Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[RKMBrown]

LOL

There is nothing to listen to but people repeating a lie about the CRA.

Yes or no, the CRA exists?

If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it.

The presence of the CRA is not being debated. What is being debated is the impact the CRA had on the crash.

HTH

Yes or no, the CRA exists?

If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it. Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.

Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market. If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit. When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.

Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist. Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs? Do you not know anything about current events?

 

[Bombur]

Yes or no, the CRA exists?

If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it.

The presence of the CRA is not being debated. What is being debated is the impact the CRA had on the crash.

HTH

Yes or no, the CRA exists?

If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it. Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.

Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market. If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit. When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.

Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist. Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs? Do you not know anything about current events?

The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.

I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.

This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.

 

[RKMBrown]

The presence of the CRA is not being debated. What is being debated is the impact the CRA had on the crash.

HTH

Yes or no, the CRA exists?

If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it. Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.

Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market. If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit. When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.

Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist. Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs? Do you not know anything about current events?

The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.

I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.

This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.

Yes, they had a choice. They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself. Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer. They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets. Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.

 

[KevinWestern]

Yes, they had a choice. They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself. Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer. They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets. Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.

I agree that the Government was largely at fault here too:

1.) They didn't regulate/stop the fraud occurring at the bank. If the FBI would have shut the operation down - problem solved (no bubble).

2.) When the shit hit the fan, the Gov't forced taxpayers to bail out banks, which the banks then used to buy up the market pennies on the dollar. Sure we got our "loan" back, but what about the MASSIVE return on investment they made?

3.) Gov't didn't punish any high ranking bankers. We'll certainly see a repeat as a result. Chase getting fined $13 billion isn't the same as a CFO going to jail for 15 years.

Moral of the story? People are going to do bad things if there are no consequences. The only way to stop people from doing bad things is to punish them. The gov't failed on all counts here.

 

[Bombur]

Yes or no, the CRA exists?

If you admit it does exist, explain it's purpose and what actions the government did to enforce it. Then explain how that did not change the market whatsoever.

Note: in a large market with very small margins a small number of defaults or even small amount of additional risk, can collapse the market. If your profit is based on only 1% or less of the loans defaulting and 2% of the loans default then you will have no profit. When you give people money to buy homes that act runs the price of homes up.

Note: While I fully understand that a great number of the CRA defaults are currently being banked by the tax payer, that does not mean they don't exist. Have you not heard anything about Obama's bailouts of borrowers who found themselves owing more than their homes were worth, and checks to banks to repay them for what amounts to CRA squatters who can't make house payments because they don't have jobs? Do you not know anything about current events?

The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.

I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.

This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.

Yes, they had a choice. They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself. Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer. They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets. Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.

The failure is not the bailout but ever getting to the point where we needed to bail them out. I am not for bailouts but if you really want to prevent another bailout you have to make it so market failures won't result in a reality that is worse than the bailout.

 

[KevinWestern]

The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.

I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.

This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.

Yes, they had a choice. They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself. Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer. They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets. Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.

I blame gov't close to 100% because I ask you: if there are no consequences, what is going to prevent someone from doing this again in the future? If you're not gonna get arrested, and if you're gonna get bailed out, why would they modify their practices in any way?

I think we need to approach this problem logically.


.

 

[Bombur]

Yes, they had a choice. They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself. Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer. They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets. Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.

I blame gov't close to 100% because I ask you: if there are no consequences, what is going to prevent someone from doing this again in the future? If you're not gonna get arrested, and if you're gonna get bailed out, why would they modify their practices in any way?

I think we need to approach this problem logically.


.

Prevention, limiting the damage, and a response that can help the economy recover without benefiting those at fault seems to make the most sense to me.

 

[Andylusion]

The idea that low income borrowers can crash the largest economy in the world is hilarious. All of these highly paid financial experts foiled by poor people! Hate to break it to you but you need to get past the emotional rhetoric and ask yourself if the math makes sense.

Two problems.

The highly paid financial experts, were influenced by the Government.

Second.... warning PERSONAL OPINION HERE.... I don't think it was entirely bad loans that broke the system.

Why? Because back in 2009, the sub-prime melt down, was killing jobs in the financial world. Most of the companies that flopped, were all in securities and mortgages.

So how did companies crashing that didn't hire a single minimum wage worker, cause millions of low wage workers to lose their jobs?

I can even remember 'experts' in economics pondering this question, how did something way up there in the economy, crash jobs way down there at the bottom?

