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

[TruthNotBS]

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.

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

No, I'm not saying that. It starts with capitalism and its penchant for taking control of government through its money. Capitalists bribe politicians, they use their wealth to corrupt the government to do their bidding, even at the expense of the public or the working class. We currently live in a plutocratic oligarchy, controlled by big money. Corporate interest rules, not the public good. Get it? Probably not, because you don't want to get it, you just want to disingenuously go in circles, asserting your ignorance. Debating for the sake of debating.

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.

Both parties are shit. One is shitier than the other when it comes to worker rights and that's the Republican Party, but the Democrats are also in the pockets of big business and they will often undermine the interests of the working class. So both parties are guilty, with one being the lesser evil of the two, as far as working-class interests are concerned, and that's the Democratic Party. If I had to choose one party over the other, I would choose the Democrats. I'm an independent, not affiliated or registered with any party.

When it comes to the economy, historical data often shows that Democratic administrations tend to perform better for the working class. Here are some key stats:

1. Job Creation: Over the past several decades, Democratic presidents have generally overseen more robust job creation. For example, between 1945 and 2020, 62 million jobs were created under Democratic presidents compared to 35 million under Republicans.
2. GDP Growth: On average, GDP growth tends to be higher under Democratic administrations. From 1947 to 2020, the average annual GDP growth was around 4.4% under Democratic presidents, compared to about 2.5% under Republicans.
3. Unemployment Rates: Historically, unemployment rates tend to be lower at the end of Democratic presidencies. For instance, Bill Clinton left office with an unemployment rate of 4%, while Barack Obama brought the rate down to 4.7% after inheriting it at 10% due to the 2008 financial crisis.
4. Stock Market Performance: While not a direct indicator of working-class well-being, the stock market generally performs better under Democratic presidents. Since 1929, the average annual return for the S&P 500 has been around 10.8% under Democrats compared to 5.6% under Republicans.
5. Income Growth: Under Democratic presidents, income growth for the middle class has typically been higher. Between 1947 and 2016, real median family income grew by 2.5% annually under Democratic presidents, compared to 0.6% under Republicans.

Here are some links to sources that provide data and analysis on how Democratic administrations have historically performed better for the working class:

1. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for GDP growth data:
   
   • BEA Website
2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for job creation and unemployment data:
   
   • BLS Website
3. Pew Research Center for income inequality and income growth data:
   
   • Pew Research Center
4. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study by Alan Blinder and Mark Watson:
   
   • NBER Study

These sources provide comprehensive data and research to support the claim that Democratic administrations have historically led to better economic outcomes for the working class.

As a working-class person, with class consciousness, I usually support the party that better serves the interests of the working class.

 

[TruthNotBS]

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.

There's no evidence that the government forced or twisted the arm of banks to engage in the reckless behaviors that led to the 2008 financial crisis. The CRA encouraged lending to underserved communities, but it did not dictate the creation of NINJA loans or the bundling of subprime mortgages into toxic securities. If the banks were merely following government orders, why did they lobby so intensely to repeal Glass-Steagall? You’re avoiding the key issue; banks acted out of greed, not coercion. Show me the evidence where the government forced banks to engage in these corrupt practices.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Name a failed policy

Several policies implemented during the Trump administration can be seen as having failed the American working class, either by not delivering on their promises or by exacerbating existing economic and social issues:

1. 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)​

• Benefits to the Wealthy: The TCJA significantly reduced corporate tax rates and offered substantial tax cuts for the wealthy, under the premise that these benefits would trickle down to the working class through job creation and wage increases. However, the primary beneficiaries were corporations and the wealthy, who used the tax cuts largely for stock buybacks and executive bonuses, with minimal impact on wages or job creation for the working class.

2. Unprepared Trade War with China​

• Tariffs on Imported Goods: The Trump administration's trade war, particularly the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods, led to higher prices for many consumer goods. These tariffs were often passed on to consumers, disproportionately affecting working-class families who already struggle with the cost of living. Trump has done this without investing heavily in American manufacturing, which would replace the need for the American consumer to purchase products from China.
• Job Losses in Agriculture: The trade war also hurt American farmers. Retaliatory tariffs by China and other countries led to a decline in exports, harming agricultural communities and leading to job losses in sectors that were already vulnerable.

