#OWS Signs

[Ravi]

I see most of the people on the thread didn't understand what the sign was getting at.

They absolutely don't.

The wrongdoing the sign is addressing is NOT the issuing of a mortgage.

It IS the issuing of a mortgage-backed security.

THEREFORE, whose responsibility it is that a mortgage was issued that then defaulted, has NOTHING to do with the sign.

Please go back, re-read for comprehension, and then resume.

You're welcome.

Too be fair, most people never learned critical thinking skills so can only trot out tired, knee-jerk sayings. If Rush says that the world economy collapsed because some people couldn't pay their mortgages then dammit! that is exactly what happened. Mortgage backed securities? WTF are they???

 

[Ravi]

I see most of the people on the thread didn't understand what the sign was getting at.

They absolutely don't.

The wrongdoing the sign is addressing is NOT the issuing of a mortgage.

It IS the issuing of a mortgage-backed security.

THEREFORE, whose responsibility it is that a mortgage was issued that then defaulted, has NOTHING to do with the sign.

Please go back, re-read for comprehension, and then resume.

You're welcome.

The issuance of allegedly mortgage-backed securities (and how's that for a mouthful of oxymorons?) was unwise when the economic financial integrity of those underlying mortgages had, themselves, been undermined by government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Do any of you libs who bitch about it, in that typically condescending tone you libs take on in all things, understand why that occurred?

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

 

[Dragon]

Got a job? Thank a 1%er.

No, that's due to the 99% as well. The 99% are the customers. Without the customers, no job. The 1% are just the middle-men.

 

[Truthmatters]

Just because you can afford the house on paper doesnt mean you should get it . Only you know what your true bills are and what your spending habits are

does the person who sold them the loan have ANY responsibility?

 

[Dragon]

Too be fair, most people never learned critical thinking skills so can only trot out tired, knee-jerk sayings. If Rush says that the world economy collapsed because some people couldn't pay their mortgages then dammit! that is exactly what happened. Mortgage backed securities? WTF are they???

I don't consider that "fair" in the least. Calling that kind of non-thinking blazingly stupid and a demonstration of an IQ in the single digits -- THAT'S fair.

 

[Liability]

By the way, pithy it aint. But the sign itself is saying something true, imho.

Author Michael Lewis wrote a very good & highly informative book on the topic, which I recommend.

"The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine."

Lewis also wrote the book which became the movie, "The Blind Side" starring Sandra Bullock and others.

He also wrote another book on the topic of the Wall Street geniuses behind some of the crap which eventually led the financial collapse, especially mortgage backed securities. "Liars Poker." Another good read.

 

[Liability]

They absolutely don't.

The wrongdoing the sign is addressing is NOT the issuing of a mortgage.

It IS the issuing of a mortgage-backed security.

THEREFORE, whose responsibility it is that a mortgage was issued that then defaulted, has NOTHING to do with the sign.

Please go back, re-read for comprehension, and then resume.

You're welcome.

The issuance of allegedly mortgage-backed securities (and how's that for a mouthful of oxymorons?) was unwise when the economic financial integrity of those underlying mortgages had, themselves, been undermined by government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Do any of you libs who bitch about it, in that typically condescending tone you libs take on in all things, understand why that occurred?

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Oh yes there were.

Denying reality aint gonna garner you any points, Ravi.

ONE of the problems with the CRA was that banks got rated for a variety of things when they sought to move into other fields.

For example, a bank's CRA compliance record was "taken into account" by banking regulatory agencies when the bank sought to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. It therefore made it imperative to meet the ill-considered goals of the CRA by issuing mortgages to the folks whose credit would never have warranted a mortgage otherwise.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They absolutely don't.

The wrongdoing the sign is addressing is NOT the issuing of a mortgage.

It IS the issuing of a mortgage-backed security.

THEREFORE, whose responsibility it is that a mortgage was issued that then defaulted, has NOTHING to do with the sign.

Please go back, re-read for comprehension, and then resume.

