You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Toddsterpatriot]

The repeal allowed these investment banks to take on even greater risks without the same level of regulation that commercial banks had before. Now, you claim it’s all about subprime mortgages—then prove it. Where’s your evidence that these firms wouldn’t have collapsed without the deregulation that allowed them to gamble on risky financial products? And why were they so heavily involved in these products post-Glass-Steagall if it didn’t matter?

if repealing Glass-Steagall was inconsequential, why did the banking industry invest so much money in lobbying for its repeal? The answer is simple: they saw an opportunity to remove barriers that prevented them from engaging in more profitable but riskier financial activities. By merging commercial and investment banking, they could leverage customer deposits for speculative investments, maximizing profits while offloading risks. T

The repeal allowed these investment banks to take on even greater risks without the same level of regulation that commercial banks had before.

Investment banks didn't have the same regulation under Glass-Steagall as commercial banks.

Where’s your evidence that these firms wouldn’t have collapsed without the deregulation that allowed them to gamble on risky financial products?

Bear Stearns and Lehman were always allowed to own mortgages.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The repeal allowed these investment banks to take on even greater risks without the same level of regulation that commercial banks had before.

Investment banks didn't have the same regulation under Glass-Steagall as commercial banks.

Where’s your evidence that these firms wouldn’t have collapsed without the deregulation that allowed them to gamble on risky financial products?

Bear Stearns and Lehman were always allowed to own mortgages.

You're trying to sidestep the issue by focusing on technicalities, but the core point remains: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to engage in riskier behaviors by merging commercial and investment activities. While investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could technically hold mortgages before the repeal, the deregulation enabled them to take on far greater risks with far less oversight, which directly contributed to their collapse.

Where's your evidence that their speculative practices would have been as extreme without the deregulation? Also, why did these banks invest heavily in lobbying for the repeal if they had nothing to gain?

Provide some evidence for your claims and answer these questions if you're going to challenge the facts. Your current line of argumentation reminds me of your denial of the fact that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world by 1970. You insist that practically all of the economists and institutions that recognize that are wrong. All of the data, even the World Bank, a Western capitalist-run institution recognizes that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world and you're like "nope". OK, Todd, you believe that. Have fun in your Libertarian, Atlas Shrugged fantasy world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're trying to sidestep the issue by focusing on technicalities, but the core point remains: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to engage in riskier behaviors by merging commercial and investment activities. While investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could technically hold mortgages before the repeal, the deregulation enabled them to take on far greater risks with far less oversight, which directly contributed to their collapse.

Where's your evidence that their speculative practices would have been as extreme without the deregulation? Also, why did these banks invest heavily in lobbying for the repeal if they had nothing to gain?

Provide some evidence for your claims and answer these questions if you're going to challenge the facts. Your current line of argumentation reminds me of your denial of the fact that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world by 1970. You insist that practically all of the economists and institutions that recognize that are wrong. All of the data, even the World Bank, a Western capitalist-run institution recognizes that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world and you're like "nope". OK, Todd, you believe that. Have fun in your Libertarian, Atlas Shrugged fantasy world.

You're trying to sidestep the issue by focusing on technicalities, but the core point remains: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to engage in riskier behaviors by merging commercial and investment activities.

You still haven't shown any that engaged in riskier behavior and failed because of it.

While investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could technically hold mortgages before the repeal,


Nothing technical about it. Under Glass-Steagall, they could hold as many mortgages as they wanted, post Glass-Steagall, they could hold as many mortgages as they wanted.


the deregulation enabled them to take on far greater risks with far less oversight, which directly contributed to their collapse.


What oversight was reduced for them?


Where's your evidence that their speculative practices would have been as extreme without the deregulation?


I have no evidence that repealing Glass-Steagall caused them to be more extreme. Do you?

Your current line of argumentation reminds me of your denial of the fact that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world by 1970.

We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us. Why do you pretend that the USSR produced as much as they claimed they did? Is it because they were so truthful about everything else?

 

[TruthNotBS]

You're trying to sidestep the issue by focusing on technicalities, but the core point remains: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to engage in riskier behaviors by merging commercial and investment activities.

