BF2S Forums "Dear American Liberals" a letter from a law student.

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

*Sigh*

You really need to get it in by spoon don't you lowing ...

The housing market can in a way if you twist it real good be the cause of the crisis, but it isn't ... it is only fuel to get the fire going ... what the article explains is how the housing market sparked an crisis already in development, what the article explains is how the house bubble bursted with the sub primes amongst others but the foundation of the credit crisis was already there and it explains how it all accelerated when speculations in the same market of bad loans were conducted ...


But how can I explain this to you any simpler than I did some posts ago?

Lets go a decade back in time ... you blame the democrats for passing a law or bill that makes this possible, okay ... lets for the continued arguments sake say you are correct that the dems originally did all this all by themselves ... the question is then why on earth didn't the republicants stop this during their time? ... they had 8 years to do something about it no? ... that the dems got this bill passed gives them the entire blaim? ... the whole finacial system failed around this bill don't you think? ... or are you so shallow and dense that you only see what you like to see and what fits your current view of democratic failure blocking out some pieces of information that actually are vital to get the entire picture?

you are spinning your wheels here, and trying to find a way out. The article clearly states this was started by the housing market and it issues. CLEARLY. You wanna agree with this guy in that, but want to disagree with me because I said it.


Coulda swore, I posted links that showed the democrats were warned about this bullshit, yeah, a decade ago.


http://www.truveo.com/Bush-McCain-Warne … 3588284050

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

you are spinning your wheels here, and trying to find a way out. The article clearly states this was started by the housing market and it issues. CLEARLY. You wanna agree with this guy in that, but want to disagree with me because I said it.


Coulda swore, I posted links that showed the democrats were warned about this bullshit, yeah, a decade ago.


http://www.truveo.com/Bush-McCain-Warne … 3588284050

Where is the other link that says the reps couldn't touch this bill while in office?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … nted=print

tried and failed. Who opposed? democrats.

http://new84rules.blogspot.com/2008/09/ … -stop.html



ok now your turn, post links that show this crisis was NOT started in the housing market, and that Democrats did NOT light this fire.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

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...

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data...

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2009-03-10 10:24:06)

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … nted=print

tried and failed. Who opposed? democrats.

http://new84rules.blogspot.com/2008/09/ … -stop.html



ok now your turn, post links that show this crisis was NOT started in the housing market, and that Democrats did NOT light this fire.

Housing is a main, but not the only, issue for this problem.  As I have noted before, greed is largely to blame for this.  You can read the entire story, but I have quoted some of the more relevant data.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

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...

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data...

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

"This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes," Richman said.


and guess who got their coffers filled by Fannie and Freddie, the democrats.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

tried and failed. Who opposed? democrats.

http://new84rules.blogspot.com/2008/09/ … -stop.html



ok now your turn, post links that show this crisis was NOT started in the housing market, and that Democrats did NOT light this fire.

Housing is a main, but not the only, issue for this problem.  As I have noted before, greed is largely to blame for this.  You can read the entire story, but I have quoted some of the more relevant data.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

"This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes," Richman said.


and guess who got their coffers filled by Fannie and Freddie, the democrats.

And Republicans.  That site you linked to earlier had other links, so I looked around.  Yes, of the contributions made by those two entities 57% were Democrats.  That still leaves 43% of those being made to Republicans...so stop trying to blame all this on Dems and realize that unregulated greed got us here.

Karbin wrote:

So... what have we learned about lowing?

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

"This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes," Richman said.


and guess who got their coffers filled by Fannie and Freddie, the democrats.

And Republicans.  That site you linked to earlier had other links, so I looked around.  Yes, of the contributions made by those two entities 57% were Democrats.  That still leaves 43% of those being made to Republicans...so stop trying to blame all this on Dems and realize that unregulated greed got us here.

"Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities."


As if the poor SHOULD be able to get loans, and homes, and tax breaks....NOW for the last time, who is the champions of the poor and the parasites, DEMOCRATS.