You're welcome.

The issuance of allegedly mortgage-backed securities (and how's that for a mouthful of oxymorons?) was unwise when the economic financial integrity of those underlying mortgages had, themselves, been undermined by government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Do any of you libs who bitch about it, in that typically condescending tone you libs take on in all things, understand why that occurred?

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Wrong again...

The CRA is enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA "protest" is issued by a "community group." This can cost banks great sums of money, and the "community groups" understand this perfectly well. It is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give them millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain amount of bad loans in their communities.


A man named Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade for pressuring banks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his organization, the "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America." He once boasted to the New York Times that he had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8 billion from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston.

Excerpt from an article by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

 

[Ravi]

The issuance of allegedly mortgage-backed securities (and how's that for a mouthful of oxymorons?) was unwise when the economic financial integrity of those underlying mortgages had, themselves, been undermined by government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Do any of you libs who bitch about it, in that typically condescending tone you libs take on in all things, understand why that occurred?

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Oh yes there were.

Denying reality aint gonna garner you any points, Ravi.

ONE of the problems with the CRA was that banks got rated for a variety of things when they sought to move into other fields.

For example, a bank's CRA compliance record was "taken into account" by banking regulatory agencies when the bank sought to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. It therefore made it imperative to meet the ill-considered goals of the CRA by issuing mortgages to the folks whose credit would never have warranted a mortgage otherwise.

Nope. There were laws that said you couldn't change someone a higher rate because of skin color, all other things being equal.

That is in no way what you are claiming.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Oh yes there were.

Denying reality aint gonna garner you any points, Ravi.

ONE of the problems with the CRA was that banks got rated for a variety of things when they sought to move into other fields.

For example, a bank's CRA compliance record was "taken into account" by banking regulatory agencies when the bank sought to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. It therefore made it imperative to meet the ill-considered goals of the CRA by issuing mortgages to the folks whose credit would never have warranted a mortgage otherwise.

Nope. There were laws that said you couldn't change someone a higher rate because of skin color, all other things being equal.

That is in no way what you are claiming.

You're flat out wrong.... again.

 

[Liability]

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Oh yes there were.

Denying reality aint gonna garner you any points, Ravi.

ONE of the problems with the CRA was that banks got rated for a variety of things when they sought to move into other fields.

For example, a bank's CRA compliance record was "taken into account" by banking regulatory agencies when the bank sought to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. It therefore made it imperative to meet the ill-considered goals of the CRA by issuing mortgages to the folks whose credit would never have warranted a mortgage otherwise.

Nope. There were laws that said you couldn't change someone a higher rate because of skin color, all other things being equal.

That is in no way what you are claiming.

Again. Sticking your head in the sand and deflecting like that will garner you no points, Ravi.

It is one thing to argue that the claim is disputed. That's true. The claim IS disputed.

But the dispute doesn't mean that your position is correct. It certainly doesn't mean that my contention is wrong.

Try harder Ravi.

 

[Contumacious]

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Bullshit:

" This argument is made by the same ACORN-style socialists (like Barack Obama) who argue that bankers are greedy, money-grubbing capitalist pigs. In reality, business people do not have to be forced by the Fed to make money. The fact that force or the threat of force is used by the Fed and its ACORN allies is proof that the loans that are being made are bad loans to unqualified borrowers. During the Fed-induced housing bubble, thousands of CRA sub-prime loans for $300,000—$400,000 houses were made to high school dropouts on welfare or in jobs paying barely more than minimum wage. The Fed — and many other agencies of the federal government — was essentially telling these low-income and minority borrowers the following: "Yes, traditionally, people who own homes do so by working at a job, sticking with it, saving their money, and avoiding excessively extravagant spending on cars, vacations, etc., until they can afford a home. Forget about that! The hell with financial responsibility! We will fix things for you so that you can be fiscally irresponsible and get a home. And the housing bubble inflation we have created will even potentially make you rich! This way, we will share the wealth! Just like the ACORN People's Platform says!"