You still haven't shown any that engaged in riskier behavior and failed because of it.

While investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could technically hold mortgages before the repeal,


Nothing technical about it. Under Glass-Steagall, they could hold as many mortgages as they wanted, post Glass-Steagall, they could hold as many mortgages as they wanted.


the deregulation enabled them to take on far greater risks with far less oversight, which directly contributed to their collapse.


What oversight was reduced for them?


Where's your evidence that their speculative practices would have been as extreme without the deregulation?


I have no evidence that repealing Glass-Steagall caused them to be more extreme. Do you?

Your current line of argumentation reminds me of your denial of the fact that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world by 1970.

We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us. Why do you pretend that the USSR produced as much as they claimed they did? Is it because they were so truthful about everything else?

Your repeated attempts to dodge the main issue by focusing on technicalities won't work here. Let's be clear: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed financial institutions to merge commercial and investment banking, which led to riskier and less regulated activities. While Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could hold mortgages before the repeal, the removal of the regulatory barriers let them amplify their risky practices through leveraging and complex financial instruments. This directly contributed to their downfall.

If you believe otherwise, where’s your evidence that their speculative practices were not exacerbated by the deregulation? Also, if the repeal was so inconsequential, why did the financial industry invest heavily in lobbying for it? You keep asking for evidence—let’s see yours.

Finally, your assertion that the USSR didn’t have the second-largest economy in the world is blatantly contradicted by extensive data from credible sources like the World Bank, IMF, and UN. These organizations, along with Western academics and specialists who had access to the USSR, consistently ranked it as the second-largest economy globally. The West had numerous ways to verify these facts, so your blanket dismissal based on the notion that the USSR was inherently untruthful doesn’t hold up. Where is your evidence to counter this broad consensus? Without it, your claims against the well-recognized facts, remain baseless.

I'm going to give you one more chance to make a coherent argument, on these issues, before I direct my attention and energy to something more interesting and productive.

 

[beagle9]

NINJA loans were a reckless and egregious example of irresponsible lending, but the crisis wasn’t solely about these loans existing. It was about how banks bundled these risky loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold them off as safe investments globally. The real issue lies in the deregulated environment that allowed banks to take these risks without proper oversight. They weren’t forced by the CRA to make bad loans; they chose to exploit these opportunities for massive short-term profits, and that's what led to the collapse. The crisis was a systemic failure fueled by greed and deregulation, not simply the existence of risky loans.

let's not forget the role of the banking industry's intense lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to get this law repealed because it was crucial for them to engage in riskier activities like bundling subprime loans into MBS. If this repeal wasn’t significant, they wouldn’t have invested so heavily. According to a report by the Center for Responsive Politics, the financial sector spent over $5 billion on lobbying from 1998 to 2008. Citigroup, for example, was a major player in these efforts, benefiting directly from the ability to merge commercial and investment banking activities.

For detailed evidence, you can look into “All the Devils Are Here” by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, which outlines the lobbying efforts leading to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Additionally, "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis provides insights into how these deregulated practices led to the crisis. The banking industry’s lobbying is well-documented in sources like these, revealing how crucial the repeal was to their strategy of maximizing profits, regardless of the broader economic consequences.

The only way that the banks could have ever surmised, contemplated and then put into motion these thing's that you speak of, was because a Democrat government was inadvertently in on the entire debacle by the policies it spoke of, and due to the promises it was making. The markets and banks are reactive to what the political winds are blowing or stirring up within the 4 year bubbles.

 

[jc456]

Your repeated attempts to dodge the main issue by focusing on technicalities won't work here. Let's be clear: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed financial institutions to merge commercial and investment banking, which led to riskier and less regulated activities. While Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could hold mortgages before the repeal, the removal of the regulatory barriers let them amplify their risky practices through leveraging and complex financial instruments. This directly contributed to their downfall.

If you believe otherwise, where’s your evidence that their speculative practices were not exacerbated by the deregulation? Also, if the repeal was so inconsequential, why did the financial industry invest heavily in lobbying for it? You keep asking for evidence—let’s see yours.

