Your Overtime Has Just Been Cut

[Unkotare]

I guess the lefty crackpot never heard of the CRA or the role two well-known GSEs played in pushing the whole mess toward the edge of the cliff. It is a situation set in motion at least as far back as the Clinton administration and with plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. Mindless partisan hacks like crackpot there can't understand what they don't want to.

 

[Bfgrn]

I guess the lefty crackpot never heard of the CRA or the role two well-known GSEs played in pushing the whole mess toward the edge of the cliff. It is a situation set in motion at least as far back as the Clinton administration and with plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. Mindless partisan hacks like crackpot there can't understand what they don't want to.

REALLY??? You CHOSE to be made a fool of?

How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia?

If the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.

The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

 

[Unkotare]

You begged for a response just so you could lie about it while trying to move the goal posts? You are not a serious, honest interlocutor. You are not even a real person. You are a partisan caricature. That's all for you, Junior.

 

[Freewill]

If it doesn't happen, great. The mere fact that he's trying speaks volumes, though. Not surprising, either.

And [MENTION=24916]Plasmaball[/MENTION], you'll have to define "partisan". What are my positions on foreign policy, war, gay rights, abortion, and personal income taxation? Would they qualify me as a partisan, do ya think?

For which party?

.

again did you read the article? he is changing the overtime rules if you make over 455 salary. Thats it.

Yes I did read the article, and I'd love to understand the significance of that arbitrary figure. What in the world does the specifics of the salary have to do with the overall point? This is yet another example of how bureaucratic theorists don't understand the dynamic nature of business, not even close. What, 454 is okay, 456 is not? Dafuq? Is that supposed to be a joke? They remain clueless and destructive.

And I'd love that definition of partisan when you have a chance.

.

I think they are laying it out for us. For years they said we should pay more taxes and we said what is a fair share. Now they are showing you exactly how much money they think someone should make.

 

[zeke]

You begged for a response just so you could lie about it while trying to move the goal posts? You are not a serious, honest interlocutor. You are not even a real person. You are a partisan caricature. That's all for you, Junior.

LMAO. You got your ass kicked so bad by Bfgrn that you couldn't even stutter a response.

But really, the CRA? Again?

 

[Bfgrn]

You begged for a response just so you could lie about it while trying to move the goal posts? You are not a serious, honest interlocutor. You are not even a real person. You are a partisan caricature. That's all for you, Junior.

No goal posts were moved. Just my FACTS vs. your LIES.

You don't just step in dogshit, you stomp on it...LOL

 

[Mac1958]

again did you read the article? he is changing the overtime rules if you make over 455 salary. Thats it.

Yes I did read the article, and I'd love to understand the significance of that arbitrary figure. What in the world does the specifics of the salary have to do with the overall point? This is yet another example of how bureaucratic theorists don't understand the dynamic nature of business, not even close. What, 454 is okay, 456 is not? Dafuq? Is that supposed to be a joke? They remain clueless and destructive.

And I'd love that definition of partisan when you have a chance.

.

I think they are laying it out for us. For years they said we should pay more taxes and we said what is a fair share. Now they are showing you exactly how much money they think someone should make.

That may be it, it's hard to tell what they're really after. But I do know that giving theorists who have little to no understanding of, or appreciation for, the various dynamics of private business such massive centralized power and authority is not a good thing. And then they wonder why business doesn't want to take risks, holy crap. It's just stunning.

And their faithful chafe when it's said that they're not pro-business. You can only shake your head.

We're clearly in an anti-business environment right now, whether they know it, realize it, admit to it, or not. And, it seems like every week they're trotting out "ideas" that would add more and more layers to it. And then, gee, I don't understand why businesses are sitting on their cash. Sheeee - it.

If they want to bring private business down and replace it with more and more centralized government, fine, at least admit it and we can debate it. Just be honest.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

I will cut hours to avoid paying government mandated 'tarrifs'. Like Obamacare, I will work around it while trying to destroy it.

It's my duty

-Geaux

 

[Unkotare]

You begged for a response just so you could lie about it while trying to move the goal posts? You are not a serious, honest interlocutor. You are not even a real person. You are a partisan caricature. That's all for you, Junior.

