing, Owns the drug war.

Wait another 20-30 years and the right will be blaming the libs for that TOO though

 

[danielpalos]

Requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State, is unlawful.