The shear stupidity and lack of responsibility could not be worse than...

[iamwhatiseem]

Holy hell.
Just read the article....just read it.
It is so outrageous that it truly boggles the mind.

A number of media reports state that the U.S. gave Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars in aid last year. Other media reports quoting Congressional estimates suggest the U.S. gave $18 billion to $19 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.

But those figures actually underestimate what U.S. taxpayers spent on Pakistan.

The U.S. gave $20.7 billion in military and economic development aid to Pakistan from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2011, according to a new report that FOX Business has obtained that was prepared by specialists in South Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service [CRS].

Read more: How Much Did the U.S. Give Pakistan? - FoxBusiness.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Seriously?
23 views and not one comment?

 

[editec]

What can we say?

When you're buying allies they don't come cheap.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Is it extortion or bribary?

but that is a LOT of dough re me for a shit hole the size of Pak

 

[Anachronism]

What can we say?

When you're buying allies they don't come cheap.

Which is why we shouldn't be buying allies; nor should we be seeking any to begin with; because there are no true allies for this country outside our own borders. Hell, there aren't as many allies for this country INSIDE our own borders as there should be.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Holy hell.
Just read the article....just read it.
It is so outrageous that it truly boggles the mind.

A number of media reports state that the U.S. gave Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars in aid last year. Other media reports quoting Congressional estimates suggest the U.S. gave $18 billion to $19 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.

But those figures actually underestimate what U.S. taxpayers spent on Pakistan.

The U.S. gave $20.7 billion in military and economic development aid to Pakistan from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2011, according to a new report that FOX Business has obtained that was prepared by specialists in South Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service [CRS].

Read more: How Much Did the U.S. Give Pakistan? - FoxBusiness.com

I've read this as well.........and it still pisses me off.

However..........since we've gotten OBL, and since that was our primary reason for being there, pull out all the troops, bring 'em home, send in RORO ships to pick up the gear and get the fuck out of Dodge.

Then, cut off the cash.

 

[Avatar4321]

More than just keeping them as an ally. I think it's also meant to help keep the government stable. If Pakistan ends up falling apart, we have a nuclear weapons that suddenly cant be accountable for and are unlikely to remain in good hands.

Not sure if i agree with that reasoning. But Im confident that's part of why we are doing it.

 

[Againsheila]

Hate to say it, but in this case Trump is right. It's time to spend the money on our own people and forget about the rest of the world. When you are hurting economically, you don't give a large part of your budget to your poor neighbors, in hopes they won't attack you, and let your own kids starve.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Holy hell.
Just read the article....just read it.
It is so outrageous that it truly boggles the mind.

A number of media reports state that the U.S. gave Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars in aid last year. Other media reports quoting Congressional estimates suggest the U.S. gave $18 billion to $19 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.

But those figures actually underestimate what U.S. taxpayers spent on Pakistan.

The U.S. gave $20.7 billion in military and economic development aid to Pakistan from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2011, according to a new report that FOX Business has obtained that was prepared by specialists in South Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service [CRS].

Read more: How Much Did the U.S. Give Pakistan? - FoxBusiness.com

Not really outrageous, sorry.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Holy hell.
Just read the article....just read it.
It is so outrageous that it truly boggles the mind.

A number of media reports state that the U.S. gave Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars in aid last year. Other media reports quoting Congressional estimates suggest the U.S. gave $18 billion to $19 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.

But those figures actually underestimate what U.S. taxpayers spent on Pakistan.

The U.S. gave $20.7 billion in military and economic development aid to Pakistan from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2011, according to a new report that FOX Business has obtained that was prepared by specialists in South Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service [CRS].

Read more: How Much Did the U.S. Give Pakistan? - FoxBusiness.com

Not really outrageous, sorry.

Yeah...with a name like you have - nothing could really be outrageous.

 

[MaggieMae]

Holy hell.
Just read the article....just read it.
It is so outrageous that it truly boggles the mind.

A number of media reports state that the U.S. gave Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars in aid last year. Other media reports quoting Congressional estimates suggest the U.S. gave $18 billion to $19 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.

But those figures actually underestimate what U.S. taxpayers spent on Pakistan.

The U.S. gave $20.7 billion in military and economic development aid to Pakistan from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2011, according to a new report that FOX Business has obtained that was prepared by specialists in South Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service [CRS].

Read more: How Much Did the U.S. Give Pakistan? - FoxBusiness.com

That's not really breaking news, but I'm glad to see you're keeping current.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You think this is stupid? Read up on the Obama admin starting to go after "red-lining" and the DOJ pressuring banks to start making mortgage loans to low to no income people.

Now there's fucking stupid.

 

[old navy]

You think this is stupid? Read up on the Obama admin starting to go after "red-lining" and the DOJ pressuring banks to start making mortgage loans to low to no income people.

Now there's fucking stupid.

That sounds fimiliar. Clinton, Dodd, Frank. Oh, yeah. We've been there before, thus the present housing mess.

 

[MaggieMae]

You think this is stupid? Read up on the Obama admin starting to go after "red-lining" and the DOJ pressuring banks to start making mortgage loans to low to no income people.

