How were the “experts” so wrong about 2024 election and will it carry to 2028?

[pknopp]

They weren't paid back but despite the point.

They were. At a profit. Exactly the point.

Meanwhile, the banks lost billions for their poor decisions.

They weren't. It was a shell game. HARP was used to pay back TARP. Taxpayers lost big time on HARP. It was all a scam.

 

[pknopp]

Fucktards, mostly on the left, say that should happen.

Name calling when unable to defend your faux capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll say it again, America, especially its back-roads is too dumb to elect a woman. Trump beat two, any male would have beat him. Kinda simple but then again the simple is often overlooked.

Especially a dumb, unlikable and unqualified woman.

 

[pknopp]

Which regulations were lifted? Be specific.

Link already posted.

HUD forced Fannie and Freddie to buy trillions in subprime mortgages.

Nobody was "forced" to do anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are they paying 70% like they did before Reagan? Then, no, they aren't paying their fair share.



Nope, it was greedy rich people who were too greedy.


Uh, guy, the 2008 wasn't caused by poor people buying moderate houses.

It was caused by middle-class people buying McMansions, hoping to flip them, and the Bankers (not a ******* one of whom went to jail) misrepresenting the value of those mortgages as investments.

Are they paying 70% like they did before Reagan?

They didn't pay 70% before Reagan.

How much are they paying now? How much would be fair?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Link already posted.




Nobody was "forced" to do anything.

Posted where?

• Counting subprime loans for affordable housing goals: HUD required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase a percentage of affordable housing loans. For a period, subprime loans were counted toward these goals, which incentivized the GSEs to buy more of these products.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Clinton wasn't able to do anything on his own. It was very bipartisan.

What was the bipartisan vote when HUD forced Fannie and Freddie to buy subprime mortgages?

 

[pknopp]

Posted where?

• Counting subprime loans for affordable housing goals: HUD required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase a percentage of affordable housing loans. For a period, subprime loans were counted toward these goals, which incentivized the GSEs to buy more of these products.

In this thread.

 

[pknopp]

What was the bipartisan vote when HUD forced Fannie and Freddie to buy subprime mortgages?

I'm not repeating what I've already covered.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They weren't. It was a shell game. HARP was used to pay back TARP. Taxpayers lost big time on HARP. It was all a scam.

Banks were loaned about $245 billion under TARP.

HARP was about $22 billion.

Only a moron thinks HARP paid off TARP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not repeating what I've already covered.

I understand, because I'd point out all your errors.
It's best if you just pretend you supported your claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Name calling when unable to defend your faux capitalism.

Only morons think widespread bank failures would have been better
for the little guy, and cheaper, than short-term loans that were paid back at a profit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not repeating what I've already covered.

I know, you'd look even dumber reposting your mistakes.

 

[pknopp]

Banks were loaned about $245 billion under TARP.

HARP was about $22 billion.

Only a moron thinks HARP paid off TARP.

Yes there was more to it than that. The government also paid interest on the money they gave the banks. They pumped billions which created the ability to pay back TARP also.

Even if it was just the loss on HARP (which it wasn't) it's still a loss.

Again though, where is this found in Capitalism?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Is it because “Our reverence for the truth has become a distraction”?

If it is Newsom vs Vance in 2028, there will be many predicting a Newsom landslide.

The experts and the polling weren't wrong. They operated on the data they had.

A lot of democrat voters just stayed home. And a lot of peole who weren't on the radar decided to turn out and vote Trump.

Perfect storm.

 

[pknopp]

Only morons think widespread bank failures would have been better
for the little guy, and cheaper, than short-term loans that were paid back at a profit.

"Better" isn't the argument. The argument is it is NOT capitalism.

Socialism for the banks = good.

For the poor = bad.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes there was more to it than that. The government also paid interest on the money they gave the banks. They pumped billions which created the ability to pay back TARP also.

Even if it was just the loss on HARP (which it wasn't) it's still a loss.

Again though, where is this found in Capitalism?

The government also paid interest on the money they gave the banks.

The government charged interest on the loans they gave the banks.
You're clueless about everything that happened.

Even if it was just the loss on HARP (which it wasn't) it's still a loss.

HARP was intended to lose money. It was a handout, not a loan. DURR.

TARP, the part that loaned to the banks, so they'd have the liquidity to continue, worked. The banks stayed liquid, the panic selling stopped and they repaid the loans at a profit to the Treasury.

Again though, where is this found in Capitalism?

Preventing your banking system from failing is found in modern, regulated economies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Better" isn't the argument. The argument is it is NOT capitalism.

Socialism for the banks = good.

For the poor = bad.

Better is absolutely the argument.

Short term loans to the banks aren't socialism.

 

[pknopp]

The government also paid interest on the money they gave the banks.

The government charged interest on the loans they gave the banks.
You're clueless about everything that happened.

Even if it was just the loss on HARP (which it wasn't) it's still a loss.

HARP was intended to lose money. It was a handout, not a loan. DURR.

TARP, the part that loaned to the banks, so they'd have the liquidity to continue, worked. The banks stayed liquid, the panic selling stopped and they repaid the loans at a profit to the Treasury.

Again though, where is this found in Capitalism?

Preventing your banking system from failing is found in modern, regulated economies.

so yeah, not capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not repeating what I've already covered.

If you think Glass-Steagall prevented banks from writing bad mortgages, you're wrong.