3. Dismantling Labor Protections​

• Rollback of Overtime Pay Protections: The Trump administration rolled back an Obama-era rule that expanded overtime pay protections to millions of workers. By reducing the threshold for overtime eligibility, many working-class Americans lost out on potential income from overtime work.
• Anti-Union Measures: The Trump administration supported various anti-union measures, including appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that favored employers over workers. This weakened the power of labor unions, making it more difficult for workers to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.

4. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate​

• Increased Healthcare Costs: The repeal of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate led to an increase in healthcare premiums for many Americans. Without the mandate, fewer healthy people enrolled in insurance plans, driving up costs for everyone else. For many working-class families, this meant higher out-of-pocket healthcare expenses, further straining their finances.

5. Weakening of Consumer Financial Protections​

• Dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): The Trump administration weakened the CFPB, an agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from predatory financial practices. The weakening of the CFPB left consumers, particularly the working class, more vulnerable to exploitation by banks, payday lenders, and other financial institutions.

6. Cuts to Social Programs​

• Proposed Budget Cuts: The Trump administration repeatedly proposed budgets that included cuts to critical social safety net programs such as SNAP (food stamps), housing assistance, and Medicaid. Although many of these cuts were not fully implemented due to resistance by Democrat legislators in Congress, the administration's stance reflected a willingness to reduce support for the most vulnerable, disproportionately affecting working-class Americans.

7. Environmental Deregulation​

• Impact on Health and Jobs: The Trump administration rolled back numerous environmental regulations, particularly those related to air and water quality. While these rollbacks were often framed as efforts to protect jobs in industries like coal and manufacturing, they also posed significant health risks, particularly to working-class communities. Long-term, these deregulatory actions could lead to increased healthcare costs and job losses as industries fail to transition to cleaner technologies.

 

[gipper]

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

You’re no different if you think Kamala isn’t just as bad as Don.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's no evidence that the government forced or twisted the arm of banks to engage in the reckless behaviors that led to the 2008 financial crisis. The CRA encouraged lending to underserved communities, but it did not dictate the creation of NINJA loans or the bundling of subprime mortgages into toxic securities. If the banks were merely following government orders, why did they lobby so intensely to repeal Glass-Steagall? You’re avoiding the key issue; banks acted out of greed, not coercion. Show me the evidence where the government forced banks to engage in these corrupt practices.

The CRA encouraged lending to underserved communities,

Banks lent to underserved communities by lowering their lending standards.

You’re avoiding the key issue; banks acted out of greed, not coercion.

Government idiocy did not force banks to sell crappy mortgages to Fannie and Freddie.

Government idiocy did force Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages from banks.

When the government rewards dangerous harmful behavior, harmful behavior increases.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The CRA encouraged lending to underserved communities,

Banks lent to underserved communities by lowering their lending standards.

You’re avoiding the key issue; banks acted out of greed, not coercion.

Government idiocy did not force banks to sell crappy mortgages to Fannie and Freddie.

Government idiocy did force Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages from banks.

When the government rewards dangerous harmful behavior, harmful behavior increases.

1. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and Lending Standards​

• The CRA was enacted to address discriminatory lending practices like redlining, ensuring that banks provided credit to underserved communities. However, the CRA did not mandate or encourage banks to lower lending standards. In fact, studies have shown that the majority of subprime loans originated from institutions not subject to the CRA. The notion that the CRA forced banks to engage in risky lending is a myth that has been debunked multiple times. The real drivers of the risky lending practices were the unregulated mortgage brokers and lenders, many of whom were not covered by the CRA.

2. Bank Greed vs. Government Coercion​

• You’re correct that banks acted out of greed, but this greed was fueled by a deregulated financial environment that allowed them to engage in risky behavior with little oversight. The government did not force banks to sell toxic mortgages; rather, it was the banks that aggressively marketed these products, often deceiving borrowers about the risks involved. The pursuit of profit through the creation and sale of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) drove the demand for more mortgages, leading to lower standards.

3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s Role​

• It’s misleading to say that the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy 'crappy mortgages.' While it’s true that Fannie and Freddie bought risky loans, they were private institutions motivated by profit, just like the banks. They were late to the game, buying these loans in an attempt to compete with the private-label mortgage-backed securities market, which had already been flooded with subprime loans. The primary culprits here were the private financial institutions that originated and sold these toxic assets with little to no regulatory oversight, not the government.

