AOC asks the bankers "why aren't more of you in jail ?"

[Stormy Daniels]

Once again you show how uneducated and incredibly stupid you are. This time, you manage to also highlight how much of a maladjusted crybaby you are. You sound like a teenage reject whining about how his crush won't give him the time of day. But it's not her fault, because she's beautiful and perfect and can do no wrong. Blame the jocks with their big muscles and funny jokes who make it harder for everyone else!

Irrelevant Freudian ad homenim attack is irrelevant.

All money is inherently worthless beyond what value a society gives it. Just like all language is inherently meaningless beyond what meaning a society gives it. But go ahead and double down on your backwoods redneck fantasies about how you've magically cracked the code with your 7th grade edumuhcachion that disproves the sum total of all human knowledge.

The grand philosophical meta-point is irrelevant to how the Fed creates "money" out of thin air, and how our monetary system is based upon debt instead of accumulated wealth.

You're an ignoramus monkey, more interested in flinging your own poop than understanding how the truly incomprehensibly wealthy get and stay that way, while saddling sad sack chumps like you with mountains of debt.

 

[Indeependent]

Nah...
Not one Director was even investigated.
7 CEOs paid a pitiful penalty.
And I know way too many people who made a killing.
Both parties engaged in the GW farce.
GW, to this day, brags that he was the “Home Ownership” President.

Not to mention that Warren Buffet, who ordered Alan Greenspan to change the Mark to Market ratio, made 15 billion dollars on the day of the crash.
You know, the “charitable” Warren Buffet who cares so much about people.

I do not know much about this claim with Buffet and Mark to Market.

However, I have seen no evidence that it was involved in the sub-prime crash directly.

And I would agree that GWB was also supportive of more home ownership. That is true. Both parties were. That is true.

However, the sub-prime crash's origins were in 1997. This is clearly documented.

In 1997, the housing prices started to spike up.

This increase in housing prices coincides directly with the increase in sup-prime mortgages that happened in 1997.

Before 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market, specifically because they were risky.

So what happened on or before 1997 that caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans?

Two things..... First Freddie Mac started guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Wachovia Press Releases

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

First Union became Wachovia, which means the two original companies involved in Freddie Mac's guarantee of sub-prime loans, both ended up crashing spectacularly during the sub-prime crash.

So to recap, the government through Freddie Mac was pushing sub-prime loans.

At the exact same time, the government was taking banks to court, for not making risky sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo, then part of the Clinton administration, forced banks through the court, to make sub-prime loans.

Between the government using Freddie Mac to guarantee sub-prime loans, and giving them implied AAA ratings, and the Government suing banks in court for not making sub-prime loans....

This is what caused the sub-prime crash.

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

The fact that you’re only blaming the Democrats.

Again... what part of my post, and the documented facts that I laid out, would you claim was untrue? Be specific.

Simple...no one besides MDs, Attorneys and Business owners was getting 600K loans until 2004.
The Sub-Prime lending rules were never violated until GW.

 

[Andylusion]

I do not know much about this claim with Buffet and Mark to Market.

However, I have seen no evidence that it was involved in the sub-prime crash directly.

And I would agree that GWB was also supportive of more home ownership. That is true. Both parties were. That is true.

However, the sub-prime crash's origins were in 1997. This is clearly documented.

In 1997, the housing prices started to spike up.

This increase in housing prices coincides directly with the increase in sup-prime mortgages that happened in 1997.

Before 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market, specifically because they were risky.

So what happened on or before 1997 that caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans?

Two things..... First Freddie Mac started guaranteeing sub-prime loans.

Wachovia Press Releases

First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

First Union became Wachovia, which means the two original companies involved in Freddie Mac's guarantee of sub-prime loans, both ended up crashing spectacularly during the sub-prime crash.

So to recap, the government through Freddie Mac was pushing sub-prime loans.

At the exact same time, the government was taking banks to court, for not making risky sub-prime loans.



Andrew Cuomo, then part of the Clinton administration, forced banks through the court, to make sub-prime loans.

Between the government using Freddie Mac to guarantee sub-prime loans, and giving them implied AAA ratings, and the Government suing banks in court for not making sub-prime loans....

