Sharing Youtube discussion about LA homeless camps

[Andylusion]

When people leave the area and values crash, you call it white flight.
When nothing happens in an area, you call it redlining.
When people move into the area, you call it gentrification.

Redlining did not result from doing nothing.
It came into existence by official government fiats, denying African-Americans the same right to home ownership as equally qualified white applicants. What other institution except government can correct such discrimination?

What I meant by redlining, was that no one move into an area, because it's a bad area not worth buying into. Thus people stay there, and live there, but no one really moves into, and nothing is built up.

Well no one can 'correct' such things, because no one is going to give a loan for a house that is going down in value.

And if you force people banks to give loans for bad areas, the result is that those loans tend to default.

Which is exactly what happened in 2008. All the people who got bad loans, defaulted.

How Obama Bankrupted Black Homeowners

The Obama Record The Obama Record: The Obama camp's running a new ad reminding African-Americans of all he's done for them as they weather an economic crisis he "inherited." Left... Read More

www.investors.com

Before the crisis, Obama pushed thousands of credit-poor blacks into homes they couldn't afford. As a civil-rights attorney, he sued banks to rubberstamp mortgages for urban residents.​

​

Many are now in foreclosure. In fact, the lead client in one of his class-action suits has since lost her home and filed bankruptcy.​

You can claim "redline" this, and "redline" that... but the fact remains that when banks were forced to give loans to these people.... they went bankrupt, and defaulted, and crashed the market.

Read the story. It's very clear.

First some background: Obama focused on "housing rights" when he worked as a lawyer-activist and community organizer in South Side Chicago. His mentor — the man who placed him in his first job there — was the father of the anti-redlining movement: John McKnight. He coined the term "redlining" to describe the mapping off of minority neighborhoods from home loans.​

​

McKnight wrote a letter for Obama that helped him get into Harvard. After he graduated, he worked for a Chicago civil-rights law firm that worked closely with McKnight's radical Gamaliel Foundation and National People's Action, as well as Acorn, to solicit lending-discrimination cases.​

​

At the time, NPA and Acorn were lobbying the Clinton administration to tighten enforcement of anti-redlining laws.​

Your attempts to "fight discrimination" nearly bankrupted the country, and caused a recession and 10 year long recovery.

The people the banks denied loans to, couldn't afford those loans, which is why the bank didn't denied them loans.

When the government forced banks to make bad loans, the loans went bad, and people when bankrupt.

​

In the run-up to the crisis, Citibank underwrote thousands of shaky subprime mortgages to satisfy the court in Obama's case. Defaults were common. When home prices collapsed, most of the loans went bust.​

​

His lead African-American client, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who was denied a loan due to bad credit and low income, got her mortgage only to default on it years later.​

​

She got a foreclosure notice in 2008, according to The Daily Caller website, along with many of her Chicago neighbors.​

Here's the sad part. You right here, right now, are actually harming the exact black people, you claimed to be fighting discrimination for.

All of these black people, that you got into mortgages, are now worse off, because now they lost all the money they put into the house, and have a foreclosure on their credit report.

Every time you say you are against 'redlining', what you really are saying is "I want to destroy black people's lives". Because that is in fact what you have done.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you know how land lords replace the plumbing in their apartment buildings?

They don't just pay for it out of pocket, or because they are benevolent.

They pay for it using........... "Profits".

Right... profits. That's how everything works. Everything that is maintained, that is upgraded, that is improved and advanced.... is with money from "PROFIT".

The Great Depression should have shown everyone the limits of PROFIT. Public housing is non-profit and government is answerable to society for how it functions. Section 8 housing involves private PROFIT, and I can tell you from personal experience that is usually when property rights begin to TRUMP human rights. Public housing is still the best solution to our housing crisis. It can exert downward pressure on private rents which counters the removal of low-income people in urban neighborhoods and reduces homelessness.

The great depression was the result of "people over profits". Hoover had all the same policies as FDR, before FDR was president. They caused the great depression, by any measure.

Public housing is non-profit and government is answerable to society for how it functions.

So.... why is it that every public housing project has been a disaster?