4. Deregulation and Lack of Oversight​

• The root of the 2008 financial crisis lies in the extensive deregulation that began in the 1980s and culminated in the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. This allowed commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies to merge and engage in risky financial practices without adequate safeguards. The lack of regulation and oversight created an environment where financial institutions could engage in highly speculative activities with little regard for the consequences.

5. Rewarding Dangerous Behavior​

• The real reward for dangerous behavior came from the private sector, where financial institutions and their executives reaped enormous profits from risky lending practices and the securitization of these loans. The government’s role was more about failing to regulate these activities than actively encouraging them. However, when the crisis hit, it was the government that had to step in to prevent a total collapse of the financial system, not because it caused the crisis, but because it was left to clean up the mess created by the financial industry’s reckless behavior.

Blaming the government alone for the 2008 financial crisis ignores the role that unregulated capitalism, financial greed, and a lack of oversight played in creating the perfect storm. While the government made mistakes, it’s disingenuous to suggest that it was the primary driver of the crisis. The crisis was the result of a complex interplay of factors, with the financial sector’s greed and lack of regulation at the heart of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and Lending Standards​

• The CRA was enacted to address discriminatory lending practices like redlining, ensuring that banks provided credit to underserved communities. However, the CRA did not mandate or encourage banks to lower lending standards. In fact, studies have shown that the majority of subprime loans originated from institutions not subject to the CRA. The notion that the CRA forced banks to engage in risky lending is a myth that has been debunked multiple times. The real drivers of the risky lending practices were the unregulated mortgage brokers and lenders, many of whom were not covered by the CRA.

2. Bank Greed vs. Government Coercion​

• You’re correct that banks acted out of greed, but this greed was fueled by a deregulated financial environment that allowed them to engage in risky behavior with little oversight. The government did not force banks to sell toxic mortgages; rather, it was the banks that aggressively marketed these products, often deceiving borrowers about the risks involved. The pursuit of profit through the creation and sale of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) drove the demand for more mortgages, leading to lower standards.

3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s Role​

• It’s misleading to say that the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy 'crappy mortgages.' While it’s true that Fannie and Freddie bought risky loans, they were private institutions motivated by profit, just like the banks. They were late to the game, buying these loans in an attempt to compete with the private-label mortgage-backed securities market, which had already been flooded with subprime loans. The primary culprits here were the private financial institutions that originated and sold these toxic assets with little to no regulatory oversight, not the government.

4. Deregulation and Lack of Oversight​

• The root of the 2008 financial crisis lies in the extensive deregulation that began in the 1980s and culminated in the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. This allowed commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies to merge and engage in risky financial practices without adequate safeguards. The lack of regulation and oversight created an environment where financial institutions could engage in highly speculative activities with little regard for the consequences.

5. Rewarding Dangerous Behavior​

• The real reward for dangerous behavior came from the private sector, where financial institutions and their executives reaped enormous profits from risky lending practices and the securitization of these loans. The government’s role was more about failing to regulate these activities than actively encouraging them. However, when the crisis hit, it was the government that had to step in to prevent a total collapse of the financial system, not because it caused the crisis, but because it was left to clean up the mess created by the financial industry’s reckless behavior.

Blaming the government alone for the 2008 financial crisis ignores the role that unregulated capitalism, financial greed, and a lack of oversight played in creating the perfect storm. While the government made mistakes, it’s disingenuous to suggest that it was the primary driver of the crisis. The crisis was the result of a complex interplay of factors, with the financial sector’s greed and lack of regulation at the heart of it.

However, the CRA did not mandate or encourage banks to lower lending standards.

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’re correct that banks acted out of greed, but this greed was fueled by a deregulated financial environment that allowed them to engage in risky behavior with little oversight.

This greed was fueled by a HUD regulation that created a massive demand for subprime mortgages.

It’s misleading to say that the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy 'crappy mortgages.'

HUD forced Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages.

 

[TruthNotBS]

However, the CRA did not mandate or encourage banks to lower lending standards.

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’re correct that banks acted out of greed, but this greed was fueled by a deregulated financial environment that allowed them to engage in risky behavior with little oversight.

This greed was fueled by a HUD regulation that created a massive demand for subprime mortgages.

It’s misleading to say that the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy 'crappy mortgages.'

HUD forced Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages.

