Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Derp]

Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.
We'd save a bunch. Just hire replacements not on welfare.

But income is how you qualify for welfare. You get that, right? Why are you being a sophist here? It's obvious you know you are, so why are you doing it? Is it an ego thing? An attention thing? A trolling thing? If you have nothing to contribute, why are you even posting?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?
Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.

Hey you stupid ******* moron...do you just not understand numbers? The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged (and in some cases, even better) than the rates prior to the mortgage bubble. You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument. And your argument is stupid. It's not informed by anything, clearly.

The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged

Hey, fucktard, are you not familiar with all the money the government had to send to the GSEs because of mortgage defaults?
I don't care if they had the best delinquency rates in the history of forever.

HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument.

My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.
Such a huge buyer plays a large part in inflating a bubble. To meet the demand for these crappy mortgages, not only from GSEs, but also from private label MBS securitizers, firms like Countrywide were even giving mortgages to clowns like you.

Scary, I know.

"HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!"

All paid back and paying down the deficits today Cupcake


"My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool."

Bad argument Cupcake, they weren't forced to buy that much from the subprime pool by Dubya but buy for affordable housing goals

They were losing market share GREATLY as the Dubya bubble exploded, has that "a large part in inflating a bubble" Cupcake?


"The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06."

....Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.




WAPO

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up

All paid back

What was paid back? The hundreds of billions they were lent? LOL!

Yes. They paid back the money they needed to cover all the crappy mortgages they had purchased.

they weren't forced to buy that much from the subprime pool by Dubya

They were forced to buy over 50% crappy mortgages.

They were losing market share GREATLY as the Dubya bubble exploded

Yes they were.

These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.”

Yup. And Fannie and Freddie were very large buyers.

 

[The Derp]

destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.
I didn't say they were responsible. I said their huge purchases contributed to the bubble.

No, the bubble was inflated by garbage subprimes. The subprimes the GSE's were buying were not garbage, as they had the same (or better) delinquency rates as those prior to the bubble.

Your claim that they didn't buy crappy mortgages, despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly.

My links don't say that. In fact, my links say the opposite, that the mortgages the GSE's bought had the same or better delinquency rates than the ones they bought prior to the bubble.

You are purposefully ignoring GSE loan performance because it undermines your argument completely. And because you are an egomaniac, you cannot admit it.

The problem was both private and GSE purchases feeding the bubble.

Nope. Just the private labels. GSE subprime mortgages performed at the same rate (or better) as they did prior to the bubble. The bubble was being inflated by the private labels, who issued nearly 2 1/2 times as many subprimes per year from 2004-7 than they did the ten years prior. Just because private labels were issuing garbage subprimes didn't mean all subprimes issued were garbage. And we know that because we can look at the delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans vs. private label-backed loans. Once again, the reality of the numbers trips up your bad argument, leaving you with nothing but rhetoric and invective.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[But by firing their welfare recipient employees, we'll stop subsidizing WalMart's profit.
And save billions in welfare.

No we won't because those workers qualify for welfare benefits if they are getting the same wages as the ones before.

When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch.

How much will welfare expenses decrease?

 

[The Derp]

Income is how someone qualifies for welfare.
So reducing their income, by firing them, would actually increase the government's welfare expense. Good point.
It shows the complete idiocy of blaming WalMart for welfare expense.

You are being a sophist here. You completely understand what I'm saying but are pretending you don't. That means you're a pretty shitty person. You must be very lonely.

When Walmart hires workers at the wages they do, those workers qualify for welfare benefits. So no matter what, you are subsidizing Walmart profits.

 

[The Derp]

And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble
Yup, those crappy mortgages were crappy even before the bubble burst.

No they weren't! We know this in the delinquency rates:

So once again, you completely ignore the facts. The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble, and much better than private labels. If you're going to ignore the chart, fine. Just know that doing so makes you look completely wrong and clueless.

And they were forced to buy those by Bush
Yup. And the Dems fought to stop him. Oh, right, they liked it too.

In 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. Furthermore, the argument you seem to be making now is that everyone should have known better than to trust Conservatives with our economy. If that is the argument you are making, then fine. It's one I actually agree with. But I doubt that's your intent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.
I didn't say they were responsible. I said their huge purchases contributed to the bubble.