Now there's fucking stupid.

A link would help.

 

[MaggieMae]

For anyone really interested, here's all the foreign aid doled out since 2000 through 2009.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf

 

[MaggieMae]

You think this is stupid? Read up on the Obama admin starting to go after "red-lining" and the DOJ pressuring banks to start making mortgage loans to low to no income people.

Now there's fucking stupid.

That sounds fimiliar. Clinton, Dodd, Frank. Oh, yeah. We've been there before, thus the present housing mess.

The CRA had nothing to do with the present housing crisis. Nothing, nada, zero.

Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture

For years, I have called them [Fannie & Freddie] “Phoney and Fraudy.” Since George Bush and Hank Paulson nationalized them, I have accused the government of using these two as a backdoor bailout for banks — a hidden PPIP/TARP used to buy all the garbage mortgages that banks are desperate to get off their balance sheets. Longtime readers will recall we very publicly shorted Fannie based upon their fraudulent practices and horrific balance sheet when FNM’s stock was in the $40s (it soon after collapsed).

But even I cannot reconcile reality with the movement to place all of the world’s troubles at the feet of the GSEs. Not, at least, according to the data.

That lack of evidence, however, doesn’t stop ideologues from trying. Consider this attempt at rewriting the causes of the credit crisis by Kevin Hassett:

“The worst financial crisis in generations was set off by a massive government effort, led by the two mortgage giants, to make loans to homebuyers no matter whether they could make the payments. Lenders were willing to lend money to just about all comers, no matter how low their income. Why? Because the lenders knew Fannie and Freddie would purchase the loans from them for a high price before bundling them into securities to sell to investors.”

Now, this makes for a fascinating narrative that plays into a number of different ideological beliefs. It exonerates the radical free market deregulators, it ignores what the private sector did, and it somehow ignores the fact that Congress was controlled by a very conservative GOP from 1994 to 2006 — the prime period of time covered leading up to and including the beginning of the crisis.

But worse than all of that, the data supporting Hassett’s position simply isn’t there.

Over the past 2 years, I have repeatedly asked the people who push this narrative to provide some evidence for their positions. I have offered a $100,000 if they could prove their case.

Specifically, I have requested some data or evidence that DISPROVED the following facts:

-The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;

-The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders.

-When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.

-Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street — NOT Fannie & Freddie

-In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages.

-After 2005, Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.

-The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.

Barry Ritholtz is Chief Market Strategist for Ritholtz Research, an independent institutional research firm specializing in the analysis of macroeconomic trends and the capital markets. He's the author of "Bailout Nation."

 

[QUENTIN]

Is it extortion or bribary?

I'd say it's a little from column A and a little from column B.

You think this is stupid? Read up on the Obama admin starting to go after "red-lining" and the DOJ pressuring banks to start making mortgage loans to low to no income people.

Now there's fucking stupid.

Do you know what redlining is? Are you aware that it's the primary reason most of those people are low to no income, why they require so much aid instead of having decent jobs and paying into the system?

Intentionally withhold access to quality jobs, loans, insurance, property, education, and health care and what the hell else do you expect but a perpetual underclass to result? After a century of that failed and discriminatory policy, finally abolishing redlining is the best way to nip the problem in the bud and allow us to drastically reduce our social services spending for generations to come.

Please tell me you don't believe the anti-redlining mortgage loans to low income minorities caused the financial crisis.

CRA was enacted long before the crisis started. Congress enacted the CRA in 1977 to curb “redlining,” the discriminatory practice by banks of denying mortgage credit to people living in particular neighborhoods (often literally delineated with a red line on a map). While the law was amended in 1995, it was still a decade before the housing market peaked. In the intervening period, policy reforms overwhelmingly favored de-regulating the mortgage industry.

CRA covers only a small share of mortgage originations. The CRA only applies to deposit-taking institutions. Many of the most prolific subprime lenders, like Ameriquest and New Century, were independent mortgage companies, which obtain capital from secondary markets and are, therefore, not subject to the law in any way. The share of home mortgage debt held by CRA-regulated institutions has fallen steadily, from 73.9% in 1977, when the law was created, to 32.7% in 1995, when it was amended, to 26.4% in 2008, the latest year for which data is available.

Further, CRA-regulated institutions are primarily evaluated only in their assessment areas, roughly the counties in which they have a bricks-and-mortar office. Loans which receive credit toward CRA evaluations are only those made to any low-and-moderate-income borrower or in any low-and-moderate-income neighborhood within these assessment areas.

Data available from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) shows nearly 19.46 million loans for home purchase or refinance were originated by banks or thrifts (i.e., institutions covered by CRA) and their subsidiaries and affiliates between 2004 and 2006. This was 66.3% of all mortgages made during that period. Of these, roughly 8.45 million (43.4%) were originated within the assessment areas of these institutions. Among those, only 3.23 million (38.2%) were made to lower-income borrowers or in lower-income neighborhoods, defined as individual or median household incomes less than 80% of the metropolitan area median. These are the loans that count towards an institution’s CRA evaluation and they amount to only 11.0% (38.2% of 43.3% of 66.3%) of all mortgages made between 2004 and 2006.