The CRA didn’t mandate or force banks to engage in the reckless behavior they did, nor did it drive them to bundle those risky loans into toxic securities. The banks lobbied hard to repeal Glass-Steagall to exploit these deregulated opportunities for massive profits. Blaming HUD or the CRA is a distraction from the real issue: the banking industry's pursuit of short-term gains without regard for long-term stability.

You keep pointing to HUD as if it had a gun to the banks' heads, but where is your evidence that HUD or any government body forced these banks to engage in the predatory practices that ultimately led to the crisis? The banks made these choices because they saw an opportunity to profit immensely, not because the government twisted their arms. So, unless you have concrete evidence that HUD forced banks to lower their standards and create the crisis, your argument doesn’t hold water.

I'm done with you on this topic Todd, you can have the last word and delude yourself into thinking you've "won" something.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The CRA didn’t mandate or force banks to engage in the reckless behavior they did, nor did it drive them to bundle those risky loans into toxic securities. The banks lobbied hard to repeal Glass-Steagall to exploit these deregulated opportunities for massive profits. Blaming HUD or the CRA is a distraction from the real issue: the banking industry's pursuit of short-term gains without regard for long-term stability.

You keep pointing to HUD as if it had a gun to the banks' heads, but where is your evidence that HUD or any government body forced these banks to engage in the predatory practices that ultimately led to the crisis? The banks made these choices because they saw an opportunity to profit immensely, not because the government twisted their arms. So, unless you have concrete evidence that HUD forced banks to lower their standards and create the crisis, your argument doesn’t hold water.

I'm done with you on this topic Todd, you can have the last word and delude yourself into thinking you've "won" something.

The CRA didn’t mandate or force banks to engage in the reckless behavior they did

In order to give mortgages in "underserved areas" they had to reduce their standards. When you reduce your lending standards you have more mortgage defaults.

The banks lobbied hard to repeal Glass-Steagall to exploit these deregulated opportunities for massive profits.


A few big banks did. Most banks did not turn to investment banking after
Glass-Steagall was removed.

Blaming HUD or the CRA is a distraction from the real issue:


By the time the mortgage bubble burst....

"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"

Holy shit!!!


70% of the crappy mortgages in the US were held by government agencies like Fannie and Freddie. Was that the fault of the government or was it Citicorp's fault?


You keep pointing to HUD as if it had a gun to the banks' heads,

Moron. HUD had a gun to the heads of Fannie and Freddie.

"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"

And that was before the bubble really got going.

Over $1 trillion!!!

"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." "

I'm done with you on this topic Todd, you can have the last word and delude yourself into thinking you've "won" something.

Of course you're done.
Run away again, you stupid commie twat.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The CRA didn’t mandate or force banks to engage in the reckless behavior they did

In order to give mortgages in "underserved areas" they had to reduce their standards. When you reduce your lending standards you have more mortgage defaults.

The banks lobbied hard to repeal Glass-Steagall to exploit these deregulated opportunities for massive profits.


A few big banks did. Most banks did not turn to investment banking after
Glass-Steagall was removed.

Blaming HUD or the CRA is a distraction from the real issue:


By the time the mortgage bubble burst....

"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"

Holy shit!!!


70% of the crappy mortgages in the US were held by government agencies like Fannie and Freddie. Was that the fault of the government or was it Citicorp's fault?


You keep pointing to HUD as if it had a gun to the banks' heads,

Moron. HUD had a gun to the heads of Fannie and Freddie.

"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"

And that was before the bubble really got going.

Over $1 trillion!!!

"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." "

I'm done with you on this topic Todd, you can have the last word and delude yourself into thinking you've "won" something.

Of course you're done.
Run away again, you stupid commie twat.

No one is running from you Todd, I just value my time and energy, and I'm able to see when my opponent is resorting to simplistic, irrational arguments, like you're doing now. We don't live in a democracy (rule of the people), but under a plutocratic oligarchy controlled by private vested interests, namely, capitalism. It's the capitalist ruling class that owns our government so whatever you believe the government did, was driven by the pursuit of profits and power. Capitalism results in endless cycles of crisis. Cronyism is endemic to capitalism.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The CRA didn’t mandate or force banks to engage in the reckless behavior they did

In order to give mortgages in "underserved areas" they had to reduce their standards. When you reduce your lending standards you have more mortgage defaults.