AGAIN THIS IS MY OPINION

I think that the sub-prime crash was in fact triggered by the loss of low wage jobs.

I think that the low wage job losses, were caused by something else. What else happened in 2009? Does anyone remember?

In 08-09, the minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.

Now, sub-prime loan defaults were always bad. Always. But if you look at the number, the default rates drastically increased from 08 to 09. That drastic increase in default rates, caused the sub-prime MBS market to crash, which wiped out all those companies.

Sub-prime loans should never have been made legitimate by the Government. And certainly, without question, they would have crashed at some point. But I think the trigger for the crash, was in fact the Minimum wage increase, which killed jobs for the low-wage employees, who made up a significant chunk of the sub-prime loans.

ROFLMAO

It was a large number of MBS going from an A rating to a B rating over night because people all of a sudden realized they were rated wrong. This required a massive attempt at liquidation which crashed the balance sheets of financial institutions.

A sub prime mortgage is rated as a sub-prime mortgage. Investors can and do manage that risk within their portfolio effectively when they know they have this high risk mortgage. What they were doing was hiding that risk and then lending out more money based on this incorrect risk profile.

Low skilled employees lose their job because demand contracted. When demand contracts it is the most marginally hired employees which are fired. Some sectors are more sensitive to these changes in demand than others.

The bubble would have burst eventually because home prices were artificially high for multiple reasons. Interest rate being low, the use of homes as financial instruments, incorrect information making the loans look less risky than they were, and no better place to put the capital from the standpoint of investors.

Again, as I pointed out in the prior post, sub-prime loans always existed. In 1997, they shot off. Something happened in 1997, that caused them to do this.

The answer is that Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating. I can repost everything here, if you like.

Saying "demand contracted" is like saying the reason water fell from the sky, is because it condensed in the clouds.

Why did this happen? It's not likely that people stopped going to Wendy's for a meal, simply because some broker on Wall St lost money on a mortgage backed security. There had to be a trigger. I think it was the minimum wage, made low wage workers too expensive, thus laying people off, thus contracting demand, and causing the general decline.

 

[Andylusion]

Labor laws that prevented children from working were great. Market economies can result in people making some really bad decisions. Some parents even sell their kids into slavery.

Blind faith in freedom leading to the best result is as naïve as those who thought communism would work.

Properly functioning markets will produce a certain type of good result. That doesn't mean markets always work or that a market result is always the best result.

When I 16, I wanted to work, and they wouldn't let me work more than 3 hours a day, 4 days a week. It sucked. Thanks a lot.

Yet the economy as a whole has benefited greatly from kids staying out of the workforce. It is almost as if your anecdotal story is irrelevant.

So you are saying keeping me impoverished, is better for the country? Gee thanks.

 

[Bombur]

Two problems.

The highly paid financial experts, were influenced by the Government.

Second.... warning PERSONAL OPINION HERE.... I don't think it was entirely bad loans that broke the system.

Why? Because back in 2009, the sub-prime melt down, was killing jobs in the financial world. Most of the companies that flopped, were all in securities and mortgages.

So how did companies crashing that didn't hire a single minimum wage worker, cause millions of low wage workers to lose their jobs?

I can even remember 'experts' in economics pondering this question, how did something way up there in the economy, crash jobs way down there at the bottom?

AGAIN THIS IS MY OPINION

I think that the sub-prime crash was in fact triggered by the loss of low wage jobs.

I think that the low wage job losses, were caused by something else. What else happened in 2009? Does anyone remember?

In 08-09, the minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.

Now, sub-prime loan defaults were always bad. Always. But if you look at the number, the default rates drastically increased from 08 to 09. That drastic increase in default rates, caused the sub-prime MBS market to crash, which wiped out all those companies.

Sub-prime loans should never have been made legitimate by the Government. And certainly, without question, they would have crashed at some point. But I think the trigger for the crash, was in fact the Minimum wage increase, which killed jobs for the low-wage employees, who made up a significant chunk of the sub-prime loans.

ROFLMAO

It was a large number of MBS going from an A rating to a B rating over night because people all of a sudden realized they were rated wrong. This required a massive attempt at liquidation which crashed the balance sheets of financial institutions.

A sub prime mortgage is rated as a sub-prime mortgage. Investors can and do manage that risk within their portfolio effectively when they know they have this high risk mortgage. What they were doing was hiding that risk and then lending out more money based on this incorrect risk profile.

Low skilled employees lose their job because demand contracted. When demand contracts it is the most marginally hired employees which are fired. Some sectors are more sensitive to these changes in demand than others.