FEOS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data...

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

CRA's were setting the bar (driving the market), their private competitors followed trying to protect their market share. Look at the growth of CRA loans over those years. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent (more than twice as much as the opposition). The fact is that when the government changed the rules it sent a huge ripple in the way the entire industry did business.

I think we can all be in agreement that two things caused the financial problems we see today:

1. Subprime mortgages
2. Allowing securities to be backed by subprime mortgages

Mortgage-backed securities would not have been nearly the problem they were/are if not for those mortgages being subprime. That is not ideological...it is a pragmatic approach to the causative and contributive factors to the current mess. What could have been done to mitigate this? Only allow the subprimes to be owned by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Private interests should not have been forced/encouraged to lend under subprime conditions. The govt would still be bailing out some homeowners, but the number would be far fewer...and more importantly, the mortgage-backed securities traded amongst the big boys wouldn't have been so ridiculously toxic.

Last edited by Spark (2009-03-11 03:32:20)

LividBovine wrote:

Spark wrote:

Yes, but saying 'IT'S ALL THE DEMS FAULT' is bordering on ludicrous.

Who is saying that?

LividBovine wrote:

Spark wrote:

Yes, but saying 'IT'S ALL THE DEMS FAULT' is bordering on ludicrous.

Who is saying that?

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

And Republicans.  That site you linked to earlier had other links, so I looked around.  Yes, of the contributions made by those two entities 57% were Democrats.  That still leaves 43% of those being made to Republicans...so stop trying to blame all this on Dems and realize that unregulated greed got us here.

"Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities."


As if the poor SHOULD be able to get loans, and homes, and tax breaks....NOW for the last time, who is the champions of the poor and the parasites, DEMOCRATS.

As commendable as a personal responsibility ethic is, I remain astounded by your idea that the government should not help the poor... do you believe this is just giving handouts to freeloaders too?

Last edited by lowing (2009-03-11 04:52:34)

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

"Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities."


As if the poor SHOULD be able to get loans, and homes, and tax breaks....NOW for the last time, who is the champions of the poor and the parasites, DEMOCRATS.

As commendable as a personal responsibility ethic is, I remain astounded by your idea that the government should not help the poor... do you believe this is just giving handouts to freeloaders too?

On the surface, I see where you are coming from, but lets get real for a second.

If your position is now the govt. should buy people homes now, tell me what incentive do I have to do anything for myself. Why should  Itake the position of working hard busting my ass, if all I SHOULD have to do ( according to you ) is go stand in line for a house?

We live in a country where we are provided the tools to HELP OURSELVES. It is a crazy concept I know, but i works well for those that but forth the effort.


Where do you get this idea that I am supposed to work for the collective? That all of my efforts are supposed to go, NOT toward my family, but toward everyone else? I am sorry, there are programs in place to help people that I help pay for. Using these probrams to better yuorself is on you, NOT me. I really couldn't care less if you better yourself or not. I have my own life to monitor.

microloans have less appeal in the US, because people think it too difficult to escape poverty through private enterprise.

Last edited by Spark (2009-03-11 05:00:12)

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Do you have pride lowing?

I'm sure the answer to that question is yes so I might just ask the next ...

Would you change pride for standing in a line asking for food and housing?

I'm sure the answer to that question is no so I might just ask the next ...

Do you think those standing in line for food and housing would change that for pride in managing their own lives like you do if they could?

yes I have pride.

there already are programs that assist in food and housing. You now want to step it up and provide OWNERSHIP for those things they can not afford, with me paying the bills. Sorry we live in an equal society, so if I gotta get a job and pay for my shit, so do you. It is not " FAIR" that I am shouldered with working for both of us. Remember "fair"? Yeah it was real catchy during the elections.

They live in a free country with all the liberties and freedoms they need to better their situations. The only ingredient they need to provide is ambition. Sorry, I used all mine on myself. If they do not want to drink the water that is already provided ( social programs  loand and grants to better yourself) that is on them, and not me.