When Forbes magazine columnists Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer interrogated Boston Fed official Alicia Munnell about the Fed's claims of systemic lending discrimination in the early 1990s, Munnell was forced to admit that she had no evidence of it. She and other Fed officials (and the Clinton administration) continued to step up CRA enforcement anyway. This suggests that the goal has always been a forced redistribution of wealth through Fed banking regulation. Charges of systemic discrimination have been used as a ruse to intimidate any un-cooperating mortgage lenders (Not that stupid and self-destructive bankers who discriminate on the basis of race do not exist.)"


Fed-ACORN Criminality by Thomas DiLorenzo

.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to determine what you are capable of purchasing. Stop passing responsibility for your decisions off on other people.

So if a doctor tells you you are fine, then you find out that he should have seen your cancer, it's your fault?

apples and oranges buddy. Your stretching.

why is it apples and oranges?

 

[Synthaholic]

Ultimately, it is your responsibility to determine what you are capable of purchasing. Stop passing responsibility for your decisions off on other people.

So if a doctor tells you you are fine, then you find out that he should have seen your cancer, it's your fault?

you went over the fucking clifff dud.

Why is that? And when are you going to learn how to spell?

 

[Ravi]

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Bullshit:

" This argument is made by the same ACORN-style socialists (like Barack Obama) who argue that bankers are greedy, money-grubbing capitalist pigs. In reality, business people do not have to be forced by the Fed to make money. The fact that force or the threat of force is used by the Fed and its ACORN allies is proof that the loans that are being made are bad loans to unqualified borrowers. During the Fed-induced housing bubble, thousands of CRA sub-prime loans for $300,000—$400,000 houses were made to high school dropouts on welfare or in jobs paying barely more than minimum wage. The Fed — and many other agencies of the federal government — was essentially telling these low-income and minority borrowers the following: "Yes, traditionally, people who own homes do so by working at a job, sticking with it, saving their money, and avoiding excessively extravagant spending on cars, vacations, etc., until they can afford a home. Forget about that! The hell with financial responsibility! We will fix things for you so that you can be fiscally irresponsible and get a home. And the housing bubble inflation we have created will even potentially make you rich! This way, we will share the wealth! Just like the ACORN People's Platform says!"

When Forbes magazine columnists Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer interrogated Boston Fed official Alicia Munnell about the Fed's claims of systemic lending discrimination in the early 1990s, Munnell was forced to admit that she had no evidence of it. She and other Fed officials (and the Clinton administration) continued to step up CRA enforcement anyway. This suggests that the goal has always been a forced redistribution of wealth through Fed banking regulation. Charges of systemic discrimination have been used as a ruse to intimidate any un-cooperating mortgage lenders (Not that stupid and self-destructive bankers who discriminate on the basis of race do not exist.)"


Fed-ACORN Criminality by Thomas DiLorenzo

.

Another idiot Rushbot that has no critical thinking skills.

Poor people did not cause the financial meltdown. The banks did buy slicing and dicing mortgages and selling them as an investment opportunity.

 

[California Girl]

They absolutely don't.

The wrongdoing the sign is addressing is NOT the issuing of a mortgage.

It IS the issuing of a mortgage-backed security.

THEREFORE, whose responsibility it is that a mortgage was issued that then defaulted, has NOTHING to do with the sign.

Please go back, re-read for comprehension, and then resume.

You're welcome.

The issuance of allegedly mortgage-backed securities (and how's that for a mouthful of oxymorons?) was unwise when the economic financial integrity of those underlying mortgages had, themselves, been undermined by government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Do any of you libs who bitch about it, in that typically condescending tone you libs take on in all things, understand why that occurred?

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

No, they left that to the Unions who used blackmail (by organizing sit ins), racism (by threatening to ruin a banks reputation with unfounded allegations of racism), and good old fashioned intimidation.... with the help of Congress.

Credit where it's due. The politicians are as guilty as any bank.