The bubble would have burst eventually because home prices were artificially high for multiple reasons. Interest rate being low, the use of homes as financial instruments, incorrect information making the loans look less risky than they were, and no better place to put the capital from the standpoint of investors.

Again, as I pointed out in the prior post, sub-prime loans always existed. In 1997, they shot off. Something happened in 1997, that caused them to do this.

The answer is that Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating. I can repost everything here, if you like.

Saying "demand contracted" is like saying the reason water fell from the sky, is because it condensed in the clouds.

Why did this happen? It's not likely that people stopped going to Wendy's for a meal, simply because some broker on Wall St lost money on a mortgage backed security. There had to be a trigger. I think it was the minimum wage, made low wage workers too expensive, thus laying people off, thus contracting demand, and causing the general decline.

Freddie Mac is not the only one that was fooled by the rating of the MBS created by private institutions. The ratings agencies were fooled too as were the originating institutions and those who were buying them.

The idea that the min wage change caused the recession is ridiculous. The idea that the financial crisis didn't ripple through the economy is even more ridiculous.

The fact is that the recovery was weak and largely built on the housing boom which was destined to hit the wall. Once it did the weakness is the labor market was exposed. The effective supply of money shrunk drastically. The ability of consumption to be supported by debt was finally exposed.

 

[RKMBrown]

The CRA does not encompass all sub prime loans. In fact the CRA generally accounts for more regulated sub prime loans.

I have already explained enough about how investors could invest in these sub prime loans without realizing their risk. Once this happens they are able to take on even more debt which was also more risky than they knew. Once risk is known they have to liquidate and that is why there was a massive liquidation crisis and that is why the government stepped in. The market value of these MBS went way below their actual value because the sellers needed liquidity.

This crash just made the recession that much worse and it fed into itself as the financial crisis would lead to unemployment which would lead to more defaults. The government really had little choice but to try and plug the breaking dam.

Yes, they had a choice. They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself. Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer. They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets. Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.

The failure is not the bailout but ever getting to the point where we needed to bail them out. I am not for bailouts but if you really want to prevent another bailout you have to make it so market failures won't result in a reality that is worse than the bailout.

Show me proof that we would not be better off today if we did not implement all the bailouts. Bunch of crybabies, oh my look that bank is gonna fail and the press says they are to big to fail, we're all gonna die if we don't give them money. ROFL

 

[Andylusion]

Once again we are talking about comparing entire nations. Reducing the issue to you hating on social workers and fast food workers is just bizarre. You can't even represent your own country well let alone say anything meaningful about the graph.

Stay ignorant or not I don't really care but your arguments are laughable.

It's not about hate. That's what ignorant people with weak arguments resort to, a red herrings of "you hate x". Not a matter of hate.

It's about the reality that choices have consequences. I worked at Wendy's, and didn't want to be management. I was only there during high school, so I never advanced, never joined the management training program, and consequently I didn't get a raise. Nor should I have.

Sucking air, is not a reason for a raise.

Doesn't mean someone 'hates them'. That's just ignorant talk for "I have no real argument against what you said, so I'll just accuse you of hating".

If that's all you got, then you really need to find something else to do with your time. Telling everyone you can't argue with "You must hate people!" is not going to convince anyone of anything.

Your entire argument is a red herring.

I said my argument rather clearly IMO. You are reducing the entire nation to two people you are hating on. Which you are btw. Your entire argument is an emotional argument against imaginary people who you think made bad decisions.

It is intellectually vapid and offensive.

Again, your post is what someone with a weak argument says. "you hate" is not an argument. My examples are of the reality in the economy, that some people make choices that effect their long term income.

Your argument is "you hate, therefore what you see in real life economy, doesn't matter, and is not relevant.".

Mindlessly mocking arguments, because you can not actually deny them, is simply another way of saying you have no argument.

If you want to repeat your non-argument over and over, I'll point out your non-argument over and over. Please continue.

 

[Bombur]

Yes, they had a choice. They could've let the speculators loose out on their investments, the bankruptcy courts could've done their jobs, and the market would have corrected itself. Instead we paid the people who made the poor choices trillions on trillions backed by the full faith and credit of the American tax payer. They then used this money to give themselves fat bonuses and buy up the assets. Thus amounting to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

To big to fail, means tax payer bailout. It was vile what we did, not heroic.

The failure is not the bailout but ever getting to the point where we needed to bail them out. I am not for bailouts but if you really want to prevent another bailout you have to make it so market failures won't result in a reality that is worse than the bailout.

