A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess

[Mac1958]

The hardcore left wingers here absolutely refuse to admit that consumers played any role in the Meltdown whatsoever.

Well, of course, since they're trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Republicans, they can't admit anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

And coincidentally, the hardcore right wingers are trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Democrats. What a surprise!

Are any of these people actually trying to be taken seriously, or is this all just in fun and no one told me?
.

 

[Mac1958]

CONSUMERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE BANKSTERS? THAT'S YOU NEW PREMISE? lol

Here's a perfect example of why it's impossible to communicate with zealots.

I said that underwriting & lending requirements went to shit (an indictment of the industry at the time) and consumers took advantage of that fact. This is obviously true, since they lined up for all those great 125% no doc loans that shouldn't have been offered in the first place.

Little did I know when I wrote that you would twist my words to say "consumers took advantage of the banksters".

I don't know if you even realize how dishonest you are at this point. But for someone to behave and lie like you do, it's impossible to take you seriously.

I do wonder why people like you are so adverse to just being honest, though. Is it really that daunting a concept?
.

 

[Dad2three]

The hardcore left wingers here absolutely refuse to admit that consumers played any role in the Meltdown whatsoever.

Well, of course, since they're trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Republicans, they can't admit anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

And coincidentally, the hardcore right wingers are trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Democrats. What a surprise!

Are any of these people actually trying to be taken seriously, or is this all just in fun and no one told me?
.

Sure consumers were (mostly) mislead by the people PAID to get Good. quality loans that people could afford., THAT didn't happen!

Yes BUBBLES the CONservatives/GOP cheer on that generally bust like this (Harding/Coolidge great depression, Ronnie's S&L, Dubya's subprime), after being hit by the euphoria that Banksters gave 100% loans to people with 540 credit scores, lol



Hint the Banksters, cheered on by Dubya, did this to US AND THE WORLD

IF YOU were EVER be honest, I might have a stroke Bubs

 

[Dad2three]

CONSUMERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE BANKSTERS? THAT'S YOU NEW PREMISE? lol

Here's a perfect example of why it's impossible to communicate with zealots.

I said that underwriting & lending requirements went to shit (an indictment of the industry at the time) and consumers took advantage of that fact. This is obviously true, since they lined up for all those great 125% no doc loans that shouldn't have been offered in the first place.

Little did I know when I wrote that you would twist my words to say "consumers took advantage of the banksters".

I don't know if you even realize how dishonest you are at this point. But for someone to behave and lie like you do, it's impossible to take you seriously.

I do wonder why people like you are so adverse to just being honest, though. Is it really that daunting a concept?
.

Your projection is noted Bubs

Yes, let's blame the homeowners because people PAID to perform for the shareholders best interests, instead looked out for THEIR best interests instead!

 

[Tehon]

The hardcore left wingers here absolutely refuse to admit that consumers played any role in the Meltdown whatsoever.

Well, of course, since they're trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Republicans, they can't admit anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

And coincidentally, the hardcore right wingers are trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Democrats. What a surprise!

Are any of these people actually trying to be taken seriously, or is this all just in fun and no one told me?
.

Consumers played the role of prey, like a rodent to a hawk. Financial markets don't normally melt down from mortgage delinquencies. The meltdown happened because wall street devised a formula they thought would mitigate risks associated with lower quality loans and then as has been laid out here in great detail, exploited it. The meltdown is not on the people, it's on the institutions that conspired against the people.

 

[Mac1958]

The hardcore left wingers here absolutely refuse to admit that consumers played any role in the Meltdown whatsoever.

Well, of course, since they're trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Republicans, they can't admit anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

And coincidentally, the hardcore right wingers are trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Democrats. What a surprise!

Are any of these people actually trying to be taken seriously, or is this all just in fun and no one told me?
.

Consumers played the role of prey, like a rodent to a hawk. Financial markets don't normally melt down from mortgage delinquencies. The meltdown happened because wall street devised a formula they thought would mitigate risks associated with lower quality loans and then as has been laid out here in great detail, exploited it. The meltdown is not on the people, it's on the institutions that conspired against the people.

So, after all this, you folks think I'm saying - to quote you - the meltdown is on the people.

Amazing. The psychology of hardcore partisan ideology continues to fascinate me.
.

