TEABAGGING RECAP- Utter Failed Display of Ignorance and LOW Attendance-VIDEO :)

[Soul Crusher]

You know what's a hoot?  It's when someone tries to pin the housing meltdown on the backs of poor-middle class people and gov. programs that might help them.

Sorry man, it just didn't happen the way you described it.  Your summary is deadwrong.

It wasn't fucking poor people who caused this problem.  Massive mortgage securitizationand exotic/subprime mortgages paved the way.  Mortgage refinancing, deregulated lending and elimination of fraud oversight laws led to the housing debacle.

Collateralized Debt Obligations & Credit Default Swaps spread the virus to every mutual fund/REIT on earth.

All because there was not enough regulation and no enforcement of existing regulation to quell the hysterical greed.

Something for nothing.  The same shit that happened with the S & L scandal under Bush I.

Most people agree that Clinton/Gramm pushing through tyhe end of the Glass Steagal act helped start this disaster.  It was Wall Street and the Government working hand in hand that created this mess.

[BM OUT]

This is the same guy who dismisses the facts that FOX has the best ratings on cable television and Rush has 20,000,000 listeners.He says ratings arent the main way to rate success.However,because the tea parties didnt draw 100,000 people an event,its a failure.Very strange.

[Decker]

Most people agree that Clinton/Gramm pushing through tyhe end of the Glass Steagal act helped start this disaster.  It was Wall Street and the Government working hand in hand that created this mess.

That's great.  And what does that have to do with blaming the housing meltdown on the poor?

The repeal of GS was a republican effort passed along party lines and signed into law by a conservative president.  What does that have to do with the poor being the cause of the worldwide economic breakdown?

[Soul Crusher]

That's great.  And what does that have to do with blaming the housing meltdown on the poor?

The repeal of GS was a republican effort passed along party lines and signed into law by a conservative president.  What does that have to do with the poor being the cause of the worldwide economic breakdown?

Whoever says that is wrong. 

[Decker]

Whoever says that is wrong. 

This guy's saying it:

The ChemistV2
Getbig IV

Posts: 1282


    Re: TEABAGGING RECAP- Utter Failed Display of Ignorance and LOW Attendance-VIDEO
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2009, 11:12:00 AM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's funny how everyone blames Bush for the financial disaster we're in..but if anyone bothers to do any fact checking they would know under the Clinton administration, there were policies enacted that basically forced banks and mortgage companies to make loans to people with terrible credit, terrible income history. These were the initial steps that led to the credit crisis. For some reason, the left seems to prioritize the rights of lowlifes, illegal aliens, terrorists and criminals over those of productive , successful U.S. citizens. Can someone explain to me why they would align themselves with a party that does that?

[MCWAY]

That's great.  And what does that have to do with blaming the housing meltdown on the poor?

The repeal of GS was a republican effort passed along party lines and signed into law by a conservative president.  What does that have to do with the poor being the cause of the worldwide economic breakdown?

What 333386 is saying, regarding the housing thing, is that they worked hand-in-hand.

Banks got greedy and stupid, giving loans to anyone with a pulse.

Lower-income people got greedy and stupid, buying houses WAAAAAAAAAAAY outside of their budgets.

I bought my house, during the height of the housing boom, in the 2nd-hottest housing market in the country. We got outbid for houses by tens of thousands of dollars, even when those houses didn't appraise for the value the owners wanted.

[Decker]

What 333386 is saying, regarding the housing thing, is that they worked hand-in-hand.

Banks got greedy and stupid, giving loans to anyone with a pulse.

Lower-income people got greedy and stupid, buying houses WAAAAAAAAAAAY outside of their budgets.

I bought my house, during the height of the housing boom, in the 2nd-hottest housing market in the country. We got outbid for houses by tens of thousands of dollars, even when those houses didn't appraise for the value the owners wanted.

I'm not disagreeing with him.

[Soul Crusher]

I'm not disagreeing with him.

The bottom line is that these banks gave these people credit KNOWING & HOPING they would default because they assumed that they would be getting an appreciating asset still going up in value and/or have these people paying insane interest rates wo ever paying the principal down.

The government, through Fanny and Freddy aided and abbetted this chaos by buying these mortgages and re-selling them and prompted banks to give out loans to people who were not credit worthy.   
 
Both gambled and lost and is the reason I say no bailouts to Wall Street.

They knew better.  The little greedy people did not know better when they should have.     

[Decker]

The bottom line is that these banks gave these people credit KNOWING & HOPING they would default because they assumed that they would be getting an appreciating asset still going up in value and/or have these people paying insane interest rates wo ever paying the principal down.

The government, through Fanny and Freddy aided and abbetted this chaos by buying these mortgages and re-selling them and prompted banks to give out loans to people who were not credit worthy.   
 