Forum - Boston Review

Our signature feature, subjecting arguments on the pressing issues of the day to constructive scrutiny and debate.

bostonreview.net

Placing large public housing structures in a neighborhood eventually contributed to further decline in the neighborhood. As shown in studies of Chicago [1] and Columbus, Ohio, in the 1960s and ‘70s, the presence of public housing accentuated local poverty, in part at least because better-off residents moved away. Shester’s study provides a new look at that process.​

Every time governments engaged in public housing, the results have been terrible.

The 7 Most Infamous Public Housing Projects In U.S.

For decades American government’s efforts to house the poor have relied on the construction of subsidized housing plots more commonly known as “Projects.” The term, originally used to describe the improvement projects city planners believed these developments would amount to, has instead become...

blackthen.com

Some of these projects were entirely demolished in 20 years. Pruitt-Igoe, St. Louis MO built in 1956, demolished in 1976.

Ooooooo but that can't be! You said "government is answerable to society".

​

All authors agree that by the end of the 1960s, Pruitt–Igoe was nearly abandoned and had deteriorated into a decaying, dangerous, crime-infested neighborhood; its architect lamented: "I never thought people were that destructive".[18]​

​

Residents cite a lack of maintenance almost from the very beginning, including the regular breakdown of elevators, as being a primary cause of the deterioration of the project.[16] Local authorities cited a lack of funding to pay for the workforce necessary for proper upkeep of the buildings.[16] In addition, ventilation was poor, and centralized air conditioning nonexistent.[10] The stairwells and corridors attracted muggers.​

Decaying building. Crime. Routine break downs. Ventilation problems. No air. Muggers.

Hey, that sounds a bit like the article I just posted from California.

But why is the "Government (not) answerable to society"? Why isn't your system working? Why does it NEVER work? There is not a single example where your system has worked. Not one.

Because government does not answer to society. I don't why you would ever even think that. Really? Government is answerable to society? Prove that. When has government ever answered to society for anything, when all politicians need to do is convince a bunch of know-nothings, that the other person is racists, and you'll mindlessly vote for them?

Did government answer for Operation Fast and Furious? Did the Government ever answer for using the IRS to target 501C3s? Did government ever really answer for the NSA mass spying? Did they answer for the VA waiting list scandal? Did they answer for PigFord? Did they answer Solyndra? Or illegal email server? Or Benghazi? Or the Secret Service, having massive parties, and getting hookers while on duty?

Huh?? Government answers to the people? SINCE WHEN??!?

Sorry, but this kind of mindless nonsense from the left, is what drives me the most crazy. You people living in a freaking bubble of mythology. That's like AOC saying "When government owns it, that's US the people". No it's not you moron.

Here in Columbus Ohio, when the city schools shut down football, because the levy didn't pass, they had a meeting where they answer questions of the public, and people said "we'll run the football games ourselves, for free".... after all... its public land.... isn't it? They are answerable to us, the public!

The school refused to allow them to play football, at zero cost to government, and locked the football field, so people couldn't get onto it. The people who paid taxes for that football field to be built, paid taxes to have it locked, so they couldn't use it.

They are answerable to the public???? WHEN??? When has that ever been the case, in all history?

You people.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm willing to pay the bill out of pocket, because it was good care. If I had gone to one of your socialist clinic, I would been there for a day and half, waiting to be seen. Or maybe never being seen.

Again, everything she said in that post, is exactly what I've seen at government run clinics here in Ohio. Government run "People over Profit" systems ALWAYS SUCK. ALWAYS.

When you're a little older, perhaps you'll understand; two kinds of Americans get the very best healthcare imaginable...the very rich and the very poor.

When I turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare my income was low enough to qualify for Medicaid (Medical or Medi-medi).

I used my new insurance the first time to have a skin cancer lesion that had been growing for five years removed because I could not afford to pay for profit rates.

My dermatologist was located in downtown LA; he referred me to a cosmetic surgeon on Rodeo Drive (perhaps you've heard of it)?