 

[Tehon]

The hardcore left wingers here absolutely refuse to admit that consumers played any role in the Meltdown whatsoever.

Well, of course, since they're trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Republicans, they can't admit anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

And coincidentally, the hardcore right wingers are trying to pin 100% of the blame on the Democrats. What a surprise!

Are any of these people actually trying to be taken seriously, or is this all just in fun and no one told me?
.

Consumers played the role of prey, like a rodent to a hawk. Financial markets don't normally melt down from mortgage delinquencies. The meltdown happened because wall street devised a formula they thought would mitigate risks associated with lower quality loans and then as has been laid out here in great detail, exploited it. The meltdown is not on the people, it's on the institutions that conspired against the people.

So, after all this, you folks think I'm saying - to quote you - the meltdown is on the people.

Amazing. The psychology of hardcore partisan ideology continues to fascinate me.
.

I'm still not entirely sure what you are saying, except that you don't like partisans. Blame for the meltdown is not as diffuse as you would have people believe. And yeah you suggested that borrowers should assume some blame and I think it is nonsense. Of course the meltdown could not have happened without borrowers but it was the financial institutions who conspired with predominately republican lawmakers to create a scenario where they could exploit the borrowers for profit. They did this with the belief that they had a formula for mitigating the risks........It didn't quite work out. Isn't David X. Li in hiding these days?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[LeftofLeft]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

CRA?


Jun 16th 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?


According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


LOL

Simple. When enable people to buy homes where their financial scores don't measure up, you are going to get a bubble since homes are then on the artificile rise. Did banks decide to do this on their own or did they have some help?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You don't think I'm reading these voluminous posts, do you?

Keep fighting ghosts, whatever makes you feel better.
.

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

"It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness." Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress


James Theckston, a former regional vice president for Chase Home Finance, says bankers were encouraged to hand out subprime loans, especially ones that were likely to fail.

He realizes this was wrong:

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.


Former Chase Banker Describes A Particularly Troubling Memory From The Housing Bubble - Business Insider

When a couple named Freddie and Fannie are backing the banks, who wouldn't ?

 

[Dad2three]

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

"It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness." Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress


James Theckston, a former regional vice president for Chase Home Finance, says bankers were encouraged to hand out subprime loans, especially ones that were likely to fail.

He realizes this was wrong:

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.


Former Chase Banker Describes A Particularly Troubling Memory From The Housing Bubble - Business Insider

When a couple named Freddie and Fannie are backing the banks, who wouldn't ?

BACKING THE BANKS? REALLY? Why did the Banksters lose then IF they were being backed by F/F? lol


GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance

ubprime lending surged from 2004 to 2006 during the height of the housing bubble. According to Kimberly Amadeo in an article titled "Did Freddie and Fannie Cause the Housing Crisis":

"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. Even so, by 2007 only 17 percent of their total portfolio was either either subprime or Alt-A loans. Due to regulations, their percentage of these loans are actually better than many banks."

As David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall write in the McClatchy Newspapers:

"During those same explosive three years, private investment banks -- not Fannie and Freddie -- dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data."

According to David M. Abromowitz and David Min writing for the Center of American Progress:

"If the conservative view was correct, one would expect to see mortgages originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization, as well as those originated for purposes of CRA, to default at higher rates, since these were the loans directly subject to affordable housing policies. In fact, we see quite the opposite, as these loans have performed exponentially better than those originated for private securitization, which the FCIC Republicans ignore."

The fact that the housing bubble occurred contemporaneously in other countries such as Iceland, Ireland, and the United Kingdom also dispels the conservative myth.


Another Conservative Myth Busted -- Did Fannie and Freddie Really Cause the Financial Sector Meltdown?



GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance



Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better. On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better.

Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.


http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.htm


OOPS

 

[Dad2three]

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

CRA?


Jun 16th 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?


According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


LOL

Simple. When enable people to buy homes where their financial scores don't measure up, you are going to get a bubble since homes are then on the artificile rise. Did banks decide to do this on their own or did they have some help?

You mean the Banksters lobbied for 30 years to sell bad products, and then Dubya cheered them on? YES


Hint Banksters went hog fukkn wild to get their bonuses up, and to pay themselves more!


GSE critics also claim that Fannie and Freddie led the rest of the market in a race to the bottom. This fanciful theory is based on a series of false equivalencies, wherein low-income borrowers are considered no different from subprime borrowers, and no different from those who took out two-year teaser rates or liar loans.