LMAO. You got your ass kicked so bad by Bfgrn that you couldn't even stutter a response.

Don't talk with your mouth full.

 

[kaz]

Projecting? Take a look at the epicenters of the housing crisis. They were not in random middle class neighborhoods. They were concentrated in the hot, high value markets.

...

Holy crap you're stupid. You're missing the 'why' part, numbskull. It wasn't that long ago. You don't seem to have been paying attention.

OK Einstein, list the causes?

The root cause was Clinton's policy to force banks to make sub-prime loans and then provide endless, virtually zero interest loans to fund them. W in typical Republican style did nothing but continue the policy. Once again, Democrats are malignant and Republicans are useless.

 

[The T]

Holy crap you're stupid. You're missing the 'why' part, numbskull. It wasn't that long ago. You don't seem to have been paying attention.

OK Einstein, list the causes?

The root cause was Clinton's policy to force banks to make sub-prime loans and then provide endless, virtually zero interest loans to fund them. W in typical Republican style did nothing but continue the policy. Once again, Democrats are malignant and Republicans are useless.

And Clinton embellished what Jimmah Catah signed into law back in the 1970's...

Community Reinvestment Act

 

[Bfgrn]

Holy crap you're stupid. You're missing the 'why' part, numbskull. It wasn't that long ago. You don't seem to have been paying attention.

OK Einstein, list the causes?

The root cause was Clinton's policy to force banks to make sub-prime loans and then provide endless, virtually zero interest loans to fund them. W in typical Republican style did nothing but continue the policy. Once again, Democrats are malignant and Republicans are useless.

Clinton forced banks to make sub-prime loans to wealthy speculators and set up the private lending companies behind those garbage loans?

 

[kaz]

OK Einstein, list the causes?

The root cause was Clinton's policy to force banks to make sub-prime loans and then provide endless, virtually zero interest loans to fund them. W in typical Republican style did nothing but continue the policy. Once again, Democrats are malignant and Republicans are useless.

Clinton forced banks to make sub-prime loans to wealthy speculators and set up the private lending companies behind those garbage loans?

Strawman, and without a basis in history. If you were right, you would argue from historical truth, you would not ignore it. Which shows what you are doing, pumping the cause.

 

[Bfgrn]

The root cause was Clinton's policy to force banks to make sub-prime loans and then provide endless, virtually zero interest loans to fund them. W in typical Republican style did nothing but continue the policy. Once again, Democrats are malignant and Republicans are useless.

Clinton forced banks to make sub-prime loans to wealthy speculators and set up the private lending companies behind those garbage loans?

Strawman, and without a basis in history. If you were right, you would argue from historical truth, you would not ignore it. Which shows what you are doing, pumping the cause.

I DID argue from historical truth backed up with FACTS. YOU are the one who ignored it.

How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?

These questions show why proximity and statistical validity are so important. Let’s get more specific.The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a favorite boogeyman for some, despite the numbers that so easily disprove it as a cause.It is a statistical invalid argument, as the data show.

For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages — Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.

Suburbs and Exurbs were where the boom & bust occurred — and not the CRA regions — Source: Washington Post

The market share of financial institutions that were subject to the CRA has steadily declined since the legislation was passed in 1977. As noted by Abromowitz & Min, CRA-regulated institutions, primarily banks and thrifts, accounted for only 28 percent of all mortgages originated in 2006.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market,
which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom – Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy

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

Consider a study by McClatchy: It found that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. And McClatchy found that out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

A 2008 analysis found that the nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

 

[kaz]

Clinton forced banks to make sub-prime loans to wealthy speculators and set up the private lending companies behind those garbage loans?

Strawman, and without a basis in history. If you were right, you would argue from historical truth, you would not ignore it. Which shows what you are doing, pumping the cause.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie.