Finally, your assertion that the USSR didn’t have the second-largest economy in the world is blatantly contradicted by extensive data from credible sources like the World Bank, IMF, and UN. These organizations, along with Western academics and specialists who had access to the USSR, consistently ranked it as the second-largest economy globally. The West had numerous ways to verify these facts, so your blanket dismissal based on the notion that the USSR was inherently untruthful doesn’t hold up. Where is your evidence to counter this broad consensus? Without it, your claims against the well-recognized facts, remain baseless.

I'm going to give you one more chance to make a coherent argument, on these issues, before I direct my attention and energy to something more interesting and productive.

See, more blah, blah, blah wash rinse repeat.

NINJA loans! Fking PERIOD!

You can blah, blah blah till your fking eyes fall out! I don’t give a fk about anything else!!!

Willfully ignorant is all you are. There’s no rationale in your position!

 

[TruthNotBS]

The only way that the banks could have ever surmised, contemplated and then put into motion these thing's that you speak of, was because a Democrat government was inadvertently in on the entire debacle by the policies it spoke of, and due to the promises it was making. The markets and banks are reactive to what the political winds are blowing or stirring up within the 4 year bubbles.

Beagle9, your response is nothing but a deflection from the core issues. You claim that the banks were merely reacting to "Democrat government" policies, but you ignore the fact that these same banks spent billions lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall to engage in riskier financial activities. They weren’t just responding to political winds, they were actively shaping them to their advantage.

Your logic is flawed when you suggest that the government somehow "inadvertently" caused the crisis. The truth is, that the financial industry knew exactly what it was doing. They lobbied hard to remove regulations that protected the economy from the very kind of meltdown that occurred. And when it all went south, it wasn’t capitalism that saved the day—it was socialism in the form of massive government bailouts that kept the system from completely collapsing.

If you're going to argue that the markets are reactive, then admit that capitalism is inherently unstable, requiring constant intervention to prevent disaster. Without these bailouts—socialist measures to protect a failing capitalist system—the economy would have tanked even harder. So let's not pretend this was just about following the political winds. This was about greed, deregulation, and a capitalist system that repeatedly fails and then expects socialism to pick up the pieces.

 

[TruthNotBS]

See, more blah, blah, blah wash rinse repeat.

NINJA loans! Fking PERIOD!

You can blah, blah blah till your fking eyes fall out! I don’t give a fk about anything else!!!

Willfully ignorant is all you are. There’s no rationale in your position!

It’s clear your entire argument boils down to "NINJA loans! Fking PERIOD!" like some kind of magic phrase that explains everything. Newsflash: yelling about NINJA loans doesn't magically make the rest of the context disappear. You're clinging to one part of the problem like a lifeline while willfully ignoring the broader systemic issues that actually led to the 2008 meltdown.

It’s not about just NINJA loans, it's about the greed-fueled practices that banks exploited in a deregulated environment to bundle those loans into ticking time bombs. If you’re too stubborn to see beyond your one-dimensional take, then enjoy your echo chamber.

 

[beagle9]

Beagle9, your response is nothing but a deflection from the core issues. You claim that the banks were merely reacting to "Democrat government" policies, but you ignore the fact that these same banks spent billions lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall to engage in riskier financial activities. They weren’t just responding to political winds, they were actively shaping them to their advantage.

Your logic is flawed when you suggest that the government somehow "inadvertently" caused the crisis. The truth is, that the financial industry knew exactly what it was doing. They lobbied hard to remove regulations that protected the economy from the very kind of meltdown that occurred. And when it all went south, it wasn’t capitalism that saved the day—it was socialism in the form of massive government bailouts that kept the system from completely collapsing.

If you're going to argue that the markets are reactive, then admit that capitalism is inherently unstable, requiring constant intervention to prevent disaster. Without these bailouts—socialist measures to protect a failing capitalist system—the economy would have tanked even harder. So let's not pretend this was just about following the political winds. This was about greed, deregulation, and a capitalist system that repeatedly fails and then expects socialism to pick up the pieces.

Hey it takes two too tango, and one without the other wouldn't have tried to pull what they pulled. So now let's look at governments or the parties that are the weaker in these kinds of set up's or scenario's.