My surgeon was chief of staff of cosmetic surgery at UCLA medical school.
I saw him a dozen times.
The surgeries themselves took almost one full afternoon.
I paid $0 out of pocket except for prescriptions @$1.80 each.
Ready for the Good News?
Every US citizen could have exactly the same quality of medical care if they weren't afraid of socialism.
Medicare for All | Bernie Sanders Official Website

When I turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare my income was low enough to qualify for Medicaid (Medical or Medi-medi).

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

U.S. governmentâs financial condition worsened by $8.16T in 2019

Even before the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government was facing dire financial conditions, with its overall financial condition worsening by $8.16 trillion in 2019, according to a new analysis.

www.accountingtoday.com

“Our elected officials have made repeated financial decisions that have left the federal government with a debt burden of $113.27 trillion, including unfunded Social Security and Medicare promises,” said the report. “That equates to a $737,000 burden for every federal taxpayer.”​

And this isn't due to Trump either.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

“We have $128 trillion worth of unfunded liabilities and the total net worth of our country is $94 trillion and we have another $17 trillion worth of debt.”

That's from 2013. Yes, I'm sure you have no problem screwing over your children, and their children, by sacrificing their future, for your present.

Every US citizen could have exactly the same quality of medical care if they weren't afraid of socialism.

No, that's false. We would have to increase taxes by at least double.

What you don't seem to grasp is that, your Medicare payment doesn't cover the cost of Medicare. The Medicare tax, doesn't cover the cost of Medicare.

What happens, is that Medicare pays less than the cost of treatment. So let's say you go to the hospital, and you get $1,000 worth of treatment. Medicare will only pay out about 80% of that. They the hospital gets only $800.

How does the hospital not go bankrupt, and close?

By charging your children, and their children more money. If your son or daughter goes to that same hospital, and gets the same $1,000 worth of treatment, the cost to them is $1,200. They have make up the cost of the under-pay on your treatment, by over charging everyone else.

This is cost shifting. They are shifting the cost of underpaid treatment to you, to other people. This is very well documented.

As the payouts from medicare and medicaid go down... the charges to private patients goes up.

And EVEN WITH.... Medicare and Medicaid paying less than the cost of care, they still have $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.

So yes, right now..... NOW... this is fantastic for you. But eventually the money will run out. We saw that in Greece. Eventually the people lending money, will realize the US government can't possibly pay back those loans, and then the entire system will crash.

Or they will have to double taxes, and we will have the biggest recession in all of world history.

 

[georgephillip]

The conservative caucus in the house, offered up an alternative plan to the bailouts in 2008. You can read about that above.

The conservative alternative would have setup a system, that used zero public money. No socializing the loss.

Your link:

"The conservative group called for the U.S. government to offer insurance coverage for the roughly half of all mortgage-backed securities that it does not already insure.

"The Treasury Department, they said, should charge premiums to holders of those securities to finance the insurance."

I'm not clear about who owned roughly half of all mortgage-backed securities in question?

If major Wall Street banks were expected to pay the premiums, the plan sounds more like another Republican con job, to me.

 

[georgephillip]

Left-wingers have routinely supported government bailouts consistently. When Obama gave the bankruptcy of GM, to the unions, which in many cases was a violation of law, not a single person on the left claimed it was wrong.

 

[georgephillip]

When left-wingers say that Obama saved us from a new "great depression" what they are saying is that they support government socializing the loss.

What did Trump say about TARP?
Glad you asked...

PolitiFact - Did Donald Trump support the Wall Street bailout as anti-tax Club for Growth says?

"President George W. Bush pressed for passage, and it also drew the support of GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

"The Club for Growth cited three statements by Trump in support of the bailout.

"However, the ad omits that he expressed some skepticism about whether it would work."

 

[georgephillip]

And by the way, all people do this. When people build homes that are not hurricane resistant in Hurricane zones, and then demand government send FEMA to bail out their stupidity... what do you call that? That privatizing the profit, and socializing the loss.

Maybe it's a governmental failure to create and enforce zoning laws? If so, you can be sure it is owners of private property looking to maximize private profits who made sure their campaign bribes guaranteed taxpayers will socialize all hurricane-related losses.

 

[georgephillip]

Any attempt to blame Capitalism for pollution is a absolute ignorance based joke. You want to see real pollution and destruction of the environment and people's lives? Go look at the damage done in socialist countries.