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html

 

[Dad2three]

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

CRA?


Jun 16th 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops


NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?


According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

http://www.economist.com/node/4079027


LOL

Simple. When enable people to buy homes where their financial scores don't measure up, you are going to get a bubble since homes are then on the artificile rise. Did banks decide to do this on their own or did they have some help?

I'll note now YOU DIDN'T NOTE THE WORLD WIDE NATURE OF THE CREDIT BUBBLE DUMMY!



Dozens of nations, the biggest credit bubble EVER recorded, and you want to blame F/F? Barney? lol

 

[Tehon]

I get it Bubba, without bumper sticker mentality, what would you "moderates" have right? lol

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

"It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness." Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress


James Theckston, a former regional vice president for Chase Home Finance, says bankers were encouraged to hand out subprime loans, especially ones that were likely to fail.

He realizes this was wrong:

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.


Former Chase Banker Describes A Particularly Troubling Memory From The Housing Bubble - Business Insider

When a couple named Freddie and Fannie are backing the banks, who wouldn't ?

That might have been true before bankers fooled themselves into believing they had a reliable formula for assessing risks inherent in mortgage pools. Armed with this formula CDOs and CDSs grew exponentially, fueled by the private sector.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Just my own, independent thoughts and opinions, based on exposing myself to a wide range of ideas and considering them carefully, humbly and honestly.

Unlike narcissistic zealots like you, who willingly wrap themselves into nice, comfy, obedient little ideological cocoons and scream one-sided talking points.
.

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

"It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness." Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress


James Theckston, a former regional vice president for Chase Home Finance, says bankers were encouraged to hand out subprime loans, especially ones that were likely to fail.

He realizes this was wrong:

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.


Former Chase Banker Describes A Particularly Troubling Memory From The Housing Bubble - Business Insider

When a couple named Freddie and Fannie are backing the banks, who wouldn't ?

That might have been true before bankers fooled themselves into believing they had a reliable formula for assessing risks inherent in mortgage pools. Armed with this formula CDOs and CDSs grew exponentially, fueled by the private sector.

Fueled is one thing. Ultimately, it's about the stop gap. In this case, it was the taxpayer.

 

[Bfgrn]

Coupled with that reading is the Corruption and bastardization of The Community Reinvestment Act

WOW, you are rolling out every single false narrative created...

Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the meltdown, private lenders were. And the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Coupled with that reading is the Corruption and bastardization of The Community Reinvestment Act

WOW, you are rolling out every single false narrative created...

Fannie and Freddie were not the cause of the meltdown, private lenders were. And the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with it.

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

 

[Bfgrn]

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

ALL of those crazy loans were backed by private non agency MBS...virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

 

[LeftofLeft]

When people making $50K in a good year can qualify for a $600K home, why would a bank or a loan shark for that matter approve the loan unless they knew they would have a back up??

ALL of those crazy loans were backed by private non agency MBS...virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Go make a $15K loan to a guy that can barely meet his $1,000 used car payment and see how much you are fueled by greed? What is your back up if they default?

 

[Tehon]

Sure Bubba, I trust as a Bankster you have your own opinion, and your right to it, even IF IT'S BASED ON RIGHT WING LIES AND BS!

Boy, all of your cutting and pasting is getting you no where towards root cause. Banks peddling and pushing subprime mortgages are conduits and symptoms of the root cause. Once again, banks were not complicent on all of this and gained as much as the politicos and the cronies in and around CRA. Banks are part of the problem, not the root.

"It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness." Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress


James Theckston, a former regional vice president for Chase Home Finance, says bankers were encouraged to hand out subprime loans, especially ones that were likely to fail.

He realizes this was wrong:

One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up.


Former Chase Banker Describes A Particularly Troubling Memory From The Housing Bubble - Business Insider

When a couple named Freddie and Fannie are backing the banks, who wouldn't ?

That might have been true before bankers fooled themselves into believing they had a reliable formula for assessing risks inherent in mortgage pools. Armed with this formula CDOs and CDSs grew exponentially, fueled by the private sector.

Fueled is one thing. Ultimately, it's about the stop gap. In this case, it was the taxpayer.

There is no question the taxpayer payed for the excesses of wall street, completely unrelated to F&F.