The Democrat party is the weaker when it comes to appeasement or pandering for power, so once it starts running it's mouth trying to gain power (over control of the nation's treasury), then that's when the market's light up, and the world pays attention except unfortunately for us it's usually in a corrupt way.

Just as we see now, the weakness leads to tragic and "unstable" things that even wave out into the world when Democrats are in control. There's no denying it.

The government has the ultimate responsibility to protect and too serve the people of this country, and not to be self-servant instead.

You are the one doing your best to hide the root causes of government becoming corrupt more so at certain times than other's, and that's what ushers in the hell that we receive during and afterwards.

 

[beagle9]

It’s clear your entire argument boils down to "NINJA loans! Fking PERIOD!" like some kind of magic phrase that explains everything. Newsflash: yelling about NINJA loans doesn't magically make the rest of the context disappear. You're clinging to one part of the problem like a lifeline while willfully ignoring the broader systemic issues that actually led to the 2008 meltdown.

It’s not about just NINJA loans, it's about the greed-fueled practices that banks exploited in a deregulated environment to bundle those loans into ticking time bombs. If you’re too stubborn to see beyond your one-dimensional take, then enjoy your echo chamber.

Who started or called for the deregulated environment ? Who is in control of regulation ?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Who started or called for the deregulated environment ? Who is in control of regulation ?

Who started or called for the deregulated environment?

The financial industry has armies of lobbyists, lobbying the government for legislation that serves their vested interests. If there are regulations that undermine their financial interests, they will lobby to alter or even repeal those regulations.

Who is in control of regulation ?

The government regulates the financial industry.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Hey it takes two too tango, and one without the other wouldn't have tried to pull what they pulled. So now let's look at governments or the parties that are the weaker in these kinds of set up's or scenario's.

The Democrat party is the weaker when it comes to appeasement or pandering for power, so once it starts running it's mouth trying to gain power (over control of the nation's treasury), then that's when the market's light up, and the world pays attention except unfortunately for us it's usually in a corrupt way.

Just as we see now, the weakness leads to tragic and "unstable" things that even wave out into the world when Democrats are in control. There's no denying it.

The government has the ultimate responsibility to protect and too serve the people of this country, and not to be self-servant instead.

You are the one doing your best to hide the root causes of government becoming corrupt more so at certain times than other's, and that's what ushers in the hell that we receive during and afterwards.

Your logic is twisted and misguided. You say it "takes two to tango," yet you conveniently overlook the fact that the banks were leading the dance, spending billions to manipulate the very government you're blaming. The financial industry wasn’t just reacting to Democrat policies but actively shaping the rules to suit their greed. Blaming Democrats for being "weaker" is nothing but a lazy excuse to ignore the systemic failures of capitalism, which relies on deregulation and exploitation for short-term profit at the expense of long-term stability.

Keep in mind that the repeal of Glass Steagall was a bipartisan effort, led by both parties. So on that fact alone your attack on Democrats fails.

You talk about government responsibility, yet you ignore how capitalist greed corrupts that government. If the Democrats are weak, it's because they often compromise with capitalist forces that prioritize profit over people. Instead of addressing the real issues, like the financial industry's predatory practices. You deflect and blame political parties for systemic failures ignoring the role of capitalism. The root cause is clear: a capitalist system that repeatedly needs "socialist" bailouts to survive its excesses and greed. Stop pretending it’s a simple matter of political weakness when the entire system is rigged for the rich, no matter who’s in power.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your repeated attempts to dodge the main issue by focusing on technicalities won't work here. Let's be clear: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed financial institutions to merge commercial and investment banking, which led to riskier and less regulated activities. While Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could hold mortgages before the repeal, the removal of the regulatory barriers let them amplify their risky practices through leveraging and complex financial instruments. This directly contributed to their downfall.

If you believe otherwise, where’s your evidence that their speculative practices were not exacerbated by the deregulation? Also, if the repeal was so inconsequential, why did the financial industry invest heavily in lobbying for it? You keep asking for evidence—let’s see yours.