Show me proof that we would not be better off today if we did not implement all the bailouts. Bunch of crybabies, oh my look that bank is gonna fail and the press says they are to big to fail, we're all gonna die if we don't give them money. ROFL

Neither side can prove anything about a reality that never existed.

Either way the clear solution is to not get into that situation again and there are clear ways to do that.

 

[Bombur]

It's not about hate. That's what ignorant people with weak arguments resort to, a red herrings of "you hate x". Not a matter of hate.

It's about the reality that choices have consequences. I worked at Wendy's, and didn't want to be management. I was only there during high school, so I never advanced, never joined the management training program, and consequently I didn't get a raise. Nor should I have.

Sucking air, is not a reason for a raise.

Doesn't mean someone 'hates them'. That's just ignorant talk for "I have no real argument against what you said, so I'll just accuse you of hating".

If that's all you got, then you really need to find something else to do with your time. Telling everyone you can't argue with "You must hate people!" is not going to convince anyone of anything.

Your entire argument is a red herring.

I said my argument rather clearly IMO. You are reducing the entire nation to two people you are hating on. Which you are btw. Your entire argument is an emotional argument against imaginary people who you think made bad decisions.

It is intellectually vapid and offensive.

Again, your post is what someone with a weak argument says. "you hate" is not an argument. My examples are of the reality in the economy, that some people make choices that effect their long term income.

Your argument is "you hate, therefore what you see in real life economy, doesn't matter, and is not relevant.".

Mindlessly mocking arguments, because you can not actually deny them, is simply another way of saying you have no argument.

If you want to repeat your non-argument over and over, I'll point out your non-argument over and over. Please continue.

It is like you are trying to be stupid. You are using made up anecdotal evidence to describe an entire nation and demonize the entire middle class as it relates to other nations.

You have yet to come close to addressing any of my arguments. You made up some information a couple times and then made some blatantly illogical arguments.

 

[bripat9643]

When I 16, I wanted to work, and they wouldn't let me work more than 3 hours a day, 4 days a week. It sucked. Thanks a lot.

Yet the economy as a whole has benefited greatly from kids staying out of the workforce. It is almost as if your anecdotal story is irrelevant.

So you are saying keeping me impoverished, is better for the country? Gee thanks.

How has the country benefitted? It certainly doesn't benefit the families of those kids.

 

[bripat9643]

The failure is not the bailout but ever getting to the point where we needed to bail them out. I am not for bailouts but if you really want to prevent another bailout you have to make it so market failures won't result in a reality that is worse than the bailout.

Show me proof that we would not be better off today if we did not implement all the bailouts. Bunch of crybabies, oh my look that bank is gonna fail and the press says they are to big to fail, we're all gonna die if we don't give them money. ROFL

Neither side can prove anything about a reality that never existed.

Either way the clear solution is to not get into that situation again and there are clear ways to do that.

Nevertheless, the Obama fluffers keep saying how the economy would have been worse without the so-called "stimulus." You just admitted that they are all full of shit.

 

[Andylusion]

Freddie Mac is not the only one that was fooled by the rating of the MBS created by private institutions. The ratings agencies were fooled too as were the originating institutions and those who were buying them.

The idea that the min wage change caused the recession is ridiculous. The idea that the financial crisis didn't ripple through the economy is even more ridiculous.

The fact is that the recovery was weak and largely built on the housing boom which was destined to hit the wall. Once it did the weakness is the labor market was exposed. The effective supply of money shrunk drastically. The ability of consumption to be supported by debt was finally exposed.

Ok, I had thought we already posted all this, and established the facts. Someone seems to have missed the memo, so here it goes again.

Before 1997, there were no Sub-prime Mortgage Backed Securities. There were loans, but they were a niche market, but no MBS with sub-prime loans. If you think that there were, by all means provide the evidence of them.

According to Insider Mortgage Finance, it was only in 1997 that Sub-prime mortgages started shooting off.

As you can clearly see, sub-prime was a niche, flat line market before 1997 to 1998. So something must have happened in 1997 to 1998, to cause the Sub-prime loans to take off.

What was it? Two things. It was the carrot, and the stick.

First, the Carrot. This press release was made by First Union, which later became Wachovia.

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 affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact - they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson, managing director of First Union's Community Reinvestment and Fair Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating.​

Now again, who made this deal? Freddie Mac did. The government did. This was backed by the CRA. And who gave the senior certificates guaranteed by Freddie Mac an implied AAA rating? Freddie Mac did. The Government did.