Both gambled and lost and is the reason I say no bailouts to Wall Street.

They knew better.  The little greedy people did not know better when they should have.     

That would be textbook fraud. 

These people were never charged b/c the oversight laws were not enforced.

Regulations just get in the way apparently.

There should be bailouts (the economy needs the bail out $$) and criminal investigations to recoup the money and jail the guilty. 

[Soul Crusher]

That would be textbook fraud. 

These people were never charged b/c the oversight laws were not enforced.

Regulations just get in the way apparently.

There should be bailouts (the economy needs the bail out $$) and criminal investigations to recoup the money and jail the guilty. 

Of course it was fraud.  However, because a gun, knife, blood is not involved, people dont take it serious enough.  Mortgage brokers committed massive fraud, got paid up front, and left a lot of banks with fraudulent loans.   

[Decker]

Of course it was fraud.  However, because a gun, knife, blood is not involved, people dont take it serious enough.  Mortgage brokers committed massive fraud, got paid up front, and left a lot of banks with fraudulent loans.   

There is always a paper trail and a way to get these bastards.  Steal $50 sticking up a gas station and you're put away for 5-7  years.

Steal 5 million....and you buy that dream house in Costa Rica.

[The ChemistV2]

That's great.  And what does that have to do with blaming the housing meltdown on the poor?

The repeal of GS was a republican effort passed along party lines and signed into law by a conservative president.  What does that have to do with the poor being the cause of the worldwide economic breakdown?

I never said it was the fault of the poor, I was referring to legislation passed during the Clinton administration that forced mortgage companies to lower their lending standards under the concept that home ownership should be made more "equitable". We're talking about goverment policy, not poor people. If you do some research, you'll see this is true.

[Soul Crusher]

There is always a paper trail and a way to get these bastards.  Steal $50 sticking up a gas station and you're put away for 5-7  years.

Steal 5 million....and you buy that dream house in Costa Rica.

Sometimes I think you paint me with the wrong brush, I think these bankers and wall steeeters need to be put on a firing squad.  

They will do anything to keep their wasteful lifestyles, far worse than shooting their own mothers.  Tanking the entire country is more like it.  

    

[The ChemistV2]

Sometimes I think you paint me with the wrong brush, I think these bankers and wall steeeters need to be put on a firing squad.  

They will do anything to keep their wasteful lifestyles, far worse than shooting their own mothers.  Tanking the entire country is more like it.  

    

I agree totally. Although the govt enacted the "lending to losers" legislation, the Wall Streeters came up with the idea of packaging these worthless loans into investments....only caring about their immediate profit and not the inevitable consequences. 

[Busted]

This is the same guy who dismisses the facts that FOX has the best ratings on cable television and Rush has 20,000,000 listeners.He says ratings arent the main way to rate success.However,because the tea parties didnt draw 100,000 people an event,its a failure.Very strange.

Fox is in more homes than other networks there my friend...

[Decker]

I never said it was the fault of the poor, I was referring to legislation passed during the Clinton administration that forced mortgage companies to lower their lending standards under the concept that home ownership should be made more "equitable". We're talking about goverment policy, not poor people. If you do some research, you'll see this is true.

Loans to poor people did not cause the housing meltdown.  Which Clinton laws did what?

What law(s) "forced banks and mortgage companies to make loans to people with terrible credit, terrible income history"?

[The ChemistV2]

Loans to poor people did not cause the housing meltdown.  Which Clinton laws did what?

What law(s) "forced banks and mortgage companies to make loans to people with terrible credit, terrible income history"?

It's called the Community Re-investment Act enacted under Clinton in 1997. Here's some info:
A prime example of a public program gone awry—and one of the key causes of the current credit crisis—is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). CRA was designed to ensure that all homeowners were treated “equally” by avoiding “redlining,” the deliberate shifting of financing away from low-income or high-risk areas. While CRA was designed to serve a positive goal, the economic implications of the new regulation were far more complicated. CRA required mortgage lenders to provide loans to riskier clients, often in stark contrast to what market forces may have dictated. This was done by incentivizing mortgage lenders to make loans for homes in certain zip codes and also by penalizing perceived failures to do enough.
These new loans spawned the subprime mortgage market, a financial sector that is now embroiled in controversy, whose collapse triggered the current downward economic trend. CRA is in many ways socialized financing, forcing banks to lend counter to market trends, thus increasing the risk of failure. We are now caught in a financial downturn that has emerged as a direct result of these risky loans. Any expansion of CRA that limits market flexibility and unnecessarily increases risk is not good policy: A financial collapse benefits no one.