The banks lobbied hard to repeal Glass-Steagall to exploit these deregulated opportunities for massive profits.


A few big banks did. Most banks did not turn to investment banking after
Glass-Steagall was removed.

Blaming HUD or the CRA is a distraction from the real issue:


By the time the mortgage bubble burst....

"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"

Holy shit!!!


70% of the crappy mortgages in the US were held by government agencies like Fannie and Freddie. Was that the fault of the government or was it Citicorp's fault?


You keep pointing to HUD as if it had a gun to the banks' heads,

Moron. HUD had a gun to the heads of Fannie and Freddie.

"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"

And that was before the bubble really got going.

Over $1 trillion!!!

"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." "

I'm done with you on this topic Todd, you can have the last word and delude yourself into thinking you've "won" something.

Of course you're done.
Run away again, you stupid commie twat.

Todd's answer to the cause of the 2008 recession is "The government did it", ignoring all of the following:

• In its January 2011 report, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC, a committee of U.S. congressmen) concluded that the financial crisis was avoidable and was caused by:[234][235][236][237][238]
  
  • "widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision", including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic assets.
  • "dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions" including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk.
  • "a combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency" by financial institutions and by households that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis.
  • ill preparation and inconsistent action by government and key policy makers lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw that "added to the uncertainty and panic".
  • a "systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics" at all levels.
  • "collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization pipeline".
  • deregulation of 'over-the-counter' derivatives, especially credit default swaps.
  • "the failures of credit rating agencies" to correctly price risk.
• "Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse" (known as the Levin–Coburn Report) by the United States Senate concluded that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street".[239]
• The high delinquency and default rates by homeowners, particularly those with subprime credit, led to a rapid devaluation of mortgage-backed securities including bundled loan portfolios, derivatives and credit default swaps. As the value of these assets plummeted, buyers for these securities evaporated and banks who were heavily invested in these assets began to experience a liquidity crisis.
• Securitization, a process in which many mortgages were bundled together and formed into new financial instruments called mortgage-backed securities, allowed for shifting of risk and lax underwriting standards. These bundles could be sold as (ostensibly) low-risk securities partly because they were often backed by credit default swap insurance.[240] Because mortgage lenders could pass these mortgages (and the associated risks) on in this way, they could and did adopt loose underwriting criteria.
• Lax regulation allowed predatory lending in the private sector,[241][242] especially after the federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws in 2004.[243]
• The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),[244] a 1977 U.S. federal law designed to help low- and moderate-income Americans get mortgage loans required banks to grant mortgages to higher risk families.[245][246][247][248] Granted, in 2009, Federal Reserve economists found that, "only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations [related] to the CRA", and that "CRA-related loans appear[ed] to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans". These findings "run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the [mortgage crisis]."[249]
• Reckless lending by lenders such as Bank of America's Countrywide Financial unit was increasingly incentivized and even mandated by government regulation.[250][251][252] This may have caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lose market share and to respond by lowering their own standards.[253]
• Mortgage guarantees by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi-government agencies, which purchased many subprime loan securitizations.[254] The implicit guarantee by the U.S. federal government created a moral hazard and contributed to a glut of risky lending.
• Government policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers; overvaluation of bundled subprime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate; questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers; compensation structures by banks and mortgage originators that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation; and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[255][256]
• The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which partially repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States and increased speculation on the part of depository banks.[257]
• Credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the financial risk involved with mortgage loan-related financial products, and governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address changes in financial markets.[258][259][260]
• Variations in the cost of borrowing.[261]
• Fair value accounting was issued as U.S. accounting standard SFAS 157 in 2006 by the privately run Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)—delegated by the SEC with the task of establishing financial reporting standards.[262] This required that tradable assets such as mortgage securities be valued according to their current market value rather than their historic cost or some future expected value. When the market for such securities became volatile and collapsed, the resulting loss of value had a major financial effect upon the institutions holding them even if they had no immediate plans to sell them.[263]
• Easy availability of credit in the US, fueled by large inflows of foreign funds after the 1998 Russian financial crisis and 1997 Asian financial crisis of the 1997–1998 period, led to a housing construction boom and facilitated debt-financed consumer spending. As banks began to give out more loans to potential home owners, housing prices began to rise. Lax lending standards and rising real estate prices also contributed to the real estate bubble. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[264][233][265]
• As part of the housing and credit booms, the number of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), which derived their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, these investors reported significant losses.[266]
• Falling prices also resulted in homes worth less than the mortgage loans, providing borrowers with a financial incentive to enter foreclosure. Foreclosure levels were elevated until early 2014.[267] drained significant wealth from consumers, losing up to $4.2 trillion[268] Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses were estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[266]
• Financialization – the increased use of leverage in the financial system.
• Financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, as well as certain, differently regulated banks, assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or losses.[269] These losses affected the ability of financial institutions to lend, slowing economic activity.
• Some critics contend that government mandates forced banks to extend loans to borrowers previously considered uncreditworthy, leading to increasingly lax underwriting standards and high mortgage approval rates.[270][250][271][251] These, in turn, led to an increase in the number of homebuyers, which drove up housing prices. This appreciation in value led many homeowners to borrow against the equity in their homes as an apparent windfall, leading to over-leveraging.