“What About Chernobyl?” Ranking World’s Deadliest Energy Accidents

 

[georgephillip]

What I meant by redlining, was that no one move into an area, because it's a bad area not worth buying into.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not you own facts:

Redlining

"What Is Redlining?

"Redlining is a discriminatory practice that puts services (financial and otherwise) out of reach for residents of certain areas based on race or ethnicity.

"It can be seen in the systematic denial of mortgages, insurance, loans, and other financial services based on location (and that area’s default history) rather than on an individual’s qualifications and creditworthiness.

'Notably, the policy of redlining is felt the most by residents of minority neighborhoods."

 

[Andylusion]

The conservative caucus in the house, offered up an alternative plan to the bailouts in 2008. You can read about that above.

The conservative alternative would have setup a system, that used zero public money. No socializing the loss.

Your link:

"The conservative group called for the U.S. government to offer insurance coverage for the roughly half of all mortgage-backed securities that it does not already insure.

"The Treasury Department, they said, should charge premiums to holders of those securities to finance the insurance."

I'm not clear about who owned roughly half of all mortgage-backed securities in question?

If major Wall Street banks were expected to pay the premiums, the plan sounds more like another Republican con job, to me.

I think paying for insurance would be better than your plan, which was a money giveaway.

Because think about it... the insurance model would mean that premiums from banks, would be funding the support of the mortgages, instead of the tax payer.

"The Treasury Department, they said, should charge premiums to holders of those securities to finance the insurance."

You yourself posted that. So banks... would pay.... for banks.

How is this a Republican con job, except that you can't claim credit for coming up with it, so therefore because republicans are bad no matter what they do, it must be a con job?

No, they were supporting capitalism, where government doesn't socialize the loss.

What alternative did Left-wing socialist democrats offer? None. They gave no alternative. Just like you are not giving an alternative here either, only saying it must be a con job, because Republicans came up with it.

 

[Andylusion]

Left-wingers have routinely supported government bailouts consistently. When Obama gave the bankruptcy of GM, to the unions, which in many cases was a violation of law, not a single person on the left claimed it was wrong.

See even in this video, you basically made my whole case. Do you not even see that?

He is complaining not that GM and Chrysler was bailed out, but only that Detroit was not bailed out.

He's not complaining that government under Obama, and the Democrats which had complete control, "socialized the loss". He's not complaining about that. He is complaining that they didn't socialize more loss! We have to bailout the city that blew it's budgets, and can't pay it's bills! We have to socialize the loss of an entire city!

We have to socialize more losses everywhere!

And then he ridiculously complains that new workers hired on, were hired on a lower wage.

Well.... DUH.... why do you think they went bankrupt to begin with? They couldn't afford to pay everyone the higher wage.

If the Unions refused to accept a lower wage, the entire company ceases to exist.

Did you learn nothing from Hostess? The company came to the Unions at Hostess over and over, and said we have to cut wages. We have to cut wages, or we will go bankrupt. We have to cut wages, or we'll have to close.

The unions refused. Hostess closed, and ceased to exist. Everyone was unemployed. A new company bought out what was left of the bankrupt Hostess facility, and reopened it, but non-union, and now they are profitable, and people have jobs there.

If the Unions had refused to accept a lower wage, there wouldn't be a Chrysler anymore. It would just not exist. Or it would be reopened by a new company, without any Unions at all.

It's amazing that you people complain about the very thing that saved jobs. All the people currently employed, are only employed because they agreed to the wage cuts.

 

[Andylusion]

When left-wingers say that Obama saved us from a new "great depression" what they are saying is that they support government socializing the loss.

What did Trump say about TARP?
Glad you asked...

PolitiFact - Did Donald Trump support the Wall Street bailout as anti-tax Club for Growth says?

"President George W. Bush pressed for passage, and it also drew the support of GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

"The Club for Growth cited three statements by Trump in support of the bailout.

"However, the ad omits that he expressed some skepticism about whether it would work."

Oh I agree completely. That's the whole reason I did not vote for Trump in 2016. I completely expected him to act like a RINO, a Republican In Name Only. Trump supported the Clintons in the past, and the Clintons were the most corrupt and evil people in politics, in my life time.

I have been ecstatic that Trump has governed very conservatively, contrary to his more left-wing past. It's part of the reason I voted for him this election.

Honestly, I wager the reason Trump won, is because he didn't have an actually voting track records that fits his previous left-wing positions.

I don't know about you, but in 2008, 2010-midterm, 2012, 2014-midterm, I had a list with me when I voted. It was a list of every single member of congress, that voted in favor of the bailouts, the stimulus package, and "We have to pass it to find out what is in it" ObamaCare. Every single person that voted for any of those, I voted against, no matter who they were or what party. If they were Democrat, I voted for the Republican or independent, no matter how bad they were. If they were Republican, I voted for the independent or Democrat, no matter how bad they were.

I voted against every single one, until all of them that were in my districts were eliminated.

If Trump had been in Congress and supported the bailouts, I would be voting against him this election. But he didn't. So he's got my vote.

 

[Andylusion]

And by the way, all people do this. When people build homes that are not hurricane resistant in Hurricane zones, and then demand government send FEMA to bail out their stupidity... what do you call that? That privatizing the profit, and socializing the loss.

Maybe it's a governmental failure to create and enforce zoning laws? If so, you can be sure it is owners of private property looking to maximize private profits who made sure their campaign bribes guaranteed taxpayers will socialize all hurricane-related losses.

If that was the solution, then why is California, one of the most heavily regulated and controlled markets in the entire world..... Why do they still have people with housing burning down from the endless fires?

See, again you seem to think that government ever solves anything. There is no evidence that government has ever fixed anything. Name something government set out to fix, and now it's fixed... and that problem doesn't exist anymore?

Poverty?
Drugs?
Mental illness?
STDs?
Housing?

Name something.... what is it?

The closest you could get is, maybe Medicare, only because it hasn't completely destroyed the country in $120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities yet.

Milton Friedman famously said, if the government was in charge of the Sahara Desert, in a few years we would have a national sand shortage.

Again, my whole point is, we should not socialize any losses.

If you build a house in a hurricane zone, and fail to buy insurance, and fail to make your house hurricane resistant.... then you should just lose your house.

And here is what would happen in a Free-market Capitalist system.....

Insurance companies would have requirements that the house be reinforced to handle hurricane force winds.

Property owners wanting to not lose everything they put their money in, would then build hurricane resistant homes.

Free-market capitalism works every single time that it has ever been tried.

You keep looking at a socialized system, where government pays for damages, than try and blame the results of people building paper-stick homes in hurricane zones, on capitalism. No. Sorry, you are wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

Any attempt to blame Capitalism for pollution is a absolute ignorance based joke. You want to see real pollution and destruction of the environment and people's lives? Go look at the damage done in socialist countries.

“What About Chernobyl?” Ranking World’s Deadliest Energy Accidents

That is not true.

Simply wrong. You show me the name of the individual that died of "London Smog". Show me the list.

You can't. Neither can they. They simply estimate, such and such, must cause X number of deaths.

But you have no idea if ANY of those deaths are actually due to smog, or due to the individual smoking, or the individual living an unhealthy life, or simply having a genetic risk of cancer, or anything else.

You show me concrete facts of the number of people actually killed by London Smog. Show me the toe tag "Cause of Death: London Smog". Doesn't exist.

Let's stick with scientific facts, and not mindless estimates.

 

[Andylusion]

What I meant by redlining, was that no one move into an area, because it's a bad area not worth buying into.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not you own facts:

Redlining

"What Is Redlining?

"Redlining is a discriminatory practice that puts services (financial and otherwise) out of reach for residents of certain areas based on race or ethnicity.

"It can be seen in the systematic denial of mortgages, insurance, loans, and other financial services based on location (and that area’s default history) rather than on an individual’s qualifications and creditworthiness.

'Notably, the policy of redlining is felt the most by residents of minority neighborhoods."

"It can be seen in the systematic denial of mortgages, insurance, loans, and other financial services based on location (and that area’s default history) rather than on an individual’s qualifications and creditworthiness.

YOU posted that. You posted proof of what I was saying.

If an area has a high rate of default, it's bad idea to give a mortgage for a house in that area.

Again, the facts prove my claim. Most, if not all, the people that Obama sued Citibank to give loans to, ended up in default.

You, and those like you, harmed minorities. To forced banks to give bad loans, when the banks knew they were bad loans, and they defaulted.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Unnecessary Destruction Compounded By Stupidity "

* Principle Instigator Phillip Gramm Is A Domestic Terrorist *

If an area has a high rate of default, it's bad idea to give a mortgage for a house in that area.

Glass–Steagall legislation - Wikipedia was repealed by Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia and Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia prohibited federal oversight of the derivatives and credit default swap commodities .

At one time fannie mae and freddie mac were restricted to housing loans for poor creditors by low downpayment , fixed interest , long term loans , and the lending institutions were solvent , and those institutions were disingenuously blamed as a scapegoat for Financial crisis of 2007–2008 - Wikipedia .

Then clinton idiocy authorized hud to include variable rate interest loans for poor creditors towards its quota goals and the loans were incorporated into the unregulated derivatives and credit default swaps markets .

At some point the clinton idiocy realized there was a problem with poor creditors defaulting on loans once interest rates rose and removed authorization from hud to issue variable interest loans but then the bush idiocy came along and again issued authorization for hud to issue variable interest loans .

The phenomenology includes a gramm whose name relates with weights and measures , along with leachy a name whose homonym is a blood sucking leech and bliley whose name associated with a ship captain whose crew was inspired to mutiny .

 

[georgephillip]

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

How is my use of Medicare/Medicaid any different from your driving on federal interstate highways?

Each works great until you run out of other people's money, right?

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su18.cfm

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Disappointed In The Presumption Of Reasoning "

* Clear Direct Answer *

How is my use of Medicare/Medicaid any different from your driving on federal interstate highways?
Each works great until you run out of other people's money, right?

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su18.cfm

Highways provides cost beneficial and long term infrastructure that facilitate commerce from which government can recoup taxes allocated .

Allocation of medical expenses has short term benefits for those within the work force but none for those no longer in the work force ; and , the expenses for medical care are far in excess of the taxes expected to be recouped .

 

[Andylusion]

" Unnecessary Destruction Compounded By Stupidity "

* Principle Instigator Phillip Gramm Is A Domestic Terrorist *

If an area has a high rate of default, it's bad idea to give a mortgage for a house in that area.

Glass–Steagall legislation - Wikipedia was repealed by Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia and Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia prohibited federal oversight of the derivatives and credit default swap commodities .

At one time fannie mae and freddie mac were restricted to housing loans for poor creditors by low downpayment , fixed interest , long term loans , and the lending institutions were solvent , and those institutions were disingenuously blamed as a scapegoat for Financial crisis of 2007–2008 - Wikipedia .

Then clinton idiocy authorized hud to include variable rate interest loans for poor creditors towards its quota goals and the loans were incorporated into the unregulated derivatives and credit default swaps markets .

At some point the clinton idiocy realized there was a problem with poor creditors defaulting on loans once interest rates rose and removed authorization from hud to issue variable interest loans but then the bush idiocy came along and again issued authorization for hud to issue variable interest loans .

The phenomenology includes a gramm whose name relates with weights and measures , along with leachy a name whose homonym is a blood sucking leech and bliley whose name associated with a ship captain whose crew was inspired to mutiny .

First, the derivatives and credit default swaps, had nothing to do with the crash. Nothing. And regulating them would have done nothing.

The cause of the crash, was people not paying their mortgages.

If everyone had paid their mortgages, no amount of, or lack of, regulations on derivatives and credit default swaps, would have caused a crash.

And when people failed to pay their mortgages, no amount of, or lack of, regulations on derivatives and credit default swaps, would have prevented a crash.

Second, Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with anything. Few, almost none, of the institutions that failed, would have been effected by Glass-Steagal.

Third, most of the banks around the world, have never had regulations like Glass-Steagal, and yet the problem originated in the US, not in Europe, Canada or anywhere else.

The start of the sub-prime mortgage bubble, was in 1997. This is clearly documented. Not 2000, or 1999, when the regulations, or deregulations you point to, were actually enacted. A bubble that started in 1997, can't be blamed on legislation that didn't pass for 3 more years.

The start of the bubble in housing prices, clearly started in 1997, at the same time as the sub-prime mortgages were taking off.

So what happened in 1997?

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of
CRA loans.​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

The Federal Government through Freddie Mac, securitized Sub-prime loans, and gave these loans a "AAA" rating. Remember when everyone was screaming about how the rating agencies gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating? They didn't. Government did.

At the exact same time Freddie Mac was doing this, the Clinton Administration was suing banks to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo who was in charge of HUD, proudly admits they forced the banks to make loans to people who otherwise didn't qualify. And if you watch the end of the clip, Andrew Cuomo openly, and directly, himself admits the default rate would be higher.

At least on that prediction, history now proved him entirely correct.

So let's review. The start of the sub-prime mortgage bubble, both in the sheer number, and the effects on the housing price bubble, both started in 1997.

In 1997 Freddie Mac, an arm of the government, starts encouraging sub-prime lending by guaranteeing bad sub-prime loans, and giving them a AAA rating.

In 1998, HUD under the leadership of Andrew Cuomo, a member of the Clinton administration, puts all banks across the country on notice, that they will be sued and forced to make sub-prime loans to people who don't qualify.

And from that point on the sub-prime crash was unavoidable.

Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with it. Derivatives and CDS, had nothing to do with it. In fact, blaming Credit Default Swaps, is really ironic honestly. It was Credit Default Swaps, that minimized the damage. CDSs allowed banks to hedge against the drop in property values. Many more banks would have gone bankrupt, without CDSs.

No, the real cause of everything was government regulating the mortgage market. If not for Freddie Mac securitizing bad loans, and if not for goverment suing banks to make bad loans, none of the bubble and crash would have happened.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.

How is my use of Medicare/Medicaid any different from your driving on federal interstate highways?

Each works great until you run out of other people's money, right?

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su18.cfm

It's ironic that you mention that, because I consider the Federal Highways to be one of the biggest wastes of money there is.

Do you know that nearly every single federal highway, is redundant?

States paid for highways between cities and other states already, before a single Federal highway had been built.

And of course they did, since it benefited each city, and each state, to be connected to other cities and states.

This is US 40.

This is I-70

US 40 mirrors I-70. If you drive US 40 here in Ohio, the road is empty for miles.

Why have identical roads? This is waste of money.

How is my use of Medicare/Medicaid any different from your driving on federal interstate highways?

Each works great until you run out of other people's money, right?

No, not even close.

Couple of differences.

First, we have the General Welfare clause in the constitution. The General Welfare clause, requires that spending by the government be for everyone equally. You can't have programs that tax one group, for the exclusive benefit of another.

Meaning police, and law enforcement, and court systems, for example benefit absolutely everyone. Every single person benefits from a society that isn't in chaos. The poorest of poor, to the richest of rich, benefit.

'Somebody Knows Something': Miami-Dade Police Hand Out Flyers In Murders Of Two Homeless People

Miami-Dade police are looking for answers and help as they try to solve the murders of two homeless people in the waning days of 2019.

miami.cbslocal.com

Even the homeless, benefit from law enforcement. Police are trying to track down someone who murdered a homeless person.

Medicare, taxes those who are working, for the exclusive benefit of those who are sick. I have not benefited one penny, at all the taxes I've paid, so other people can get cheap care at a hospital.

And it most certainly harms me, because not only do I pay the taxes for benefits I never get, but I also have to pay much higher prices for care, thanks to cost shifting.

And lastly, there is an aspect of the cost.

I disagree with Federally funded highways. I think it's a bad idea. BUT.... even if we did have Federal Funded highways, that cost isn't going to bankrupt the country.

There isn't $120 Trillion in unfunded highway projects. There *IS* $120 Trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities.

Barely 15% of the budget for Ohio, is made up of law enforcement, governance, and.... Transportation funding. All the roads the state funds, barely 1% of the budget.

Education and health care, is 3/4ths of the budget. That's what bankrupts a society.