We didn't learn a thing from the housing bubble

[OohPooPahDoo]

Because it's wrong??

CRA regulates DEPOSITORY BANKS not INVESTMENT BANKS.

Don't care WHO CRA regulates.. It's not relevent. What is and WAS relevent is the political pressure on Fannie and Freddy to write a larger fraction of their loans in risky underwriting.

Who forced the investment banks to buy bad loans and how?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Have you learned yet that the housing bubble was Carters idea that Clinton ran with?

And that since it worked so well for clinton, obama is going to do it again?

You, to get the same results.

Still glad you blindly supported obama?

well, are you?

Are you seriously this big of an idiot?

So the fact that dems kicked this off with clinton, and are doing it again under obama, actually is over your head.

you're pathetic.

Your stating that everything is Clinton's fault doesn't make it true it only makes you look like a ******* idiot.

 

[eflatminor]

I'm not really sure how limiting government is going to prevent privately owned and operated "to big to fail" investment banks from buying junk mortgage investments from loan sharks whose only purpose is to make the loans, pocket the fees, and then unload them as soon as possible.

Easy. A government that operates within the confines of the Constitution cannot declare any organization 'too big to fail'. More importantly, the only way a company can get that big is through cronyism, which limited government advocates will not engage in. So, if your bank makes the bad decisions you outlined, they will simply lose market share to banks making better decisions. It works.

You're a complete idiot.

There's the brilliant rhetorical skills of the Poo we all know and love! Why, the manner in which you dissect an argument, and how your respond with such specificity, such logic and reason...it's really quite impressive...

And thanks for once again proving my point that you are incapable of any discourse beyond ad hominem attacks, red herrings and non sequiturs. Much appreciated...

 

[kwc57]

Easy. A government that operates within the confines of the Constitution cannot declare any organization 'too big to fail'. More importantly, the only way a company can get that big is through cronyism, which limited government advocates will not engage in. So, if your bank makes the bad decisions you outlined, they will simply lose market share to banks making better decisions. It works.

You're a complete idiot.

There's the brilliant rhetorical skills of the Poo we all know and love! Why, the manner in which you dissect an argument, and how your respond with such specificity, such logic and reason...it's really quite impressive...

And thanks for once again proving my point that you are incapable of any discourse beyond ad hominem attacks, red herrings and non sequiturs. Much appreciated...

If he were even half as smart as he thinks he is, they still wouldn't let him on the short bus......even with a helmet and a note from home.

 

[Toro]

I'm not really sure how limiting government is going to prevent privately owned and operated "to big to fail" investment banks from buying junk mortgage investments from loan sharks whose only purpose is to make the loans, pocket the fees, and then unload them as soon as possible. My guess is you can't actually think at all and instead just know to reflexively spout "limited government" as the answer to every question asked of you.

Dodd-Frank makes it much less likely that investment banks will be buying that stuff.

How?

Proprietary trading has been significantly curtailed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Easy. A government that operates within the confines of the Constitution cannot declare any organization 'too big to fail'. More importantly, the only way a company can get that big is through cronyism, which limited government advocates will not engage in. So, if your bank makes the bad decisions you outlined, they will simply lose market share to banks making better decisions. It works.

You're a complete idiot.

There's the brilliant rhetorical skills of the Poo we all know and love! Why, the manner in which you dissect an argument, and how your respond with such specificity, such logic and reason...it's really quite impressive...

And thanks for once again proving my point that you are incapable of any discourse beyond ad hominem attacks, red herrings and non sequiturs. Much appreciated...

You aren't making an argument. You're stringing together words and phrases you heard somewhere that sound important to you in a pathetic attempt to make it look like you have a clue about what's going on.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Dodd-Frank makes it much less likely that investment banks will be buying that stuff.

How?

Proprietary trading has been significantly curtailed.

Not yet
Volcker Rule may be in for another delay - MarketWatch

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We've been getting a lot of refi offers lately. A lot of ARM's, they always emphasize in bold letters we'll be able to skip up to two payments, and they always encourage us to consume the difference on our note rather than save it.

I ask of the loan industry and government - did we not learn anything from the housing bubble? Its like it never happened! These guys are ready to do it all over again.

We? Who is we, because I know quite a few people who learned from the housing bubble.

Unfortunately, none of them are named Obama.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit - The Washington Post

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We've been getting a lot of refi offers lately. A lot of ARM's, they always emphasize in bold letters we'll be able to skip up to two payments, and they always encourage us to consume the difference on our note rather than save it.

I ask of the loan industry and government - did we not learn anything from the housing bubble? Its like it never happened! These guys are ready to do it all over again.

We? Who is we, because I know quite a few people who learned from the housing bubble.

Unfortunately, none of them are named Obama.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit - The Washington Post

Dude, the banks have gone to the opposite extreme since the bubble bursts and have overly restricted lending. That's part of the problem. Do you pay attention to what's going on at all?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We've been getting a lot of refi offers lately. A lot of ARM's, they always emphasize in bold letters we'll be able to skip up to two payments, and they always encourage us to consume the difference on our note rather than save it.

