The Trump implosion

[jc456]

well son, just post that link thingy that supports your claim. you said you always do that and yet here, no such thingy.

I've been posting these links. They are in the charts and links I provided to you throughout this thread. Go back and scroll through the thread. This shit you're doing here is just repetitive.

which link bubba?

 

[The Derp]

which link bubba?

So...here's the chart showing how GSE loans defaulted at miniscule rates compared to privately-issued firms:

And here's the source from the OC register saying at least 75% of the subprime loans were not subject to CRA rules:

• Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law.
• State-regulated mortgage companies such as Irvine-based New Century Financial made just over half of all subprime loans. These companies, which CRA does not cover, controlled more than 60 percent of the market before 2006, when banks jumped in.
• Another 22 percent came from federally regulated lenders like Countrywide Home Loans and Long Beach Mortgage. These lenders weren’t subject to the law, though some were owned by banks that could choose to include them in their CRA reports.
• Among lenders that were subject to the law, many ignored subprime while others couldn’t get enough.
• Among those standing on the sidelines: Bank of America, which made no subprime loans in 2004 and 2005; in 2006 and 2007 subprime accounted for just 2 percent of its loan portfolio. Washington Mutual, meanwhile, raised its subprime bet by 20 times to $5.6 billion in 2006 – on top of its already huge exposure through its ownership of Long Beach Mortgage.

Now can you do us all a favor and use facts like I did here to prove your shitty argument? Nope. Because you cannot.

For added insult to injury, here's a wonderful chart showing the explosion in subprime lending. Cross reference that chart with the one above:

 

[The Derp]

So all that shit above paints quite the picture, doesn't it? That there was a sudden and dramatic spike in subprime lending beginning in 2004, the same year Bush removed leveraging restrictions on banks, and the same year regulators (who work for the Executive Branch) allowed a "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans". That last bit there was the determination of Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets from March 2008.

So can we put this thing to bed now? There's nothing more to discuss.

 

[jc456]

So all that shit above paints quite the picture, doesn't it? That there was a sudden and dramatic spike in subprime lending beginning in 2004, the same year Bush removed leveraging restrictions on banks, and the same year regulators (who work for the Executive Branch) allowed a "dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans". That last bit there was the determination of Bush's Working Group on Financial Markets from March 2008.

So can we put this thing to bed now? There's nothing more to discuss.

and yet there is this:

Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis

"It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis."

 

[P@triot]

The progressive desperate witch hunt continues to implode...

Comey Under Oath: 'Have Not Experienced Any Requests to Stop FBI Investigations' - Breitbart

 

[P@triot]

 

[The Derp]

<Conservative Op-Ed substituting for actual fact>

One thing you should know about Op-Eds, particularly those from the right wing, is that they're ******* lies. Nothing you copy-and-pasted below contradicts any of what I posted; that GSE's had well-performing subprime loans. That 75% of all subprimes were from banks exempt from the CRA.

The loans the GSE's bought prior to 2004 were good loans! Their default rates were consistently below 5%:

So that shit you posted was just an attempt to conflate the issue. Not all subprimes were toxic. In fact, 95% of the subprimes issued by GSEs had no delinquency issues whatsoever. GSE market share was also cut in half during the bubble, proving it wasn't GSEs flooding the markets with subprimes, but rather your buddies in the private sector.

So it wasn't GSE's that did anything wrong. It was the private sector run amok.

 

[The Derp]

<Russian Active Measure>

So why is the grand jury issuing subpoenas for records? They only do so if there is enough probable cause established. We just learned today that the Trump team had 18 different meetings with Russians they didn't disclose. Why didn't they disclose them? Obviously because those meetings were about something nefarious.

 

[The Derp]

and yet there is this:

Ah, yes...an Op-Ed by a former Goldman Banker. But where in that Op-Ed does it say that GSE's issued toxic subprime loans? They bought subprime loans before...but those subprime loans had default rates below 5%. The subprimes that caused the crash had default rates above 20%. Those subprimes were issued by private firms, were not underwritten by GSE's, and 75% of them weren't even subject to CRA rules.

Look at the chart again. Your Op-Ed says they bought millions of subprimes in 2002. Well, what was the default rate of those subprimes? Below 5%. So those aren't the subprimes that caused the collapse, were they fuckface???? So you are lying by conflation. You are trying to imply that because the shitty subprimes issued from 2004-7 were so bad, that makes all subprimes bad. But that's not the case, and is just lazy thinking from a lazy person.

So this picture you're trying to paint with your fingers, it's looking shittier by the second. Particularly if all you're doing is vomiting an Op-Ed (THAT DOESN'T EVEN SOURCE ITS NUMBERS!).

 

[jc456]

which link bubba?