This is the key part, and it doesn't refute what I said. I said Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and funded it with endless virtually zero interest cash. The Clinton administration directly threatened the CEOs of the lenders that if they did not lower their underwriting standards, they would haul their asses in one Congressional hearing after another. And the Fed provided endless almost free cash to fund it. I did not say that Freddie and Fannie underwrote the loans directly. They started doing that later. It's historical fact. If you want to acknowledge that and build on the story, that's fine. But if you deny where it started than you're just bleating. Also, that they were "unregulated" is fictional, they were heavily regulated.

 

[The T]

Strawman, and without a basis in history. If you were right, you would argue from historical truth, you would not ignore it. Which shows what you are doing, pumping the cause.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie.

This is the key part, and it doesn't refute what I said. I said Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and funded it with endless virtually zero interest cash. The Clinton administration directly threatened the CEOs of the lenders that if they did not lower their underwriting standards, they would haul their asses in one Congressional hearing after another. And the Fed provided endless almost free cash to fund it. I did not say that Freddie and Fannie underwrote the loans directly. They started doing that later. It's historical fact. If you want to acknowledge that and build on the story, that's fine. But if you deny where it started than you're just bleating. Also, that they were "unregulated" is fictional, they were heavily regulated.

Clinton?s Legacy: The Financial and Housing Meltdown - Reason.com

 

[Bfgrn]

Strawman, and without a basis in history. If you were right, you would argue from historical truth, you would not ignore it. Which shows what you are doing, pumping the cause.

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie.

This is the key part, and it doesn't refute what I said. I said Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and funded it with endless virtually zero interest cash. The Clinton administration directly threatened the CEOs of the lenders that if they did not lower their underwriting standards, they would haul their asses in one Congressional hearing after another. And the Fed provided endless almost free cash to fund it. I did not say that Freddie and Fannie underwrote the loans directly. They started doing that later. It's historical fact. If you want to acknowledge that and build on the story, that's fine. But if you deny where it started than you're just bleating. Also, that they were "unregulated" is fictional, they were heavily regulated.

Links, links links???

 

[Bfgrn]

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie.

This is the key part, and it doesn't refute what I said. I said Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and funded it with endless virtually zero interest cash. The Clinton administration directly threatened the CEOs of the lenders that if they did not lower their underwriting standards, they would haul their asses in one Congressional hearing after another. And the Fed provided endless almost free cash to fund it. I did not say that Freddie and Fannie underwrote the loans directly. They started doing that later. It's historical fact. If you want to acknowledge that and build on the story, that's fine. But if you deny where it started than you're just bleating. Also, that they were "unregulated" is fictional, they were heavily regulated.

Clinton?s Legacy: The Financial and Housing Meltdown - Reason.com

Your article is total bullshit. It is NOT backed up by any facts. It is backed up by right wing dogma.

EXPLAIN...

How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?

 

[The T]

This is the key part, and it doesn't refute what I said. I said Clinton started the policy of forcing banks to make subprime loans and funded it with endless virtually zero interest cash. The Clinton administration directly threatened the CEOs of the lenders that if they did not lower their underwriting standards, they would haul their asses in one Congressional hearing after another. And the Fed provided endless almost free cash to fund it. I did not say that Freddie and Fannie underwrote the loans directly. They started doing that later. It's historical fact. If you want to acknowledge that and build on the story, that's fine. But if you deny where it started than you're just bleating. Also, that they were "unregulated" is fictional, they were heavily regulated.

Clinton?s Legacy: The Financial and Housing Meltdown - Reason.com

Your article is total bullshit. It is NOT backed up by any facts. It is backed up by right wing dogma.

EXPLAIN...

How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?

PROVE IT. You can't. Clinton's Legacy...can't be denied. YOU defend the indefensible.

 

[The T]

There are as many starting points for the mortgage meltdown as there are fears about how far it has yet to go, but one decisive point of departure is the final years of the Clinton administration, when a kid from Queens without any real banking or real-estate experience was the only man in Washington with the power to regulate the giants of home finance, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

What he did is important—not just because of what it tells us about how we got in this hole, but because of what it says about New York's attorney general, who has been trying for months to don a white hat in the subprime scandal, pursuing cases against banks, appraisers, brokers, rating agencies, and multitrillion-dollar, quasi-public Fannie and Freddie.

There are other factors but CLINTON bears the brunt for his role...

Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie