Newt says reinstate Glass Steagal

[Truthmatters]

Prove the broker rules would have stopped banks from selling mortgages. Or writing them.

I never claimed it did

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/193681-newt-says-reinstate-glass-steagal-10.html#post4421863

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them

That was easy.

It would have prevented them from writing BAD loans you clown.

Not prevented them from selling or writing loans.

They are not the same thing you fool.


They could have still written them but they would not have becuase they would have lost money on them.


Are you suggesting they would have written loans they would obviously LOSE money on just for fun?

 

[Truthmatters]

Prove the broker rules would have stopped banks from selling mortgages. Or writing them.

I never claimed it did

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/193681-newt-says-reinstate-glass-steagal-10.html#post4421863

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them

That was easy.

wht post number is this quote?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never claimed it did

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/193681-newt-says-reinstate-glass-steagal-10.html#post4421863

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them

That was easy.

It would have prevented them from writing BAD loans you clown.



Not prevented them from selling or writing loans.

They are not the same thing you fool.


They could have still written them but they would not have becuase they would have lost money on them.


Are you suggesting they would have written loans they would obviously LOSE money on just for fun?

It would have prevented them from writing BAD loans you clown

How, you idiot?

Not prevented them from selling or writing loans.


A mortgage is a loan, you moron.

They could have still written them

Make up your mind.

but they would not have becuase they would have lost money on them

They could still sell mortgages. They can sell them still. Make up your mind.

 

[Truthmatters]

Newt Gingrich Calls For Reinstating Glass-Steagall, Admits Deregulating The Banking Industry Was A Mistake | Addicting Info

Did you alter my post?

If not what post number did you quote?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never claimed it did

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/193681-newt-says-reinstate-glass-steagal-10.html#post4421863

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them

That was easy.

wht post number is this quote?

Click on the link.

 

[Truthmatters]

WHAT post number was that post of mine that you quoted?

 

[KissMy]

Truthmatters idiot don't have a clue. Consumer protection would have done absolutly nothing to prevent the subprime mortgage disaster. What are they going to protect the poor from? Banks giving a bunch of investors money to poor people who really did not deserve it? The poor had nothing to lose. The savers & investors lost the most.

The savers, investors & pensions funds were the ones who were scammed. The reason people did not go to jail is because Clinton signed the bills into law that made this Robin-hood scam perfectly legal. Wallstreet collected fees for throwing investors savings at the poor & stupid. The democrats are trying to act like the poor & stupid were the ones scammed by screaming that we need another worthless costly agency staffed by their crony buddies to protect them.

They had their buddies at the SEC watching porn instead of protecting the investors. This is why the democrats did not jail anyone since they have been in power. Both parties caused this scam & nearly all of Congress, Obama & their Wallstreet donor friends benefited from it.

The reason subprime borrowers have bad credit is because they are takers always willing to take money from lenders regardless of the contract terms & never willing to pay it back. The investors are the ones who needed the protection from these greedy poor stupid assholes. This is why regulators since the "Great Depression" made Wallstreet operate as fiduciaries with the investors/lenders savings until Bill Clinton unceremoniously quietly removed those regulations with the stroke of his pen. Most of the hard working investors, savers with pension funds & 401Ks did not even realize their protections had been removed until it was to late.

The bad credit takers were jumping for joy to sign papers giving loan originators huge fees for giving them huge piles of cash. Consequences, rates, fees & terms do not matter to subprime borrowers. They are always willing to take, take, take & never willing to give back. This is why banks assigned people credit scores to protect the investors / lenders from the greedy takers.

Why else do you think Bill Clinton chose to put his office in Harlem when he left office? He knew all this money would flow there & other inner cities loaded with subprime borrowers. He figured this would be his crowning achievement in the eyes of the poor communities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

WHAT post number was that post of mine that you quoted?

Click on the link. Takes you to the post. So easy, even an idiot can do it.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/193681-newt-says-reinstate-glass-steagal-10.html#post4421863

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them

That was easy.

wht post number is this quote?

Click on the link.

Yeah and the quote you pretended to quote is not there.

WHAT WAS THE POST NUMBER?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/193681-newt-says-reinstate-glass-steagal-7.html


Its not there you lying sck of shit.


Give the post number

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

wht post number is this quote?

Click on the link.

Yeah and the quote you pretended to quote is not there.

WHAT WAS THE POST NUMBER?

#145 (permalink) Today, 09:54 AM
Truthmatters
Registered User
Member #5217 Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37,501
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3,017 Times in 2,434 Posts
Rep Power: 210


They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them.

That was explained you just dont understand much about the subject
__________________
"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." -Bertrand Russell

Press Release: SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers; 2007-190; Sept. 19, 2007

The SEC of Cox under Bush held up the protections in the GLBA for years. They allowed the banks to get arround the protections.

Fucking moron.

 

[Truthmatters]

And so it comes down to altering quotes becuase your lies dont fly

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And so it comes down to altering quotes becuase your lies dont fly

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them

Not altered.
That's what you said.
Are you admitting your error?

 

[Truthmatters]

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them.

That was explained you just dont understand much about the subject\

This post?

 

[Truthmatters]

You altered it didnt you

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You altered it didnt you

You're dumber than I thought.

What was your original quote?

What did I post as your quote?

You could look at them side by side.

 

[Truthmatters]

Prove the broker rules would have stopped banks from selling mortgages. Or writing them.

I never claimed it did

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/193681-newt-says-reinstate-glass-steagal-10.html#post4421863

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them

That was easy.

How does this prove I claimed they would have been prevented from selling and writing mortgages?


The post was clearly about bad sub prime mortgages.


You tried to pretend it was about ALL mortgages

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They would not have written them because they would not have been able to make money off them if they had to keep them.

That was explained you just dont understand much about the subject\

This post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4421863-post145.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4422693-post240.html

 

[Truthmatters]

You altered it didnt you

You're dumber than I thought.

What was your original quote?

What did I post as your quote?

You could look at them side by side.

And you left out a line in my post.

You altered it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silly boy.

They would have had to sell them out right to someone else or face the effect of them defaulting like they knew they would when they wrote them.

GLBA 1999 gave the banks the right to sell securities.

They rolled these shit bags in with good loans and sold them VIA their own brokers ( which could be any smuck they picked and trained like they wanted because Bush's SEC never implimented the broker rules in the bill for 8 years). They then sold them to unsuspecting buyers who did not realise the broker rules were never implimented.


It pays to have some idea what the laws are and do before you spout partisan crap

You still think mortgages weren't securitized under Glass Steagall?

Do you think they were?