So...here's the chart showing how GSE loans defaulted at miniscule rates compared to privately-issued firms:

And here's the source from the OC register saying at least 75% of the subprime loans were not subject to CRA rules:

• Nearly $3 of every $4 in subprime loans made from 2004 through 2007 came from lenders who were exempt from the law.
• State-regulated mortgage companies such as Irvine-based New Century Financial made just over half of all subprime loans. These companies, which CRA does not cover, controlled more than 60 percent of the market before 2006, when banks jumped in.
• Another 22 percent came from federally regulated lenders like Countrywide Home Loans and Long Beach Mortgage. These lenders weren’t subject to the law, though some were owned by banks that could choose to include them in their CRA reports.
• Among lenders that were subject to the law, many ignored subprime while others couldn’t get enough.
• Among those standing on the sidelines: Bank of America, which made no subprime loans in 2004 and 2005; in 2006 and 2007 subprime accounted for just 2 percent of its loan portfolio. Washington Mutual, meanwhile, raised its subprime bet by 20 times to $5.6 billion in 2006 – on top of its already huge exposure through its ownership of Long Beach Mortgage.

Now can you do us all a favor and use facts like I did here to prove your shitty argument? Nope. Because you cannot.

For added insult to injury, here's a wonderful chart showing the explosion in subprime lending. Cross reference that chart with the one above:

The link you provided is very similar to what I posted.

"In a Sept. 22 editorial, The Wall Street Journal said that the law “compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them. Banks that failed to make enough of these loans were often held hostage by activists when they next sought some regulatory approval.”

In a Sept. 15 editorial, Investors Business Daily wrote that by strengthening the reinvestment law in the late 1990s, President Clinton “helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but ‘predatory.’ “

In a Sept. 18 appearance on MSNBC, conservative economist Larry Kudlow said, “The Community Reinvestment Act literally pushed these lenders to make low-income loans. … Liberal, guilt(y) consciences forced banks and lenders to make lousy, substandard loans.”"

The True Origins of This Financial Crisis
"The fact is that neither political party, and no administration, is blameless; the honest answer, as outlined below, is that government policy over many years caused this problem. The regulators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, were the enforcers of the reduced lending standards that were essential to the growth in home ownership and the housing bubble."

 

[jc456]

<Russian Active Measure>

So why is the grand jury issuing subpoenas for records? They only do so if there is enough probable cause established. We just learned today that the Trump team had 18 different meetings with Russians they didn't disclose. Why didn't they disclose them? Obviously because those meetings were about something nefarious.

that isn't true. If someone will not present material requested voluntarily, subpoena are used to force the party to give up the documents. more nonsense from a leftist.

 

[The Derp]

The link you provided is very similar to what I posted.

Do you know how to read? None of what I posted is similar to what you posted. I swear, when you see words on your screen do you actually see words, or do you see what you want to see? That's called "delusion", my friend.

"In a Sept. 22 editorial, The Wall Street Journal said that the law “compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them. Banks that failed to make enough of these loans were often held hostage by activists when they next sought some regulatory approval.”

Keyword #1: EDITORIAL. Keywords #2: the law "compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers". Can you cite the exact passage of the law itself that compels banks to do that? I doubt it because no such compulsion or mandate exists. Banks weren't forced to suddenly hand out subprime loans en masse starting in 2004. The default rates for GSE-backed loans remained consistently below 5%, even during the housing bubble burst. When you start using Op-Eds as the basis of your argument, you open yourself up to a broadside attack with facts. Nothing I post or reference is an editorial. I only and exclusively post verifiable data and text, cited and sourced. Conservatives lie about what the CRA is and what it does. BTW - those changes to the CRA happened in 1996, yet subprime lending spiked in 2004. So unless there was a line in the law that said "beginning in 2004, federal regulators can cease enforcing lending standards", your references to the CRA are undermined by the fact that 3 in 4 subprime loans issued during the mortgage bubble weren't even subject to CRA rules, and those that were performed far better and in line with historical norms.

From American Banker:

Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.​

So there ya go...a knife to the heart of your argument.

In a Sept. 15 editorial, Investors Business Daily wrote that by strengthening the reinvestment law in the late 1990s, President Clinton “helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but ‘predatory.’ “

LOL! Shocking that "investors" who were responsible for the collapse tried to blame it on Clinton and a change to the CRA that happened eight ******* years before the subprime bubble spiked. How do you account for the fact that 75% of subprimes issued from 2004-7 weren't subject to CRA rules? How do you account for the fact that the 25% of subprimes that were subject to CRA rules issued from 2004-7 performed much, much better than the ones that weren't? You can't, of course...all you can do is vomit up Op-Eds and hope and pray I let them slide. Bad news for you; I don't.