Moreover, most of these loans would have been made simply as part of the lender’s typical business. A 2000 Federal Reserve Bank study found that only 17% of the total dollar amount of CRA-related originations was extended under “special lending programs” and the majority of such programs “are either profitable or marginally profitable on a per program basis.”

CRA loans are less likely to use exotic features. All CRA-regulated institutions are statutorily required to comply with “safe and sound lending practices,” a requirement that does not extend to independent mortgage companies or issuers of private-label securities. While CRA loans typically involve higher loan-to-value ratios and lower credit scores common among borrowers considered high risk, this does not mean they are “subprime” loans. The features of the loan itself can affect credit risk. Compared to subprime lending, CRA loans are much less likely to involve high interest rates, prepayment penalties, etc. Less than 12% of loans covered by CRA are identified in HMDA as higher priced and the total number of such loans is just over 367,000. This is only 5.9% of all higher-priced loans and 1.3% of all mortgages originated between 2004 and 2006.

CRA loans are less likely to default. Traditional mortgage products and closer attention to underwriting mean that most CRA loans perform substantially better than subprime loans. UNC Center for Community Capital research found the default rate for CRA loans was 70% less than for a subprime loans made to borrowers with similar risk characteristics. Similarly, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco research found that loans made by a CRA-regulated lender in its assessment area were more than 60% less likely to be in foreclosure than loans made by an independent mortgage company to a comparable borrower.

CRA institutions did not drive the demand for mortgage-backed securities. Critics argue that even if the CRA did not directly originate the poor quality loans behind the foreclosure crisis, it still created the end demand for such loans as banks and thrifts purchased subprime mortgage-backed securities to satisfy the legislation’s evaluation of community investment. But banks and thrifts were not the primary force behind the secondary mortgage market.

Data from Inside Mortgage Finance shows that the share of mortgage-related securities held by banks and thrifts steadily declined over the past two decades, from 35% in 1991 to less than 20% in 2007. Between 2003 and 2006, these CRA-regulated institutions accounted for just 12% of the increase in mortgage-related securities outstanding. Using this figure as an estimate of the share of security purchases, combined with the fact that roughly two thirds of mortgages in this time period were securitized, the secondary market activities of banks and thrifts accounted for less than 10% of total originations.

In addition, only a small share of these securities would have been for CRA purposes. A 2010 Interagency Interpretive Letter from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council states, “As a general rule, mortgage-backed securities and municipal bonds are not qualified investments because they do not have as their primary purpose community development, as defined in the CRA regulations.” In 2005, nearly half of mortgage-backed securities held by banks and thrifts were held by the 10 largest, including companies like Bank of America and Citigroup, which have substantial investment branches not covered by CRA.

Or the short version:

Did the CRA Cause Mortgage Market Crisis? Nope, Says Fed Report - MarketBeat - WSJ

In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders’ CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.

Know who was most likely to default on their home loans? Wealthy people.

Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender.

 

[WillowTree]

Holy hell.
Just read the article....just read it.
It is so outrageous that it truly boggles the mind.

A number of media reports state that the U.S. gave Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars in aid last year. Other media reports quoting Congressional estimates suggest the U.S. gave $18 billion to $19 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.

But those figures actually underestimate what U.S. taxpayers spent on Pakistan.

The U.S. gave $20.7 billion in military and economic development aid to Pakistan from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2011, according to a new report that FOX Business has obtained that was prepared by specialists in South Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service [CRS].

Read more: How Much Did the U.S. Give Pakistan? - FoxBusiness.com

You mean "sheer" stupidity. I think..


One shears sheep. I know.

 

[Steve Hanson]

Holy hell.
Just read the article....just read it.
It is so outrageous that it truly boggles the mind.

A number of media reports state that the U.S. gave Pakistan $1.5 billion dollars in aid last year. Other media reports quoting Congressional estimates suggest the U.S. gave $18 billion to $19 billion to Pakistan since 9/11.

But those figures actually underestimate what U.S. taxpayers spent on Pakistan.

The U.S. gave $20.7 billion in military and economic development aid to Pakistan from fiscal 2002 through fiscal 2011, according to a new report that FOX Business has obtained that was prepared by specialists in South Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service [CRS].

Read more: How Much Did the U.S. Give Pakistan? - FoxBusiness.com

I've read this as well.........and it still pisses me off.

However..........since we've gotten OBL, and since that was our primary reason for being there, pull out all the troops, bring 'em home, send in RORO ships to pick up the gear and get the fuck out of Dodge.

Then, cut off the cash.

You are one dumb ass brain dead faggot. You really think are main reason to be there was to get Bin Laden? No wonder you are stupid enough to support Obama

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You think this is stupid? Read up on the Obama admin starting to go after "red-lining" and the DOJ pressuring banks to start making mortgage loans to low to no income people.

Now there's fucking stupid.

A link would help.

Do try and keep up if you want to comment. You shouldn't need a link for something that is common knowledge for those who pay attention.