Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Run away, lazy commie liar.
You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!
- Thread starter Luckyone
- Start date
Run away, lazy commie liar.
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
No one is running but you.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
The onus is on you to provide the evidence for your 70% figure being that we were discussing Russia and NATO, the Russo-Ukrainian war, and because you were getting your ass kicked on that issue, you decided to change the topic and mention my 20% figure, claiming your 70% is correct. OK, well, present the link to your 70% claim, or you're the one who is being lazy and lying. You know that the moment you present me with that link I'm analyzing the data in context and will embarrass you, exposing your false, poorly interpreted assumptions.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
As soon as you provide your fictious source for your 20% claim, I'll repost the
source for the 70% figure.
Unless you don't actually have a source?
LOL!
we were discussing Russia and NATO,
And you were whining that the newly freed nations in Eastern Europe joined NATO.
Because NATO makes Russia sad.
You know that the moment you present me with that link I'm analyzing the data in context and will embarrass you, exposing your false, poorly interpreted assumptions.
Why didn't you do that the first time I posted it?
Didn't have any fake sources back then?
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
You changed the topic from what we were discussing to Fanie Mae, hence you now repost your link. I'm not chasing after your links in a forum thread with 79 pages.
Because NATO expansion unnecessarily creates instability in the world and undermines our ability to co-exist peacefully with Russia, a nuclear superpower. You're confusing someone kicking your ass with the facts and rational geopolitical analysis to "whining" because you're projecting yourself on me. You're the "whiner" and crappy analyst.
I did, you're ignoring what I said, like always. You pretend the points I present don't exist, forcing your debate opponent to keep repeating the same points, over and over again. Repost your link for the 70% and I will elaborate on my 20% again, with evidence.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You changed the topic from what we were discussing to Fanie Mae, hence you now repost your link. I'm not chasing after your links in a forum thread with 79 pages.
You mentioned "made up claims".
That reminded me of your older, made-up claims.
Because NATO expansion unnecessarily creates instability in the world
The newly freed nations feel more stable. Even if Russia feels sad.
I did, you're ignoring what I said, like always
When my facts refuted your fake claims, you did what? LOL!
Repost your link for the 70%
Only because I'm tired of your whining.
You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!
What a bunch of bull shite, because without going into the numbers, and then detailing the causes and affects, then there is no way to say who or what exactly was the author of those job's, otherwise that may have been created by his own hand involved. Remember that in most cases president's...
www.usmessageboard.com
That will be a nice change.
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
You changed the topic from what we were discussing to Fanie Mae, hence you now repost your link. I'm not chasing after your links in a forum thread with 79 pages.
You mentioned "made up claims".
That reminded me of your older, made-up claims.
Because NATO expansion unnecessarily creates instability in the world
The newly freed nations feel more stable. Even if Russia feels sad.
I did, you're ignoring what I said, like always
When my facts refuted your fake claims, you did what? LOL!
Repost your link for the 70%
Only because I'm tired of your whining.
I will elaborate on my 20% again, with evidence.You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!
What a bunch of bull shite, because without going into the numbers, and then detailing the causes and affects, then there is no way to say who or what exactly was the author of those job's, otherwise that may have been created by his own hand involved. Remember that in most cases president's...
Regardless of how they supposedly might feel, they're not more stable or safe. NATO doesn't belong in Eastern Europe, for all of the reasons I mentioned, which you conveniently ignore.
That link doesn't lead to the website you mentioned earlier, but to one of the pages on this thread. What post on that page, is the one with your evidence? Post #. You're not even on that page.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Regardless of how they supposedly might feel, they're not more stable or safe.
They're safer and more stable than Georgia, Ukraine or any non-NATO neighbors of Russia.
NATO doesn't belong in Eastern Europe,
If Russia hadn't enslaved Eastern Europe after WWII, NATO wouldn't be there.
That link doesn't lead to the website you mentioned earlier
The links and excerpts I used are in that post.
Post #. You're not even on that page.
Clicking the link gets you to post #1275.
In your settings, what do you have for your preferences, do you have 50 posts per page?
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
Far from it, they're on the brink of WW3, complete annihilation and so are you and I, thanks to "Todd-Logic". Your foreign policy methodology leads to perpetual instability, conflict, and a much higher probability of WW3 with Russia. We could've had a good relationship with post-Soviet, democratic Russia, and improved their diplomatic relations with all of Eastern Europe, being arbiters of cooperation and peace. Instead, we allowed Todd to rape Russia, economically and otherwise, and spread NATO $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, into Eastern Europe, right up to Russia's border, when it was weak and most vulnerable.
We took advantage of POST-SOVIET, POST-SOVIET, DEMOCRATIC, PRE-PUTIN Russia and managed to extend NATO, a Cold War dinosaur, a military alliance that is inherently hostile to Russia, operationally, doctrinally, and historically, right into Eastern Europe. The fact that you got away with that Todd, when Russia was vulnerable and unable to assert its national security interests in the region, doesn't imply that your beloved NATO members today in 2024 are in a better position, security-wise, than they would've been if we would've adopted a more considerate, diplomatic posture towards Russia in the 1990s.