No, the bubble was inflated by garbage subprimes. The subprimes the GSE's were buying were not garbage, as they had the same (or better) delinquency rates as those prior to the bubble.

Your claim that they didn't buy crappy mortgages, despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly.

In fact, my links say the opposite, that the mortgages the GSE's bought had the same or better delinquency rates than the ones they bought prior to the bubble.

You are purposefully ignoring GSE loan performance because it undermines your argument completely. And because you are an egomaniac, you cannot admit it.

The problem was both private and GSE purchases feeding the bubble.

Nope. Just the private labels. GSE subprime mortgages performed at the same rate (or better) as they did prior to the bubble. The bubble was being inflated by the private labels, who issued nearly 2 1/2 times as many subprimes per year from 2004-7 than they did the ten years prior. Just because private labels were issuing garbage subprimes didn't mean all subprimes issued were garbage. And we know that because we can look at the delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans vs. private label-backed loans. Once again, the reality of the numbers trips up your bad argument, leaving you with nothing but rhetoric and invective.

No, the bubble was inflated by garbage subprimes.

The GSEs bought huge numbers of garbage subprimes.

The subprimes the GSE's were buying were not garbage, as they had the same (or better) delinquency rates as those prior to the bubble.

Bullshit. Delinquency rates spiked across the board, especially among subprimes.

despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly

My links don't say that.

Bullshit.

That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."

In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

That's your Wapo link.

 

[The Derp]

When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch?

LOL! Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income. You don't know much about this subject, do you?

 

[The Derp]

[When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch.

Talk about an arrogant, know-nothing post. This is the prime example as to why nothing Conservatives say can be taken seriously.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Income is how someone qualifies for welfare.
So reducing their income, by firing them, would actually increase the government's welfare expense. Good point.
It shows the complete idiocy of blaming WalMart for welfare expense.

You are being a sophist here. You completely understand what I'm saying but are pretending you don't. That means you're a pretty shitty person. You must be very lonely.

When Walmart hires workers at the wages they do, those workers qualify for welfare benefits. So no matter what, you are subsidizing Walmart profits.

When Walmart hires workers at the wages they do, those workers qualify for welfare benefits.

Bullshit.
A healthy 20 year old who isn't disabled doesn't qualify for welfare just because they work for WalMart.

You completely understand what I'm saying

You're saying WalMart wages are to blame for welfare expenses.
I'm saying if WalMart stopped employing those welfare recipients, the government would spend more
on welfare, not less.

You completely understand what I'm saying but are pretending you don't. That means you're a pretty shitty person.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble
Yup, those crappy mortgages were crappy even before the bubble burst.

No they weren't! We know this in the delinquency rates:

So once again, you completely ignore the facts. The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble, and much better than private labels. If you're going to ignore the chart, fine. Just know that doing so makes you look completely wrong and clueless.

And they were forced to buy those by Bush
Yup. And the Dems fought to stop him. Oh, right, they liked it too.

In 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. Furthermore, the argument you seem to be making now is that everyone should have known better than to trust Conservatives with our economy. If that is the argument you are making, then fine. It's one I actually agree with. But I doubt that's your intent.

The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble,

None of the delinquency rates remained constant in that chart. LOL!

In 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government.

Yup. And the Dems never fought against Bush's push to extend mortgages to poor people.
They agreed with it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch.

Talk about an arrogant, know-nothing post. This is the prime example as to why nothing Conservatives say can be taken seriously.

Pointing out your idiocy makes you sad.

 

[The Derp]

No, the bubble was inflated by garbage subprimes.
The GSEs bought huge numbers of garbage subprimes.

No, they didn't. The subprimes the GSE's bought weren't garbage. They had the same delinquency rates (or better) as those prior to the subprime bubble, and we know this because these are facts. You ignore the chart showing the delinquency rates for no other reason than it destroys your argument completely. GSE loan performance is the Achilles' heel to your argument. So why are you ignoring the chart?

The subprimes the GSE's were buying were not garbage, as they had the same (or better) delinquency rates as those prior to the bubble.
Bullshit. Delinquency rates spiked across the board, especially among subprimes.

Only the subprimes issued by private lenders. Here's the chart (that you continue to ignore) showing loan performance across the various entities:

The GSE's have the lowest delinquency rates.

