S&L Crisis: 896 Convictions - Great Recession: 1 Conviction?

[OnePercenter]

The Federal government forced banks to issue more and more sub-prime loans. Then the Feds said we want even more...so they used Fannie and Freddie to back those sub-prime loans, which allowed the banks a freer hand without consequences. F&F eventually had portfolios that consisted of 70% sub-prime.

I am all for prosecution of banksters, but we need to recognize that the real culprit are the assholes in DC.

Here is the truth.

No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress

 

[gipper]

The Federal government forced banks to issue more and more sub-prime loans. Then the Feds said we want even more...so they used Fannie and Freddie to back those sub-prime loans, which allowed the banks a freer hand without consequences. F&F eventually had portfolios that consisted of 70% sub-prime.

I am all for prosecution of banksters, but we need to recognize that the real culprit are the assholes in DC.

Here is the truth.

No Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis ThinkProgress

You can chose to believe that lie promoted by the statist loving left.

I chose to believe the truth.
It is now clear, however, that government housing policies—implemented primarily by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac —forced a reduction in mortgage underwriting standards, which was the real cause of the crisis. The goal was to foster affordable housing for low-income and minority borrowers, but these loosened standards inevitably spread to the wider market, building an enormous housing bubble between 1997 and 2007.

By 2008 roughly 58% of all U.S. mortgages—32 million loans—were subprime or otherwise low quality. Of these 32 million loans, 76% were on the books of government agencies, primarily Fannie and Freddie, showing incontrovertibly where the demand for these loans originated. When the housing bubble burst, mortgage defaults soared to unprecedented levels. Although the left's narrative placed all blame on the private sector, these numbers show that private firms were responsible for less than a quarter of the problem.
Peter Wallison Four Years of Dodd-Frank Damage - WSJ

 

[OnePercenter]

You can chose to believe that lie promoted by the statist loving left.

I chose to believe the truth.
It is now clear, however, that government housing policies—implemented primarily by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac —forced a reduction in mortgage underwriting standards, which was the real cause of the crisis. The goal was to foster affordable housing for low-income and minority borrowers, but these loosened standards inevitably spread to the wider market, building an enormous housing bubble between 1997 and 2007.

By 2008 roughly 58% of all U.S. mortgages—32 million loans—were subprime or otherwise low quality. Of these 32 million loans, 76% were on the books of government agencies, primarily Fannie and Freddie, showing incontrovertibly where the demand for these loans originated. When the housing bubble burst, mortgage defaults soared to unprecedented levels. Although the left's narrative placed all blame on the private sector, these numbers show that private firms were responsible for less than a quarter of the problem.
Peter Wallison Four Years of Dodd-Frank Damage - WSJ

Let me help you with your delusion.

How many people that qualified for loans were unable to pay the primary loan payment? The answer is none.

 

[gipper]

You can chose to believe that lie promoted by the statist loving left.

I chose to believe the truth.
It is now clear, however, that government housing policies—implemented primarily by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac —forced a reduction in mortgage underwriting standards, which was the real cause of the crisis. The goal was to foster affordable housing for low-income and minority borrowers, but these loosened standards inevitably spread to the wider market, building an enormous housing bubble between 1997 and 2007.

By 2008 roughly 58% of all U.S. mortgages—32 million loans—were subprime or otherwise low quality. Of these 32 million loans, 76% were on the books of government agencies, primarily Fannie and Freddie, showing incontrovertibly where the demand for these loans originated. When the housing bubble burst, mortgage defaults soared to unprecedented levels. Although the left's narrative placed all blame on the private sector, these numbers show that private firms were responsible for less than a quarter of the problem.
Peter Wallison Four Years of Dodd-Frank Damage - WSJ

Let me help you with your delusion.

How many people that qualified for loans were unable to pay the primary loan payment? The answer is none.

If that were true, then there would have been no defaults and no housing crisis.

 

[OnePercenter]

If that were true, then there would have been no defaults and no housing crisis.

So lets look at Vegas, California, Florida, as well as many other States.

You like a home but the price is too high because of run-up. So commissioned loan packagers split the price into two, three, or even five separate loans. The primary is a traditional, while the secondaries are interest only, or balloon loans with no cost up front or a partial interest only loan. Everything was happy-happy until the secondaries were due. There were millions of these loans, so many millions that nobody could keep track.

Then you take folks that take out 2nds on the run-up prices.

Then you have Fanny and Freddie that buy the loans.

Federal Regulators who worked at the pleasure of Bush (2002-2006) let it happen.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

because they have millions and millions of customers who elect to do business with them over anyone else.

Because they are doing "God's work," right?

dear, God believed in the individual, not the liberal or Roman State. If you as a typical lib Nazi don't think the millions of individuals who do business with the big banks should be allowed their freedom why not move to Cuba where there is plenty of liberal central govt.