Freddie Mac was not "fooled by the rating agencies". Sorry, YOU ARE WRONG. Freddie Mac MADE THE DEAL. Freddie Mac GAVE THEM THE RATING. You are wrong sir. Sorry.

Second, the stick.

[ame=http://youtu.be/Lr1M1T2Y314]How The Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis: Starring Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo And Barack Obama; With Special Guest Appearances By Bill Clinton And Jimmy Carter - YouTube[/ame]

The Clinton Administration directly sued banks to make sub-prime loans. Cuomo in this footage, at 3 minutes, even admits openly that they are higher risk, and will have a higher default rate.

They all knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it anyway.

And you want to tell me that government was "fooled by the credit agencies"? Bull crap dude. They knew back in 1998 they were pushing loans that would have a higher default rate. Even Obama, if you watch the video to the end, said "the idea was a good one". He knew what he was doing when he was a lawyer for ACORN suing Citigroup to make bad loans.

They all knew.

So let's review huh? They sued banks to make bad loans. Community activist groups sued banks based on the CRA, to make bad loans. Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, guaranteed and bought sub-prime loans, and gave those loans a AAA rating.

And you think the CRA had nothing to do with it? Remember First Union, which became Wachovia, after signing that deal with Freddie Mac?

Read this press release:

Wachovia has earned an "Outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating, the highest possible, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Only 14 percent of banks regulated by the OCC achieve the "Outstanding" rating.
Regulators from the OCC analyzed Wachovia's lending, investing and service activities for the period of Oct. 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003. The merger of First Union National Bank and Wachovia Corp. occurred during this time. "I'm proud that we earned the highest possible rating for our active involvement in the community," said Ken Thompson, Chairman and CEO.

Its high levels of community development lending. During the assessment period, Wachovia supplied more than $3.3 billion in community development loans.
* Its extensive use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). LIHTC are complex investments that provide equity financing for affordable housing projects. Uniquely, Wachovia makes LIHTC investments directly, rather than through third party intermediaries.
* Its leadership role in the creation of the Section 8 Rental Housing Choice Voucher Program, which allows low-income families to apply Section 8 rental vouchers toward mortgage payments for up to 15 years. Wachovia partnered with Fannie Mae to develop and pilot this innovative mortgage program, which seeks to increase homeownership among low-income families.

In 2004, Wachovia:
* Provided $25 billion in community loans and investments to revitalize neighborhoods.
* Helped an average of 475 lower-income families buy a home each week.
* Originated almost $25 billion in mortgage loans, with nearly $6 billion in loans directly benefiting lower-income families and neighborhoods.
* Received the Fannie Mae Community Lending Hero award for leadership and creativity in addressing low- and moderate-income homeownership issues.
* Worked with 176 community mortgage partners to provide homeownership counseling and mortgages to more than 1,000 first-time homebuyers.
* Invested $223 million in equity to create more than 5,000 affordable rental-housing units.
* Pledged more than $75 billion over five years in community loans and investments to serve communities affected by the SouthTrust merger.
​

And what happened after doing all these low-income Community investment loans, under the CRA, working with Fannie Mae?

They went bankrupt, just like Bear Stearns did.

I'm sorry... but if you believe that the CRA had no involvement in the crash, when there is tons of direct evidence to the contrary, then you are just denying reality, just like you have in other posts where you accuse me of "hate". Empty argument. Empty claims. Denying clear cut facts. Living in a hole of ignorance. Time to come out into the light. See how the world really is.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties. Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.

It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?

Can't happen with this voting system. The system must be changed to one in which you get to vote for the candidates in the order of your preference. The current system is designed to force you to pick from two opposing bad choices that each thrive by selling the idea that voting for anyone but them is a vote for the worst choice.

Can't say I disagree.
The problem is not the people going to Washington. The problem is the system by which they are forced to work within.
IMO, both Senate and House terms should be 4 years.
In the House, members spend more than half their term campaigning for the next election.
Senators are too entrenched. The rate of incumbents being reelected is alarming.
Lastly, term limits are desperately needed.

 

[Indeependent]

And all the Cons REFUSE to see the jump on the graph from 2004.
Talk about being blinded by an ideology.

 

[Contumacious]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

that's due to advances in technology, and before you say, oh, but capitalism caused the rise in technology, remember which country was the worlds most technologically advanced in the 1940's - Germany. not an Adam smith in sight.

HUH?

So the technological advances were due to Otto von Bismarck? Link, please.

.