 

[Contumacious]

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Bullshit:

" This argument is made by the same ACORN-style socialists (like Barack Obama) who argue that bankers are greedy, money-grubbing capitalist pigs. In reality, business people do not have to be forced by the Fed to make money. The fact that force or the threat of force is used by the Fed and its ACORN allies is proof that the loans that are being made are bad loans to unqualified borrowers. During the Fed-induced housing bubble, thousands of CRA sub-prime loans for $300,000—$400,000 houses were made to high school dropouts on welfare or in jobs paying barely more than minimum wage. The Fed — and many other agencies of the federal government — was essentially telling these low-income and minority borrowers the following: "Yes, traditionally, people who own homes do so by working at a job, sticking with it, saving their money, and avoiding excessively extravagant spending on cars, vacations, etc., until they can afford a home. Forget about that! The hell with financial responsibility! We will fix things for you so that you can be fiscally irresponsible and get a home. And the housing bubble inflation we have created will even potentially make you rich! This way, we will share the wealth! Just like the ACORN People's Platform says!"

When Forbes magazine columnists Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer interrogated Boston Fed official Alicia Munnell about the Fed's claims of systemic lending discrimination in the early 1990s, Munnell was forced to admit that she had no evidence of it. She and other Fed officials (and the Clinton administration) continued to step up CRA enforcement anyway. This suggests that the goal has always been a forced redistribution of wealth through Fed banking regulation. Charges of systemic discrimination have been used as a ruse to intimidate any un-cooperating mortgage lenders (Not that stupid and self-destructive bankers who discriminate on the basis of race do not exist.)"


Fed-ACORN Criminality by Thomas DiLorenzo

.

Another idiot Rushbot that has no critical thinking skills.

Poor people did not cause the financial meltdown. The banks did buy slicing and dicing mortgages and selling them as an investment opportunity.

When Forbes magazine columnists Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer interrogated Boston Fed official Alicia Munnell about the Fed's claims of systemic lending discrimination in the early 1990s, Munnell was forced to admit that she had no evidence of it. She and other Fed officials (and the Clinton administration) continued to step up CRA enforcement anyway. This suggests that the goal has always been a forced redistribution of wealth through Fed banking regulation. Charges of systemic discrimination have been used as a ruse to intimidate any un-cooperating mortgage lenders (Not that stupid and self-destructive bankers who discriminate on the basis of race do not exist.)"

.

 

[Synthaholic]

End of the ‘Ownership Society’


Remember the ownership society? President George W. Bush championed the concept when he was running for re-election in 2004, envisioning a world in which every American family owned a house and a stock portfolio, and government stayed out of the way of the American Dream.


These families were, of course, conservative, or at a minimum traditional and nuclear, consisting of a heterosexual married couple and at least two kids living in a stand-alone home with a yard, a car or two and a multimedia room with a flat-screen television. The latter was a new addition to this 21st-century simulacrum of the 1950s "Leave It to Beaver" idyll. But the dream was the same.


Such a country would be more stable, Bush argued, and more prosperous. "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," he said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.


As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse. And as financial strains drive husbands and wives apart, Bush's ownership ideology may end up having the same effect on the stable nuclear families conservatives so badly wanted to foster.

 

[Truthmatters]

If this was such an issue why did the entirely republican government not fix it when they had the chance????????

 

[Synthaholic]

The issuance of allegedly mortgage-backed securities (and how's that for a mouthful of oxymorons?) was unwise when the economic financial integrity of those underlying mortgages had, themselves, been undermined by government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

Do any of you libs who bitch about it, in that typically condescending tone you libs take on in all things, understand why that occurred?

There were no government policies that made it imperative for banks to approve credit for the otherwise un-creditworthy.

No, they left that to the Unions who used blackmail (by organizing sit ins), racism (by threatening to ruin a banks reputation with unfounded allegations of racism), and good old fashioned intimidation.... with the help of Congress.

Credit where it's due. The politicians are as guilty as any bank.

where are your links?