Just keep in mind boats are illegal there and toilet paper is considered a luxury so mostly you cant find any. For some reasaon the USSR Red China and East Germany disappeared too soon for you it would seem.

 

[georgephillip]

You like a home but the price is too high because of run-up. So commissioned loan packagers split the price into two, three, or even five separate loans. The primary is a traditional, while the secondaries are interest only, or balloon loans with no cost up front or a partial interest only loan. Everything was happy-happy until the secondaries were due. There were millions of these loans, so many millions that nobody could keep track.

Was this plan hatched by the US Congress, Fannie and Freddie, or Wall Street and Angelo Mozilo?

 

[georgephillip]

dear, God believed in the individual, not the liberal or Roman State. If you as a typical lib Nazi don't think the millions of individuals who do business with the big banks should be allowed their freedom why not move to Cuba where there is plenty of liberal central govt.

Maybe you and God would be happier in Nigeria?
"Former Goldman Sachs banker Elias Preko was sentenced to 4-1/2 years in prison by a London court on Monday for laundering $5 million on behalf of James Ibori, the former governor of Nigeria's oil-producing state of Delta."
Ex-Goldman Sachs banker jailed in UK in Nigerian corruption case Reuters

 

[OnePercenter]

You like a home but the price is too high because of run-up. So commissioned loan packagers split the price into two, three, or even five separate loans. The primary is a traditional, while the secondaries are interest only, or balloon loans with no cost up front or a partial interest only loan. Everything was happy-happy until the secondaries were due. There were millions of these loans, so many millions that nobody could keep track.

Was this plan hatched by the US Congress, Fannie and Freddie, or Wall Street and Angelo Mozilo?

Corporate America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Maybe you and God would be happier in Nigeria?

dear, why do you say that? Do you have any idea? You are a communist -right? Would you be happy in Cuba?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You like a home but the price is too high because of run-up. So commissioned loan packagers split the price into two, three, or even five separate loans. The primary is a traditional, while the secondaries are interest only, or balloon loans with no cost up front or a partial interest only loan. Everything was happy-happy until the secondaries were due. There were millions of these loans, so many millions that nobody could keep track.

Was this plan hatched by the US Congress, Fannie and Freddie, or Wall Street and Angelo Mozilo?

Hatched by liberal govt. It was called the Greenspan Put. He would always print money to make housing prices go up forever so no matter what you could sell at profit. There are two good books about it. One is called "Reckless Endangerment", and the other is called "Hidden in Plain Site." With 132 Federal and State programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford and the Greenspan Put the outcome was inevitable.

 

[OnePercenter]

[
Hatched by liberal govt. It was called the Greenspan Put. He would always print money to make housing prices go up forever so no matter what you could sell at profit. There are two good books about it. One is called "Reckless Endangerment", and the other is called "Hidden in Plain Site." With 132 Federal and State programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford and the Greenspan Put the outcome was inevitable.

Greenspan didn't work at the pleasure of Bush?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
Hatched by liberal govt. It was called the Greenspan Put. He would always print money to make housing prices go up forever so no matter what you could sell at profit. There are two good books about it. One is called "Reckless Endangerment", and the other is called "Hidden in Plain Site." With 132 Federal and State programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford and the Greenspan Put the outcome was inevitable.

Greenspan didn't work at the pleasure of Bush?

no dear he really didn't and Bush was a liberal anyway so why does it matter? isn't thinking fun?

 

[OnePercenter]

no dear he really didn't and Bush was a liberal anyway so why does it matter? isn't thinking fun?

LOL!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

no dear he really didn't and Bush was a liberal anyway so why does it matter? isn't thinking fun?

LOL!

too stupid can you tell us how a guy who introduced the first $2 trillion and $3 trillion budget can be considered conservative?

 

[OnePercenter]

too stupid can you tell us how a guy who introduced the first $2 trillion and $3 trillion budget can be considered conservative?

How much $ should it be?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

too stupid can you tell us how a guy who introduced the first $2 trillion and $3 trillion budget can be considered conservative?

How much $ should it be?

dear, conservatives are for less and less govt exactly like our Founders. Did you know that?

 

[georgephillip]

dear, conservatives are for less and less govt exactly like our Founders. Did you know that?

Is that why the Founders supported the Articles of Confederation?
"Frank Bourgin's dissertation on the Constitutional Convention and subsequent decades argues that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.[31]

"The reason for this was the economic and financial chaos the nation suffered under the Articles of Confederation.

"The goal was to ensure that dearly-won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe.

"The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny."
Laissez-faire - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
As always you conflate the integrity of government dominated by financial parasites with Democracy; why are you consistently wrong about First Principles?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is that why the Founders supported the Articles of Confederation?

dear our founders supported the Articles because they were for very very limited govt.

Do you understand?