Finally, your assertion that the USSR didn’t have the second-largest economy in the world is blatantly contradicted by extensive data from credible sources like the World Bank, IMF, and UN. These organizations, along with Western academics and specialists who had access to the USSR, consistently ranked it as the second-largest economy globally. The West had numerous ways to verify these facts, so your blanket dismissal based on the notion that the USSR was inherently untruthful doesn’t hold up. Where is your evidence to counter this broad consensus? Without it, your claims against the well-recognized facts, remain baseless.

I'm going to give you one more chance to make a coherent argument, on these issues, before I direct my attention and energy to something more interesting and productive.

the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed financial institutions to merge commercial and investment banking,

Yes. And a few did.

which led to riskier and less regulated activities.

In a few cases. You have yet to show the institutions that were previously limited
by Glass-Steagall had a large role in the mortgage crisis.

While Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could hold mortgages before the repeal, the removal of the regulatory barriers

Which barriers were removed for Bear Stearns and Lehman after GS was gone?

let them amplify their risky practices through leveraging and complex financial instruments.

What were the GS rules about leverage and complex financial instruments?

If you believe otherwise, where’s your evidence that their speculative practices were not exacerbated by the deregulation?

Or your evidence that they were?

Also, if the repeal was so inconsequential, why did the financial industry invest heavily in lobbying for it? You keep asking for evidence—let’s see yours.

Give it a rest already. A few big firms, like Citicorp, lobbied for repeal. Most didn't.

Finally, your assertion that the USSR didn’t have the second-largest economy in the world is blatantly contradicted by extensive data from credible sources like the World Bank, IMF, and UN.

Let's stop arguing over the old lies of your favorite failed shithole.
Commies lied, a lot, about their supposed success. China, Cuba and Venezuela still do. No one is fooled anymore, well, maybe you still are.

 

[TruthNotBS]

the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed financial institutions to merge commercial and investment banking,

Yes. And a few did.

which led to riskier and less regulated activities.

In a few cases. You have yet to show the institutions that were previously limited
by Glass-Steagall had a large role in the mortgage crisis.

While Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could hold mortgages before the repeal, the removal of the regulatory barriers

Which barriers were removed for Bear Stearns and Lehman after GS was gone?

let them amplify their risky practices through leveraging and complex financial instruments.

What were the GS rules about leverage and complex financial instruments?

If you believe otherwise, where’s your evidence that their speculative practices were not exacerbated by the deregulation?

Or your evidence that they were?

Also, if the repeal was so inconsequential, why did the financial industry invest heavily in lobbying for it? You keep asking for evidence—let’s see yours.

Give it a rest already. A few big firms, like Citicorp, lobbied for repeal. Most didn't.

Finally, your assertion that the USSR didn’t have the second-largest economy in the world is blatantly contradicted by extensive data from credible sources like the World Bank, IMF, and UN.

Let's stop arguing over the old lies of your favorite failed shithole.
Commies lied, a lot, about their supposed success. China, Cuba and Venezuela still do. No one is fooled anymore, well, maybe you still are.

Your response amounts to gobbledygook, fuzzy logic. Typical Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your response amounts to gobbledygook, fuzzy logic. Typical Todd.

Look, it was Clinton and Bush pushing the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.


Check this out.


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.


Over $1 trillion by 2002? Damn!


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


Not just Fannie and Freddie. Also, the FHA, VA and other government agencies. Crazy!


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.


70% held by government agencies versus 30% held by banks. So much for your previous claim.


The bulk of subprime mortgages were originated by private lenders and securitized by Wall Street firms. Fannie and Freddie’s involvement in the subprime market was relatively late and smaller in scale compared to the private sector.

You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

Yeah, and spending it on illegal aliens. Now who could be behind that ? 🤔 You mean to tell me that Trump's plan to deport 11 million+ immigrants is not going to cause additional spending? You mean to say that Trump's wall, was going to be free? Mexico certainly was not going to pay for it...

www.usmessageboard.com

Of the 19.2 million subprime and low quality loans that were on the books of government agencies in 2008, 12 million (about 62%) were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. No one who has grasped the significance of these numbers--and there is much more data in my dissent--could believe that Fannie and Freddie were "not a major factor."


All the above excerpts from here......

https://archive.is/IordL#selection-863.192-863.533

originated by private lenders and securitized by Wall Street firms.