Unfortunately, there are too many Todds in the US government and among the capitalist ruling elites, and they saw a struggling, post-Soviet, Democratic Russia, not as an opportunity to establish and cultivate good relations with their former foe to solidify and expand democracy, peace and prosperity for everyone in Eastern Europe, but to grind that former adversary into dust. Well, Putin appeared in 2000 and began rebuilding Russia, from a nation in despair on the brink of collapse to a nation that today, is able to challenge Todd's 1990s and early 2000s, NATO - "Manifest Destiny" policy. You've created a mess Todd, and now you and I are more likely to get pulverised in a Russian nuclear attack, than we would've if we had adopted that more diplomatic, cooperative, peace-affirming posture I described earlier.
Georgia and Ukraine are Todd's fault. Todd-Logic did it.
I will click on the link again.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Far from it, they're on the brink of WW3, complete annihilation and so are you and I,
They'd feel so much better if they were invaded by Russia.
We could've had a good relationship with post-Soviet, democratic Russia,
We still can. Withdraw all the Russian troops from neighboring nations and disarm. We'll be gentle.
Instead, we allowed Todd to rape Russia,
Did you see what she was wearing?
Well, Putin appeared in 2000 and began rebuilding Russia, from a nation in despair on the brink of collapse to a nation that today, is able to challenge Todd's 1990s and early 2000s, NATO - "Manifest Destiny" policy.
By not beating Ukraine in over 2.5 years?
Damn, 90 Rubles to the Dollar. Maybe it should be called the Russian Rubble?
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
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...
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......
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.
Source for my 20%:
Loading…
web.archive.org
Original:
Loading…
www.mcclatchydc.com
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
- More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
- Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
- Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
The reason for this was that private Wall St. firms got into subprime securitization in a big way in the 2000s (and were making money hand over fist, for a time). In 2006 Fannie decided that the reason they were losing market share so fast to private firms was that their underwriting standards were higher. Consequently, they lowered their standards to compete. This was already well into the housing bubble. Like I said Todd, you need to read the data in context.
The "Carter/Clinton caused the bubble via the CRA" canard is another one of your fallacious talking points. However, most of the subprime lenders of the 2000s were not subject to the CRA, which applies only to traditional banks (banks which actually weathered the recession well compared to other players in the mortgage industry). The CRA never required banks to abandon proper lending standards, regardless. Those who use this talking point never present evidence to back their claim.
Probably the best explanation of what the heck happened in the housing bubble is NPR's Peabody Award-winning broadcast, The Giant Pool of Money. There was more demand (globally) for investment opportunities than there were viable investments. Wall St.'s way of meeting the demand was to go big on mortgage-backed securities. In order to create enough securities to meet the demand, more mortgage loans had to be issued. Bad decisions snowballed from there, such as lowering lending standards down to nothing, leaning on rating agencies for AAA:
ratings,Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street
Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia
Fanne Mae wasn't an important driver of the crisis. The housing bubble was driven by price increases between 2002- and 2005, the same period GSE-origninating loans was at a local minimum (alternate graph) and private loans surged (alternate graph).
Loading…
www.princeton.edu
Last edited:
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
The plutocrats are also responsible, not just corrupt politicians. The corruption in our government is bipartisan, both Republican and Democrat. Both parties serve vested interests at the expense of the American public.
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
You ignored all of my talking points, but that's OK, others won't.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Source for my 20%:
Loading…
web.archive.org
Original:
Loading…
www.mcclatchydc.com
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
- More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
- Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
- Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
The reason for this was that private Wall St. firms got into subprime securitization in a big way in the 2000s (and were making money hand over fist, for a time). In 2006 Fannie decided that the reason they were losing market share so fast to private firms was that their underwriting standards were higher. Consequently, they lowered their standards to compete. This was already well into the housing bubble. Like I said Todd, you need to read the data in context.
The "Carter/Clinton caused the bubble via the CRA" canard is another one of your fallacious talking points. However, most of the subprime lenders of the 2000s were not subject to the CRA, which applies only to traditional banks (banks which actually weathered the recession well compared to other players in the mortgage industry). The CRA never required banks to abandon proper lending standards, regardless. Those who use this talking point never present evidence to back their claim.
Probably the best explanation of what the heck happened in the housing bubble is NPR's Peabody Award-winning broadcast, The Giant Pool of Money. There was more demand (globally) for investment opportunities than there were viable investments. Wall St.'s way of meeting the demand was to go big on mortgage-backed securities. In order to create enough securities to meet the demand, more mortgage loans had to be issued. Bad decisions snowballed from there, such as lowering lending standards down to nothing, leaning on rating agencies for AAA:
ratings,Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street
Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Fanne Mae wasn't an important driver of the crisis. The housing bubble was driven by price increases between 2002- and 2005, the same period GSE-origninating loans was at a local minimum (alternate graph) and private loans surged (alternate graph).
Loading…
www.princeton.edu
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Who issued the other 16%?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You ignored all of my talking points,
That Russia has a really big inferiority complex? No, I got that.
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
Go ahead, you tell me. I don't do interviews, so present your case.
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
Really Todd? Your answer underscores your shallowness and how disingenuous you are.
beagle9
Diamond Member
- Nov 28, 2011
- 48,463
- 18,859
- 2,250
He's only giving you the disrespect that you deserve. Think about it..
TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 5,525
- 2,068
- 208
Why is that? Elaborate.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Nearly 60 cases dismissed due to corruption in Alabama police department- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 3
-
-
So, Who Else Here Is Opposed To Trump? Stand Up With A Reply!
- Started by Highlight
- Replies: 5
-
Congressman Jim McGovern’s (D) 23 year old daughter died unexpectedly
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 31
-
