Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[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.

The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, in January 2011, concluded "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation"

Conservatives Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis



The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis - Center for American Progress

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

Thanks. Best laugh I've had this week.

 

[The Derp]

GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.
Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.

Even the loans GSE's bought during the bubble performed exponentially better than those from private labels. The chart shows that the private labels were the ones that went bad first, and the ripple effect downstream caused all mortgages to increase in delinquency rates, not just GSE-backed mortgages. Cause and effect. The cause was the defaulting of the private label mortgages starting in 2006, and the effect was the bubble pop which had the ripple effect of causing mortgages from all entities to increase their delinquency rates. Had there not been a pop of the private label subprimes, there would not have been an economic collapse.

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.

No, because they could just fabricate subprime loans with no documentation. Which is exactly what they did. The bubble burst because those garbage loans they made started entering delinquency as early as mid-2006. That's what the chart shows.

The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.

And housing continued to grow. Raising the Fed interest rates wasn't what caused the garbage subprime mortgages to start defaulting in late 2006, the adjustable rates on those mortgages were the cause. Again, they cover this in The Big Short, the movie you say you saw but clearly didn't.

Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.

Adjustable payments that were so, independent of what the Fed rate was. It's these details you leave out because you do a lot of sloppy work. Whether that is intentional or not, I'm not sure.

 

[danielpalos]

Unequal protection of the law for the poor under Any form of Capitalism, simply Because they can't afford it; is not very social and is Contractually, unacceptable.

 

[The Derp]

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!

That's exactly right. That's why all the actions taken to inflate a housing bubble started in 2003-4. The economy was not growing as promised, and Bush was desperate for good economic news ahead of the 2004 election. They correctly surmised that housing is a terrific economic multiplier. So they took a series of deliberate actions to create and inflate a mortgage bubble in time for the 2004 election so the economy (which had shed 841,000 private sector jobs after Bush's first four years) was not a campaign issue.

 

[The Derp]

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.

Banks were not forced to make loans. There is no line you can point to in the CRA or the revision to the CRA in the 90's that "forced banks to give loans". You will not be able to find one line of text from either of those legislation that forced banks to do anything. Now, banks got incentives for handing out affordable housing loans, but those loans were strictly regulated which is why their delinquency rates for loans subject to CRA rules were so much lower than that of private labels who were not subject to CRA rules. Of the top 25 lenders during the subprime mortgage bubble, only 1 was subject to CRA rules.

 

[The Derp]

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.

Bubbles don't happen "just because". Every bubble has a reason behind why it appeared. The dotcom bubble was caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut. The housing bubble was caused by the deliberate actions Bush took in 2003-4 to deregulate the mortgage industry to inflate a bubble to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them. Leaving the responsibility for bubbles to invisible forces is akin to magical thinking and why your economic policy cannot be taken seriously. Everything in our economy, just like our climate, happens for a reason. Nothing happens by chance, coincidence, or just because. That's lazy thinking.

Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.

Bush wasn't inflating a bubble to put people in homes...Bush was inflating a bubble to make the economy look like it was growing when it wasn't. 841,000 private sector jobs were lost in his first four years. Economic growth was the worst in 80 years. The surplus was erased and turned into record deficits. Bush needed the bubble because without it, the economic malaise as a result of his failed tax policy would have continued.

 

[The Derp]

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

So I argue this premise itself is wrong. Democrats safely and securely grew the housing market throughout the 90's. It wasn't until Bush started taking deliberate steps and actions in 2003-4 that the housing market started growing faster. The reason is obvious; housing is a good economic multiplier, and the economy was struggling after his tax cuts, so Bush inflated a mortgage bubble to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of his tax cuts when it wasn't. That's why he tied his tax cuts to the growth in the housing market while campaigning in 2004.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.

 

[The Derp]

Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.

If the poor were paid more money, they would qualify for fewer welfare benefits. It's really that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.

If the poor were paid more money, they would qualify for fewer welfare benefits. It's really that simple.

I agree with you; however, Capitalism has a Natural Rate of Unemployment.

That needs to be solved for, to solve simple poverty in our Republic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.

If the poor were paid more money, they would qualify for fewer welfare benefits. It's really that simple.

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off. There is no free lunch

 

[Mr Natural]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off. There is no free lunch

And they were paid less, prices would go down and they'd be better off.

And you say there's no free lunch . . .

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.

If the poor were paid more money, they would qualify for fewer welfare benefits. It's really that simple.

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off. There is no free lunch

The price inflation canard? What is the surcharge amount.

 

[The Derp]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

 

[danielpalos]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

That only happens when, "smaller businesses" can't afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms, as the case may be.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

A liberal will be illiterate there is no free lunch. A jet plane costs more than an apple because the costs are more. Cost determines price. 1+1=2

 

[danielpalos]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

A liberal will be illiterate there is no free lunch. A jet plane costs more than an apple because the costs are more. Cost determines price. 1+1=2

So does, Gravity, regarding Payments.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.

WRONG! Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a real-world, empirical evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong. So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative fantasy vs. Reality. The fantasy is that raising wages leads to increased prices. The reality is that it doesn't. We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.

Got it so in liberal idiot land the higher the wages the lower the prices!!