With investment banks buying more and more loans themselves each year, Freddie and Fannie began buying a huge volume of mortgage-backed securities from Wall Street as a means to foster affordable housing goals.

As of the end of February 2009, Fannie and Freddie held a combined $292.1 billion in private mortgage-backed securities in their portfolios, according to monthly statements from both companies. On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two entities.

The roots of the financial crisis: Who is to blame?

The top subprime lenders whose loans are largely blamed for triggering the global economic meltdown were owned or bankrolled by banks now collecting billions of dollars in bailout money — including several that have paid huge fines to settle predatory lending charges. These big institutions were...

publicintegrity.org

Wow! To meet their ridiculous subprime mandate from HUD, Fannie and Freddie couldn't buy enough crappy mortgages to securitize, so they also bought already securitized, crappy MBS from Wall Street.

The idea that this was only possible because of the rollback of Glass-Steagall is wrong. Major banks didn't need to become investment banks to feed the demand for MBS. They were financing many of the non-bank mortgage originators who either created their own crappy MBS or sold them to investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, or to GSEs.

They could finance these outside firms under Glass-Steagall and after Glass-Steagall.

Plenty of blame to go around.

Just stop pretending the government and GSEs were a tiny part of the fiasco.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Look, it was Clinton and Bush pushing the GSEs to buy crappy mortgages.

At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.


Check this out.


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.


Over $1 trillion by 2002? Damn!


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


Not just Fannie and Freddie. Also, the FHA, VA and other government agencies. Crazy!


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.


70% held by government agencies versus 30% held by banks. So much for your previous claim.


The bulk of subprime mortgages were originated by private lenders and securitized by Wall Street firms. Fannie and Freddie’s involvement in the subprime market was relatively late and smaller in scale compared to the private sector.

You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

Yeah, and spending it on illegal aliens. Now who could be behind that ? 🤔 You mean to tell me that Trump's plan to deport 11 million+ immigrants is not going to cause additional spending? You mean to say that Trump's wall, was going to be free? Mexico certainly was not going to pay for it...

www.usmessageboard.com

Of the 19.2 million subprime and low quality loans that were on the books of government agencies in 2008, 12 million (about 62%) were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. No one who has grasped the significance of these numbers--and there is much more data in my dissent--could believe that Fannie and Freddie were "not a major factor."


All the above excerpts from here......

https://archive.is/IordL#selection-863.192-863.533

originated by private lenders and securitized by Wall Street firms.


With investment banks buying more and more loans themselves each year, Freddie and Fannie began buying a huge volume of mortgage-backed securities from Wall Street as a means to foster affordable housing goals.

As of the end of February 2009, Fannie and Freddie held a combined $292.1 billion in private mortgage-backed securities in their portfolios, according to monthly statements from both companies. On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two entities.

The roots of the financial crisis: Who is to blame?

The top subprime lenders whose loans are largely blamed for triggering the global economic meltdown were owned or bankrolled by banks now collecting billions of dollars in bailout money — including several that have paid huge fines to settle predatory lending charges. These big institutions were...

publicintegrity.org

Wow! To meet their ridiculous subprime mandate from HUD, Fannie and Freddie couldn't buy enough crappy mortgages to securitize, so they also bought already securitized, crappy MBS from Wall Street.

The idea that this was only possible because of the rollback of Glass-Steagall is wrong. Major banks didn't need to become investment banks to feed the demand for MBS. They were financing many of the non-bank mortgage originators who either created their own crappy MBS or sold them to investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, or to GSEs.

They could finance these outside firms under Glass-Steagall and after Glass-Steagall.

Plenty of blame to go around.

Just stop pretending the government and GSEs were a tiny part of the fiasco.

You’ve thrown out accusations without providing any concrete evidence. Neither you nor your references have shown any proof that the CRA or any other government policy "forced" banks to make these risky loans. The CRA encouraged responsible lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers, but it did not mandate or incentivize banks to lower their lending standards to the point of issuing subprime loans.

You keep referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as if they were the driving force behind the crisis, but again, where’s your evidence? The bulk of subprime lending was done by private lenders, who were not under any government mandate to lower their standards. These private institutions drove the creation and sale of subprime MBS because they were incredibly profitable, not because the government twisted their arm.