2007–2008 financial crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anyone with half a brain can see the situation is a bit more complex than Todd's version.

 

[beagle9]

No, I'm not saying that. It starts with capitalism and its penchant for taking control of government through its money. Capitalists bribe politicians, they use their wealth to corrupt the government to do their bidding, even at the expense of the public or the working class. We currently live in a plutocratic oligarchy, controlled by big money. Corporate interest rules, not the public good. Get it? Probably not, because you don't want to get it, you just want to disingenuously go in circles, asserting your ignorance. Debating for the sake of debating.


Both parties are shit. One is shitier than the other when it comes to worker rights and that's the Republican Party, but the Democrats are also in the pockets of big business and they will often undermine the interests of the working class. So both parties are guilty, with one being the lesser evil of the two, as far as working-class interests are concerned, and that's the Democratic Party. If I had to choose one party over the other, I would choose the Democrats. I'm an independent, not affiliated or registered with any party.

When it comes to the economy, historical data often shows that Democratic administrations tend to perform better for the working class. Here are some key stats:

1. Job Creation: Over the past several decades, Democratic presidents have generally overseen more robust job creation. For example, between 1945 and 2020, 62 million jobs were created under Democratic presidents compared to 35 million under Republicans.
2. GDP Growth: On average, GDP growth tends to be higher under Democratic administrations. From 1947 to 2020, the average annual GDP growth was around 4.4% under Democratic presidents, compared to about 2.5% under Republicans.
3. Unemployment Rates: Historically, unemployment rates tend to be lower at the end of Democratic presidencies. For instance, Bill Clinton left office with an unemployment rate of 4%, while Barack Obama brought the rate down to 4.7% after inheriting it at 10% due to the 2008 financial crisis.
4. Stock Market Performance: While not a direct indicator of working-class well-being, the stock market generally performs better under Democratic presidents. Since 1929, the average annual return for the S&P 500 has been around 10.8% under Democrats compared to 5.6% under Republicans.
5. Income Growth: Under Democratic presidents, income growth for the middle class has typically been higher. Between 1947 and 2016, real median family income grew by 2.5% annually under Democratic presidents, compared to 0.6% under Republicans.

Here are some links to sources that provide data and analysis on how Democratic administrations have historically performed better for the working class:

1. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for GDP growth data:
   
   • BEA Website
2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for job creation and unemployment data:
   
   • BLS Website
3. Pew Research Center for income inequality and income growth data:
   
   • Pew Research Center
4. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study by Alan Blinder and Mark Watson:
   
   • NBER Study

These sources provide comprehensive data and research to support the claim that Democratic administrations have historically led to better economic outcomes for the working class.

As a working-class person, with class consciousness, I usually support the party that better serves the interests of the working class.

You are so brainwashed it's pathetic... You constantly ignore the "elephant's" in the maze of room's for which you are walking through, and that is definitely being done by you on purpose.

Independent my arse...

So the party of abnormal behavior's, deviant activities such as men crashing women's sports etc, and for whom are haters and/or disregarders of the miracle of life, where it is all spilling over into it's politics and into the mainstream while touting normalcy or needing to be normalized constantly,,,,,, ummmm is the party you'd place your bets on these day's eh ?

The party that normalizes abnormal number's that are never what they seem to be is the party you fall for eh ?