This is what caused the sub-prime crash.

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

The fact that you’re only blaming the Democrats.

Again... what part of my post, and the documented facts that I laid out, would you claim was untrue? Be specific.

Simple...no one besides MDs, Attorneys and Business owners was getting 600K loans until 2004.
The Sub-Prime lending rules were never violated until GW.

I clearly posted the facts, that the sub-prime boom started in 1997. This is clearly documented.
Additionally I posted the facts that the housing bubble.... started in 1997. This is also undeniable.

Are you suggesting that somehow, some rule violations that happened in 2004, magically caused a sub-prime mortgage, and housing price bubble, that began in 1997?

So.... while I don't know if the first ever $600K loan happened in 2004...... it doesn't matter to the start of the bubble that was in 1997.

Whatever caused the sub-prime boom... and the housing price bubble.... happened in 1997. Go back and look at the data. This is clearly laid out. It's not really a debatable point, unless you can prove the data was false.

There is no way to look at prices shooting up starting in 1997, and conclude that obviously it was something that happened in 2004 that caused it.

Similarly you can't look sub-prime loans which were clearly an extremely niche market for years on years prior to 1997, see a massive 1000% increase in the number of them in, and think it must be because of something that happened in 2004 that caused it.

Whether the rules were violated or not, doesn't change the fact that everything started in 1997.

By what logic do you look at price hikes, and dramatically increasing sub-prime loans in 1997, and think somehow it was magically a 2004 event that caused it?

 

[Indeependent]

Nope...
600K loans to minorities and non-minorities were rejected by the software and were stamped “Approved” on cheesy pieces of paper.
I know as I got one and plenty of my friends got theirs.
A complete Greed Feast.

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

The fact that you’re only blaming the Democrats.

Again... what part of my post, and the documented facts that I laid out, would you claim was untrue? Be specific.

Simple...no one besides MDs, Attorneys and Business owners was getting 600K loans until 2004.
The Sub-Prime lending rules were never violated until GW.

I clearly posted the facts, that the sub-prime boom started in 1997. This is clearly documented.
Additionally I posted the facts that the housing bubble.... started in 1997. This is also undeniable.

Are you suggesting that somehow, some rule violations that happened in 2004, magically caused a sub-prime mortgage, and housing price bubble, that began in 1997?

So.... while I don't know if the first ever $600K loan happened in 2004...... it doesn't matter to the start of the bubble that was in 1997.

Whatever caused the sub-prime boom... and the housing price bubble.... happened in 1997. Go back and look at the data. This is clearly laid out. It's not really a debatable point, unless you can prove the data was false.

There is no way to look at prices shooting up starting in 1997, and conclude that obviously it was something that happened in 2004 that caused it.

Similarly you can't look sub-prime loans which were clearly an extremely niche market for years on years prior to 1997, see a massive 1000% increase in the number of them in, and think it must be because of something that happened in 2004 that caused it.

Whether the rules were violated or not, doesn't change the fact that everything started in 1997.

By what logic do you look at price hikes, and dramatically increasing sub-prime loans in 1997, and think somehow it was magically a 2004 event that caused it?

The Rubber Stamping of Jumbo Mortgages began in 2004.

 

[Andylusion]

Name one thing in my post, that your post contradicts?

Nothing. So, facts or opinion.... I'll take facts, thank you.

The fact that you’re only blaming the Democrats.

Again... what part of my post, and the documented facts that I laid out, would you claim was untrue? Be specific.

Simple...no one besides MDs, Attorneys and Business owners was getting 600K loans until 2004.
The Sub-Prime lending rules were never violated until GW.

I clearly posted the facts, that the sub-prime boom started in 1997. This is clearly documented.
Additionally I posted the facts that the housing bubble.... started in 1997. This is also undeniable.

Are you suggesting that somehow, some rule violations that happened in 2004, magically caused a sub-prime mortgage, and housing price bubble, that began in 1997?

So.... while I don't know if the first ever $600K loan happened in 2004...... it doesn't matter to the start of the bubble that was in 1997.