Moreover, your attempt to downplay the role of Glass-Steagall's repeal is disingenuous. The repeal allowed commercial banks to merge with investment banks, leading to a dramatic increase in risky speculative activities. The financial industry's massive lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, prove that they had a vested interest in removing these barriers to engage in riskier, more profitable activities. If Glass-Steagall was so inconsequential, why did they invest so much in getting it repealed?

You continue to make sweeping claims without backing them up with solid evidence. So, let's turn the tables: Where is your proof that the CRA forced banks to issue bad loans? Where are your figures showing that Fannie and Freddie were the primary causes of the crisis? Until you can provide clear evidence, your arguments are baseless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You’ve thrown out accusations without providing any concrete evidence. Neither you nor your references have shown any proof that the CRA or any other government policy "forced" banks to make these risky loans. The CRA encouraged responsible lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers, but it did not mandate or incentivize banks to lower their lending standards to the point of issuing subprime loans.

You keep referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as if they were the driving force behind the crisis, but again, where’s your evidence? The bulk of subprime lending was done by private lenders, who were not under any government mandate to lower their standards. These private institutions drove the creation and sale of subprime MBS because they were incredibly profitable, not because the government twisted their arm.

Moreover, your attempt to downplay the role of Glass-Steagall's repeal is disingenuous. The repeal allowed commercial banks to merge with investment banks, leading to a dramatic increase in risky speculative activities. The financial industry's massive lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars, prove that they had a vested interest in removing these barriers to engage in riskier, more profitable activities. If Glass-Steagall was so inconsequential, why did they invest so much in getting it repealed?

You continue to make sweeping claims without backing them up with solid evidence. So, let's turn the tables: Where is your proof that the CRA forced banks to issue bad loans? Where are your figures showing that Fannie and Freddie were the primary causes of the crisis? Until you can provide clear evidence, your arguments are baseless.

Neither you nor your references have shown any proof that the CRA or any other government policy "forced" banks to make these risky loans.


Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

Sumit Agarwal (School of Business, National University of Singapore)
Efraim Benmelech (Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, and National Bureau of Economic Research)
Nittai Bergman (MIT and National Bureau of Economic Research) Amit Seru (University of Chicago and National Bureau of Economic Research)

OCTOBER 2012

Abstract

Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=housing_law_and_policy

You keep referring to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as if they were the driving force behind the crisis, but again, where’s your evidence?


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.


Of the 19.2 million subprime and low quality loans that were on the books of government agencies in 2008, 12 million (about 62%) were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. No one who has grasped the significance of these numbers--and there is much more data in my dissent--could believe that Fannie and Freddie were "not a major factor."


27 million subprime loans in the US financial system.
19.2 million of those held by GSEs and other government agencies,
12 million of those 19.2 million government held mortgages were Fannie and Freddie.

That's about 44% of all subprime mortgages.
That's a driving force all right.


The bulk of subprime lending was done by private lenders,

Do you understand how this works? All the lending is done by private lenders. 100 fucking percent. Fannie and Freddie don't loan to home buyers. Private lenders loan to homebuyers and then

Fannie and Freddie bought the loans.

 

[Arresmillao]

How many of those are bureaucrats and gubmint contractors?

Ultra maga ignorance has no limits, no amount of facts will ever convince them that time after time right wing policies have failed our country. No one can make the understand their cult leader, trump, who is a convicted rapist criminal, traitor will destroy our great country...

 

[jc456]

Ultra maga ignorance has no limits, no amount of facts will ever convince them that time after time right wing policies have failed our country. No one can make the understand their cult leader, trump, who is a convicted rapist criminal, traitor will destroy our great country...

View attachment 1004439

Name a failed policy

 

[beagle9]

The financial industry has armies of lobbyists, lobbying the government for legislation that serves their vested interests. If there are regulations that undermine their financial interests, they will lobby to alter or even repeal those regulations.



The government regulates the financial industry.

Exactly...So you are admitting that it starts with government, and then it blows up from there ?

Now just getting you to admit which party has been the worst offenders of our constitutional government, and basically admitting which party has sold us out is going to be epic.