I ask of the loan industry and government - did we not learn anything from the housing bubble? Its like it never happened! These guys are ready to do it all over again.

We? Who is we, because I know quite a few people who learned from the housing bubble.

Unfortunately, none of them are named Obama.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit - The Washington Post

Dude, the banks have gone to the opposite extreme since the bubble bursts and have overly restricted lending. That's part of the problem. Do you pay attention to what's going on at all?

How is that part of the problem? Even if what you said is true, which it isn't, how does repeating the same mistakes you are complaining about fix it?

 

[Lakhota]

Here is what really caused the housing crash:

Home loans didn't bring on the recession; gimmicky financial instruments bloated to 100 times their value are what caused all this pain.

Wall Street turned a few million home-loans into what Warren Buffet called "economic weapons of mass destruction," cratered the global economy and then, when the bubble burst, turned around and insisted on a massive bailout courtesy of the American tax-payer.

The entire subprime mortgage market was worth only $1.4 trillion in the fall of 2007, and that includes loans that were up-to-date. As former Goldman Sachs trader Nomi Prins noted in her book, It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street, the federal government could have bought up every single residential mortgage in the country – good, bad and in between – and it would have cost a trillion less than the bailouts.

Short of that, notes Prins, if the crisis were really about people buying McMansions that they couldn't afford, “we could have solved it much more cheaply in a couple of days in late 2008, by simply providing borrowers with additional capital to reduce their loan principals. It would have cost about 3 percent of what the entire bailout wound up costing, with comparatively similar risk.”

What brought down the global economy was as much as $140 trillion worth of financial gimmickery built on top of the mortgage industry. It was the alphabet soup of the credit meltdown – the CDOs, default swaps and other derivitaves that made less than a trillion dollars of foreclosed loans into an economic weapon of mass destruction that would cost the American economy alone $14 trillion in lost wealth.

More: The Absurd Zombie Lie About the Economy Right-Wingers Desperately Cling To -- And Why It's Totally Wrong | By Joshua Holland/Alternet

 

[S.J.]

Here is what really caused the housing crash:

Home loans didn't bring on the recession; gimmicky financial instruments bloated to 100 times their value are what caused all this pain.

Wall Street turned a few million home-loans into what Warren Buffet called "economic weapons of mass destruction," cratered the global economy and then, when the bubble burst, turned around and insisted on a massive bailout courtesy of the American tax-payer.

The entire subprime mortgage market was worth only $1.4 trillion in the fall of 2007, and that includes loans that were up-to-date. As former Goldman Sachs trader Nomi Prins noted in her book, It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street, the federal government could have bought up every single residential mortgage in the country – good, bad and in between – and it would have cost a trillion less than the bailouts.

Short of that, notes Prins, if the crisis were really about people buying McMansions that they couldn't afford, “we could have solved it much more cheaply in a couple of days in late 2008, by simply providing borrowers with additional capital to reduce their loan principals. It would have cost about 3 percent of what the entire bailout wound up costing, with comparatively similar risk.”

What brought down the global economy was as much as $140 trillion worth of financial gimmickery built on top of the mortgage industry. It was the alphabet soup of the credit meltdown – the CDOs, default swaps and other derivitaves that made less than a trillion dollars of foreclosed loans into an economic weapon of mass destruction that would cost the American economy alone $14 trillion in lost wealth.

More: The Absurd Zombie Lie About the Economy Right-Wingers Desperately Cling To -- And Why It's Totally Wrong | By Joshua Holland/Alternet

It was Bush's fault, right?

 

[Lakhota]

It was Bush's fault, right?

Probably, but his name isn't mentioned in the article.

 

[S.J.]

It was Bush's fault, right?

Probably, but his name isn't mentioned in the article.

Somehow I knew you would say something to that effect.

 

[Politico]

It was Bush's fault, right?

No it's stupid people's fault.

 

[Darkwind]

For every loan made there is a borrower as well as a lender. The lesson last time was that if you fucked up Uncle would bail you out, both borrower and lender. So expect lots more of the same this time. This is what "moral hazard" looks like.

Truth shining down right here.

 

[Rozman]

Well if the banks don't make bad loans they be racist....
Who wants dat!

 

[editec]

We've been getting a lot of refi offers lately. A lot of ARM's, they always emphasize in bold letters we'll be able to skip up to two payments, and they always encourage us to consume the difference on our note rather than save it.

I ask of the loan industry and government - did we not learn anything from the housing bubble? Its like it never happened! These guys are ready to do it all over again.

Oh they learned something.

They learned that if they rip people off they can get away with it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The democrats don't want us too. They want to give free homes to the poor and the minority that can't pay for it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well if the banks don't make bad loans they be racist....
Who wants dat!

Can't be refusing anyone with black skin a loan. Don't yah know! Doesn't matter as skin color is everything within these leftist assholes minds.