In a Sept. 18 appearance on MSNBC, conservative economist Larry Kudlow said, “The Community Reinvestment Act literally pushed these lenders to make low-income loans. … Liberal, guilt(y) consciences forced banks and lenders to make lousy, substandard loans.”"

Why anyone would listen to Larry Kudlow is beyond me. Here's Mr. Kudlow, in 2005, saying that there was no housing bubble at all, and called those warning of a housing bubble "bubbleheads". So he says it literally pushed these lenders? Ah, so then you should be able to literally copy and paste the change from the actual legislation to prove it. Can you? I dare you. Banks didn't issue more or less subprime loans from 1993-2003. In fact, subprime originations declined toward the end of the 90's and the early 00's, mostly due to Clinton's HUD rule that prohibited GSEs from purchasing risky subprime loans. A rule Bush reversed in 2004. Why?

 

[P@triot]

So why is the grand jury issuing subpoenas for records?

Because the Grand Jury is made up of angry little progressives who can't accept that they lost an election. This is a desperate witch hunt - there is no denying it. Even Comey himself is now on record stating that he was never asked to stop investigating anything. And that's coming from a man who was fired and has every reason in the world to declare otherwise.

 

[The Derp]

that isn't true. If someone will not present material requested voluntarily, subpoena are used to force the party to give up the documents. more nonsense from a leftist.

What isn't true? That Trump's folks met with Russians 18 different times that they didn't disclose? That's a fact. So why would a subpoena be issued to force the party to give up documents? Because the party refuses to give the documents themselves. And why would they refuse? Because the documents implicate them in a crime.

LISTEN TO YOURSELF.

 

[The Derp]

Because the Grand Jury is made up of angry little progressives who can't accept that they lost an election.

What a ******* load of horseshit. So the US justice system is conspiring against Trump. What you are doing is proving to everyone that Conservatives lack any sort of personal responsibility for anything.

Or that you're a Russian troll.

 

[jc456]

<Conservative Op-Ed substituting for actual fact>

One thing you should know about Op-Eds, particularly those from the right wing, is that they're ******* lies. Nothing you copy-and-pasted below contradicts any of what I posted; that GSE's had well-performing subprime loans. That 75% of all subprimes were from banks exempt from the CRA.

The loans the GSE's bought prior to 2004 were good loans! Their default rates were consistently below 5%:

So that shit you posted was just an attempt to conflate the issue. Not all subprimes were toxic. In fact, 95% of the subprimes issued by GSEs had no delinquency issues whatsoever. GSE market share was also cut in half during the bubble, proving it wasn't GSEs flooding the markets with subprimes, but rather your buddies in the private sector.

So it wasn't GSE's that did anything wrong. It was the private sector run amok.

sure. cause you're orange county link which I pulled out the same info from is sooooooo dependable right? dude, I give two shits who you think is a valid source or not. I don't need your approvals for my beliefs and knowledge. but hey you keep projecting yourself outwards. you maybe land a human or two.

 

[xyz]

Was almost 100% preventable had Donald Trump just exercised some damn discretion.
He CLEARLY isnt listening to his advisiors. If he was he wouldnt be tweeting a shitstorm after every single story.

I feel sorry for his staff & family. Still better than Hillary I suppose but it's time to start grooming A REAL CONSERVATIVE for the next cycle. As I stated for MONTHS before the election, Trump is no conservative, in fact he was a life long Democrat. The only reason he ran for president is because everyone told him he couldn't. His ego had to prove everyone wrong & here we sit.

I wouldn't say he was a life long Democrat, he has supported both parties at certain times, as well as third parties. He was all over the place politically.

 

[P@triot]

Because the Grand Jury is made up of angry little progressives who can't accept that they lost an election.

What a ******* load of horseshit. So the US justice system is conspiring against Trump. What you are doing is proving to everyone that Conservatives lack any sort of personal responsibility for anything.

Dimwit...the pool for the Grand Jury is in Washington D.C. A heavily progressive population. You are a special kind of stupid.

 

[The Derp]

Because the Grand Jury is made up of angry little progressives who can't accept that they lost an election

What should really concern everyone is that this fake American up there is doing precisely what it is that Putin wants; to undermine western democratic institutions like our Judicial System.

I'd call you a snowflake, but that's too nice. You're not a snowflake. You're a Russian tool.

 

[The Derp]

Dimwit...the pool for the Grand Jury is in Washington D.C. A heavily progressive population. You are a special kind of stupid.

LOL! Nah...this is just you doing Putin's bidding by trying to undermine confidence in western democracy. The irony is that confidence was already undermined the minute Conservatives turned to Russia to help them win elections they couldn't otherwise win based on the merits of their ideas.