[Decker]

It's called the Community Re-investment Act enacted under Clinton in 1997. Here's some info:
A prime example of a public program gone awry—and one of the key causes of the current credit crisis—is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). CRA was designed to ensure that all homeowners were treated “equally” by avoiding “redlining,” the deliberate shifting of financing away from low-income or high-risk areas. While CRA was designed to serve a positive goal, the economic implications of the new regulation were far more complicated. CRA required mortgage lenders to provide loans to riskier clients, often in stark contrast to what market forces may have dictated. This was done by incentivizing mortgage lenders to make loans for homes in certain zip codes and also by penalizing perceived failures to do enough.
These new loans spawned the subprime mortgage market, a financial sector that is now embroiled in controversy, whose collapse triggered the current downward economic trend. CRA is in many ways socialized financing, forcing banks to lend counter to market trends, thus increasing the risk of failure. We are now caught in a financial downturn that has emerged as a direct result of these risky loans. Any expansion of CRA that limits market flexibility and unnecessarily increases risk is not good policy: A financial collapse benefits no one.

"Only 6% of all higher priced loans were covered by the CRA"

Federal Reserve: “Community Reinvestment Act – Not the Cause of the Housing Crisis”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) welcomed the unequivocal conclusion of Federal Reserve officials that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was not responsible for the on-going housing crisis.

“CRA has helped ensure that families and small businesses in lower income and minority communities are not starved of vital loans and investments,” Ellison said.    “There are those who continue to make ideologically-driven claims that CRA is the cause of our current woes.  The Fed’s research demonstrates without a doubt that those allegations simply don’t hold any water,” Ellison stated.
http://www.insightnews.com/index.php?id=4178:federal-reserve-community-reinvestment-act-not-the-cause-of-the-housing-crisis&option=com_content&catid=10:news&Itemid=6

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

...

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

Like I said, the poor were not the cause for the housing meltdown.  The CRA is not to blame either.

Bush (and his appointees & colleagues) is largely to blame.

[Soul Crusher]

The cause of the crisis was greedy disgusting banksters creating these loans and selling them to other banks as "packaged securities" to other banks knowing they were trash to begin with.  Because the originiating bank did not have to sit with the loan that it knew would go into default they could care less whether the bank buying the loan got fucked since they were not going to suffer any negative consequences.

The govt gave cover to the banks with the CRA and Fanny and Freddy buying up some many of these loans which never should have been created in the first place.

[The ChemistV2]

"Only 6% of all higher priced loans were covered by the CRA"

Federal Reserve: “Community Reinvestment Act – Not the Cause of the Housing Crisis”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – US Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) welcomed the unequivocal conclusion of Federal Reserve officials that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was not responsible for the on-going housing crisis.

“CRA has helped ensure that families and small businesses in lower income and minority communities are not starved of vital loans and investments,” Ellison said.    “There are those who continue to make ideologically-driven claims that CRA is the cause of our current woes.  The Fed’s research demonstrates without a doubt that those allegations simply don’t hold any water,” Ellison stated.
http://www.insightnews.com/index.php?id=4178:federal-reserve-community-reinvestment-act-not-the-cause-of-the-housing-crisis&option=com_content&catid=10:news&Itemid=6

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

...

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

Like I said, the poor were not the cause for the housing meltdown.  The CRA is not to blame either.

Bush (and his appointees & colleagues) is largely to blame.

Obviously the democrat who wrote that has his version. I could reprint 50 articles from informed people that say the opposite. The truth is the government pressured the banks and mortgage companies to lower lending standards. What 333386 says is also true. More than one villain here.

[Decker]

Obviously the democrat who wrote that has his version. I could reprint 50 articles from informed people that say the opposite. The truth is the government pressured the banks and mortgage companies to lower lending standards. What 333386 says is also true. More than one villain here.

redlining has a history in property case law.  It was real.

The CRA has been around since 1977.  Are you trying to tell me that it took 30+ years for the nefarious effects to manifest?

Or are you claiming that the 1999 changes wrought by Phil Gramm are responsible?

Or is it the 2005 deregulatory efforts?

If you have any empirical evidence that supports your claim, feel free to pony it up.  Otherwise you're just making unsupported statements that jibe with rightwing talking points.

[Soul Crusher]

redlining has a history in property case law.  It was real.

The CRA has been around since 1977.  Are you trying to tell me that it took 30+ years for the nefarious effects to manifest?

Or are you claiming that the 1999 changes wrought by Phil Gramm are responsible?

Or is it the 2005 deregulatory efforts?

If you have any empirical evidence that supports your claim, feel free to pony it up.  Otherwise you're just making unsupported statements that jibe with rightwing talking points.

people are also not realizing the fact that the 500k cap gains exemption fostered a ton of flipping as well.