Whatever caused the sub-prime boom... and the housing price bubble.... happened in 1997. Go back and look at the data. This is clearly laid out. It's not really a debatable point, unless you can prove the data was false.

There is no way to look at prices shooting up starting in 1997, and conclude that obviously it was something that happened in 2004 that caused it.

Similarly you can't look sub-prime loans which were clearly an extremely niche market for years on years prior to 1997, see a massive 1000% increase in the number of them in, and think it must be because of something that happened in 2004 that caused it.

Whether the rules were violated or not, doesn't change the fact that everything started in 1997.

By what logic do you look at price hikes, and dramatically increasing sub-prime loans in 1997, and think somehow it was magically a 2004 event that caused it?

The Rubber Stamping of Jumbo Mortgages began in 2004.

OK? By what logic do you look at price hikes, and dramatically increasing sub-prime loans in 1997, and think somehow it was magically a 2004 event that caused it?

It doesn't matter how much you bring up from 2004.... when the data and evidence clearly shows sub-prime mortgages, and the housing price bubble started in 1997.

So again and again I will ask..... By what logic do you look at price hikes, and dramatically increasing sub-prime loans in 1997, and think somehow it was magically a 2004 event that caused it?

 

[Indeependent]

The fact that you’re only blaming the Democrats.

Again... what part of my post, and the documented facts that I laid out, would you claim was untrue? Be specific.

Simple...no one besides MDs, Attorneys and Business owners was getting 600K loans until 2004.
The Sub-Prime lending rules were never violated until GW.

I clearly posted the facts, that the sub-prime boom started in 1997. This is clearly documented.
Additionally I posted the facts that the housing bubble.... started in 1997. This is also undeniable.

Are you suggesting that somehow, some rule violations that happened in 2004, magically caused a sub-prime mortgage, and housing price bubble, that began in 1997?

So.... while I don't know if the first ever $600K loan happened in 2004...... it doesn't matter to the start of the bubble that was in 1997.

Whatever caused the sub-prime boom... and the housing price bubble.... happened in 1997. Go back and look at the data. This is clearly laid out. It's not really a debatable point, unless you can prove the data was false.

There is no way to look at prices shooting up starting in 1997, and conclude that obviously it was something that happened in 2004 that caused it.

Similarly you can't look sub-prime loans which were clearly an extremely niche market for years on years prior to 1997, see a massive 1000% increase in the number of them in, and think it must be because of something that happened in 2004 that caused it.

Whether the rules were violated or not, doesn't change the fact that everything started in 1997.

By what logic do you look at price hikes, and dramatically increasing sub-prime loans in 1997, and think somehow it was magically a 2004 event that caused it?

The Rubber Stamping of Jumbo Mortgages began in 2004.

OK? By what logic do you look at price hikes, and dramatically increasing sub-prime loans in 1997, and think somehow it was magically a 2004 event that caused it?

It doesn't matter how much you bring up from 2004.... when the data and evidence clearly shows sub-prime mortgages, and the housing price bubble started in 1997.

So again and again I will ask..... By what logic do you look at price hikes, and dramatically increasing sub-prime loans in 1997, and think somehow it was magically a 2004 event that caused it?

Once again, prior to 2004, lenders were not rubber stamping outrageous loan requests.
I could not get a 500K loan during GW’s 1st term.
I envy the honesty of your local lenders.
Is your area currently experiencing a housing bubble similar to GW’s?
Lenders in NYC/LI, Miami and just about every major city are handing out 500K+ Loans like it’s Halloween.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I'm guessing AOC has no interest in going after the government officials and government-supervised entities that loosened the credit standards and pushed lending institutions to make more low-income-high-risk home loans. I'm guessing she has no interest in going after the Democrats who blocked every Republican attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie and who sounded the alarm about what Freddie and Fannie were doing.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Exxon Mobil, Wall Street and Big Pharma ....nobody is safe from this terrible young woman's wrath.

AOC GRILLS Jamie Dimon & Bank Executives On Jailing Law Breaking Bankers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other megabuck executives on their behavior since the 2008 mortgage crisis.

This is what I like about her.

She asks questions that actually should be asked.

Yes she does, where have the other pussies been for the last 10 years.