The party where everything it touches turns to chit or rather it works to turn it into chit is the party you will vote for eh ?

The party that has shown in fact that all of the above is true in more ways than one, uhhhhh is the party you endorse eh ?

Nice try on recruitment of the "independents" with your bull chit, but no one is as stupid as you want them to be.

 

[beagle9]

No one is running from you Todd, I just value my time and energy, and I'm able to see when my opponent is resorting to simplistic, irrational arguments, like you're doing now. We don't live in a democracy (rule of the people), but under a plutocratic oligarchy controlled by private vested interests, namely, capitalism. It's the capitalist ruling class that owns our government so whatever you believe the government did, was driven by the pursuit of profits and power. Capitalism results in endless cycles of crisis. Cronyism is endemic to capitalism.

Capitalism works when we have a government that works, but unfortunately we have had weak government's representing us, otherwise that has profited itself by using capitalism as an easier doorway for it's corruption.

With that said, we only have certain option's for certain platform's of government to be used, but if the officer's of government choose corruption in order to enrich themselves at out expense, then no platform of a corrupted government is workable. We lose and they win as we except the crumbs that it throws down to us.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Capitalism works when we have a government that works, but unfortunately we have had weak government's representing us, otherwise that has profited itself by using capitalism as an easier doorway for it's corruption.

With that said, we only have certain option's for certain platform's of government to be used, but if the officer's of government choose corruption in order to enrich themselves at out expense, then no platform of a corrupted government is workable. We lose and they win as we except the crumbs that it throws down to us.

To make better sense of your gobbledygook, define your terms...

Capitalism works when we have a government that works, but unfortunately we have had weak government's representing us,

How do you define a capitalism that "works"? You're saying "Capitalism works when....". What does it mean for capitalism "to work"? Likewise, what do you consider a "government that works"? How do you define that? Why do you believe we have a "weak government", and in contrast, what constitutes a "strong government" in your opinion?

otherwise that has profited itself by using capitalism as an easier doorway for it's corruption.

What do you mean by the government "profiting itself by using capitalism as an easier doorway for its corruption"? That sounds like gibberish, but maybe you can better define what you're trying to say and it will make more sense.

With that said, we only have certain option's for certain platform's of government to be used, but if the officer's of government choose corruption in order to enrich themselves at out expense, then no platform of a corrupted government is workable. We lose and they win as we except the crumbs that it throws down to us.

What we need to do is take money out of politics, through campaign reform, and other policies that make it extremely difficult for politicians to serve the vested interests of wealthy capitalists at the expense of the public good.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You are so brainwashed it's pathetic... You constantly ignore the "elephant's" in the maze of room's for which you are walking through, and that is definitely being done by you on purpose.

Independent my arse...

So the party of abnormal behavior's, deviant activities such as men crashing women's sports etc, and for whom are haters and/or disregarders of the miracle of life, where it is all spilling over into it's politics and into the mainstream while touting normalcy or needing to be normalized constantly,,,,,, ummmm is the party you'd place your bets on these day's eh ?

The party that normalizes abnormal number's that are never what they seem to be is the party you fall for eh ?

The party where everything it touches turns to chit or rather it works to turn it into chit is the party you will vote for eh ?

The party that has shown in fact that all of the above is true in more ways than one, uhhhhh is the party you endorse eh ?

Nice try on recruitment of the "independents" with your bull chit, but no one is as stupid as you want them to be.

Your response is a mess of incoherent drivel, and it’s not surprising given the absurdity of the positions you’re trying to defend. Let’s break down why your views are as pathetic as they are uninformed.

First off, you accuse me of being brainwashed, but it’s clear you’re the one who’s swallowed the lies of laissez-faire, neoliberal, trickle-down economics whole. Let me spell it out for you: capitalism, especially in its most unregulated forms, is a system that thrives on corruption. It buys politicians, it twists government policies to favor the wealthy, and it consistently screws over working-class people like you, if you even realize it.

You accuse me of trying to recruit independents with 'bull chit,' but the truth is, anyone with a shred of class consciousness can see through the nonsense you’re spouting. The Democratic Party isn’t perfect, but at least they’re not trying to destroy the working class in the name of 'freedom', which, under your ideology, is really just freedom for the rich to exploit everyone else.