Bullshit.

So you clearly have no ******* clue what you're talking about. No one is denying that GSE's bought more of those affordable-housing loans. But what you are denying is that those loans performed exactly the same or better than the loans issued pre-bubble. Nowhere in anything you quoted does it say the loans those GSE's bought were toxic. In fact, the data from the loan performance indicates that the loans GSE's bought were sound, healthy, and had low delinquency rates. So yes, GSE's bought more loans, but no, those loans were not the ones that defaulted and caused the bubble to pop.

I don't think you even understand what it is you are saying. Because you are either a sophist or an ignoramus.

 

[The Derp]

The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble,
None of the delinquency rates remained constant in that chart. LOL!

Yes they did you ******* idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7), which is what we are talking about. Do you even know how to read? Is this thing you're doing just an act? How could someone be so obtuse without intent? This is why I call you a sophist; because you are making deliberately and knowingly fallacious arguments while ignoring facts.

In 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government.
Yup. And the Dems never fought against Bush's push to extend mortgages to poor people.
They agreed with it.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse. It was all the Conservatives who took out loans to flip houses and make a quick buck who caused this to happen.

 

[The Derp]

Pointing out your idiocy makes you sad.

The only idiocy here is yours, pal.

You seem unable to grasp the fact that welfare eligibility is determined by income.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch?

LOL! Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income. You don't know much about this subject, do you?

Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income.

Bullshit.

Cash Assistance

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides temporary financial and Healthcare Coverage for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children. TANF provides financial assistance to pay for food, shelter, utilities and expenses other than medical.

https://abe.illinois.gov/abe/access/accessController?id=0.21984854296717937

Plenty of WalMart employees don't qualify for welfare in Illinois based solely on their income.

 

[The Derp]

destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.
I didn't say they were responsible. I said their huge purchases contributed to the bubble.

To which you are wrong. The mortgages that caused the bubble were the ones that went delinquent. GSE-backed loans had delinquency rates the same throughout the bubble years. You ignore GSE loan performance because it's the only way your bullshit argument makes sense.

Your claim that they didn't buy crappy mortgages, despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly.

So here's more of your sophistry on display. Not every subprime loan was crappy. A subprime loan only became crappy when the borrower failed to repay (delinquency). From 2004-7, the delinquency rates for GSE-backed subprime loans remained at the levels prior to 2004, whereas delinquency and default rates for private labels skyrocketed. So you are trying to lump in all subprimes together as part of a guilt-by-association argument, but you're being knowingly dishonest when you do that. A "garbage loan" in this context is a loan that defaults or goes into delinquency. Risk isn't what we're talking about. Not now, when we know the actual figures and facts.

The problems were in the subprimes issued by private labels and backed by private labels.
The problem was both private and GSE purchases feeding the bubble.

No, you have failed to pin GSE's because you ignore loan performance. GSE-backed loans performed at the same rates they did before the bubble. Private label loans didn't. Fact.

 

[The Derp]

So I say this: Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income.
You say this: Bullshit.
But then you also say this: Plenty of WalMart employees don't qualify for welfare in Illinois based solely on their income.

So it is determined by income, then. You contradict yourself in your own ******* post!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble,
None of the delinquency rates remained constant in that chart. LOL!

Yes they did you ******* idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7), which is what we are talking about. Do you even know how to read? Is this thing you're doing just an act? How could someone be so obtuse without intent? This is why I call you a sophist; because you are making deliberately and knowingly fallacious arguments while ignoring facts.

In 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government.
Yup. And the Dems never fought against Bush's push to extend mortgages to poor people.
They agreed with it.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse. It was all the Conservatives who took out loans to flip houses and make a quick buck who caused this to happen.

Yes they did you ******* idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),

**** you're a moron.

During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.

We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.

You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.

Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.

Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.

It was all the Conservatives who took out loans to flip houses

Yeah, that conservative American Indian Senator from Massachusetts is a pisser, eh?

 

[The Derp]

You're saying WalMart wages are to blame for welfare expenses.
I'm saying if WalMart stopped employing those welfare recipients, the government would spend more
on welfare, not less.

Problem is that welfare eligibility is determined by income. So if you fire Walmart workers, but then hire new workers at the same rate, those new workers still qualify for welfare.