So, Beagle9, nice try with your weak, muddled arguments, but no one with half a brain is buying what you’re selling. It’s time to wake up and realize that capitalism is the real abnormality, a system that’s failed the majority while enriching a tiny few at the top. And if you’re not willing to see that, then you’re just another pawn in their game.


4o

 

[beagle9]

To make better sense of your gobbledygook, define your terms...



How do you define a capitalism that "works"? You're saying "Capitalism works when....". What does it mean for capitalism "to work"? Likewise, what do you consider a "government that works"? How do you define that? Why do you believe we have a "weak government", and in contrast, what constitutes a "strong government" in your opinion?


What do you mean by the government "profiting itself by using capitalism as an easier doorway for its corruption"? That sounds like gibberish, but maybe you can better define what you're trying to say and it will make more sense.



What we need to do is take money out of politics, through campaign reform, and other policies that make it extremely difficult for politicians to serve the vested interests of wealthy capitalists at the expense of the public good.

Already laws on the books for politician's not to accept gifts and money for the sale of it's offices be it for personal enrichment or for private or foreign sector gains, but as we've seen "good luck" getting a crooked political class that has every base covered too prosecute itself or worry about anyone outside the loop to prosecute them. Even the special councils are seemingly on the take or rather they are biased.

Oh, and as for you acting stupid when asking what does someone mean when they speak(?), is just you acting stupid on purpose.

 

[beagle9]

Your response is a mess of incoherent drivel, and it’s not surprising given the absurdity of the positions you’re trying to defend. Let’s break down why your views are as pathetic as they are uninformed.

First off, you accuse me of being brainwashed, but it’s clear you’re the one who’s swallowed the lies of laissez-faire, neoliberal, trickle-down economics whole. Let me spell it out for you: capitalism, especially in its most unregulated forms, is a system that thrives on corruption. It buys politicians, it twists government policies to favor the wealthy, and it consistently screws over working-class people like you, if you even realize it.

You accuse me of trying to recruit independents with 'bull chit,' but the truth is, anyone with a shred of class consciousness can see through the nonsense you’re spouting. The Democratic Party isn’t perfect, but at least they’re not trying to destroy the working class in the name of 'freedom', which, under your ideology, is really just freedom for the rich to exploit everyone else.

So, Beagle9, nice try with your weak, muddled arguments, but no one with half a brain is buying what you’re selling. It’s time to wake up and realize that capitalism is the real abnormality, a system that’s failed the majority while enriching a tiny few at the top. And if you’re not willing to see that, then you’re just another pawn in their game.


4o

Nice try, but you are way off and you know it. Like I said, you'd rather ignore all the elephant's stampeding your arse in the room's, and all in order to get your way, but you lose in the end while the system is restored to it's proper order, otherwise as best as it can be restored after what has taken place during Democrat rule.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Nice try, but you are way off and you know it. Like I said, you'd rather ignore all the elephant's stampeding your arse in the room's, and all in order to get your way, but you lose in the end while the system is restored to it's proper order, otherwise as best as it can be restored after what has taken place during Democrat rule.

You're just spewing more gobbledygook.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Already laws on the books for politician's not to accept gifts and money for the sale of it's offices be it for personal enrichment or for private or foreign sector gains, but as we've seen "good luck" getting a crooked political class that has every base covered too prosecute itself or worry about anyone outside the loop to prosecute them. Even the special councils are seemingly on the take or rather they are biased.

Oh, and as for you acting stupid when asking what does someone mean when they speak(?), is just you acting stupid on purpose.

You're clueless to the fact that politicians receive millions for campaign ads and other resources from corporations and lobbyist-run organizations representing big business. That's why we need to reform the way campaigns are funded, among other aspects of how politicians interact with big business.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one is running from you Todd, I just value my time and energy, and I'm able to see when my opponent is resorting to simplistic, irrational arguments, like you're doing now. We don't live in a democracy (rule of the people), but under a plutocratic oligarchy controlled by private vested interests, namely, capitalism. It's the capitalist ruling class that owns our government so whatever you believe the government did, was driven by the pursuit of profits and power. Capitalism results in endless cycles of crisis. Cronyism is endemic to capitalism.

No one is running from you Todd,

You are running away, rather than admitting that the huge number and dollar amount of government held subprime mortgages, well over 50% of all subprime mortgages, can't be dismissed as a minor, unimportant factor in the bubble and crash.