• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mitt should expose Obama's roll in the economic meltdown of 2008..

Mycroft said:
Yes. Bush was part of it...to begin with. When it was clear there was a problem and Bush wanted fixes put into place, his Democratic Congress refused...soon, it was too late.
Click to expand...

spot on..GWB tried.. but idiots Maxine Waters blocked him..
 
KopeAcetic said:
I understand you think I am simply shrugging information you feel to be true because I don't agree with it but I assure you that is not the point of why I am refusing to trust it. I'll actually give the reasons:

My reasoning for not trusting a highly partisan information source on a subject I don't have all of the facts on is simple: If you don't have all of the facts it's quite simple for someone to give you one side of the story to fill the gaps in, and to make it seem logical. This is why I don't trust highly partisan sources (American Spectator - daily KOS, MSNBC - Fox News). I try to read some of the more unbiased reporters from each side (you can't ever get truly unbiased information, so I try to get my information from as many, least biased sources as possible).

I'm not ignoring simple facts because it's from a right-wing site, I try to get a broad understanding of the facts without being partisan, it's the only way to get real information and the broadest knowledgebase.
Click to expand...

Okay. Then I suggest you investigate the fact...whether they are given by the Spectator or anyone else.
 
KopeAcetic said:
I understand you think I am simply shrugging information you feel to be true because I don't agree with it but I assure you that is not the point of why I am refusing to trust it. I'll actually give the reasons:

My reasoning for not trusting a highly partisan information source on a subject I don't have all of the facts on is simple: If you don't have all of the facts it's quite simple for someone to give you one side of the story to fill the gaps in, and to make it seem logical. This is why I don't trust highly partisan sources (American Spectator - daily KOS, MSNBC - Fox News). I try to read some of the more unbiased reporters from each side (you can't ever get truly unbiased information, so I try to get my information from as many, least biased sources as possible).

I'm not ignoring simple facts because it's from a right-wing site, I try to get a broad understanding of the facts without being partisan, it's the only way to get real information and the broadest knowledgebase.
Click to expand...

awwwww that post made me want to pet a kitten and get some puppy breath kisses...

golf clap...

PS: Me too.. : ) but Kos and MSNBC??? that you consider that even news is disturbing..
 
Hicup said:
I'm not confused about anything. I think you're misunderstanding me. I acknowledge that ratings agencies rate these derivatives but what they rate them on is based on their risk. Insured by AIG was a lessor risk both on paper and in principle. The net result was an attractive investment vehicle. AIG was lowered of course they were but not before the whole thing was exposed, and that's the rub isn't it.


Tim-
Click to expand...
Again, you are melding the two separate issues and you acknowledge it. The ratings of the individual device (a CDO or MBS) is different from the rating of an investment bank (AIG), if you could recognize what Kope was talking about (the former, not the later) then there could be an actual debate, but it is impossible when you can't address either subject accurately.
 
Mycroft said:
The CRA was the tool used by the community activists...like Obama. That got the ball rolling which then snowballed, got bigger and bigger and hit the wall.

Result: Meltdown.
Click to expand...
Like I said, when you start from a faulty basis and compound it with fantasy, you end up where you are.
 
Travis007 said:
Its not only relevent its the whole issue...answer the question...
Click to expand...

The issue is that white people were getting loans and black people that MET THE SAME STANDARDS were not.

What is your point of that question....that blackness increases default risk? That Citi was right not to loan to blacks with the same income and credit scores as white people they loaned to?
 
iliveonramen said:
The issue is that white people were getting loans and black people that MET THE SAME STANDARDS were not.

What is your point of that question....that blackness increases default risk? That Citi was right not to loan to blacks with the same income and credit scores as white people they loaned to?
Click to expand...

How many White people did Obama represent? ...and they were turned down becasue they simply did not qualify...LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHERS...
 
iliveonramen said:
How is that relevant?

Discrimination is when I have one group I give loans to...but don't give loans to another group with the same income/credit rating. The lawsuit didn't say that they are black therefore they should get loans easier. It said they were unfairly discriminated again...discrimination is unfairly applying you're rules based on age/gender/race/ etc.

The article states how many individuals are current from the lawsuit...of course we just went through a housing bubble where individuals from all income brackets lost their homes.

I guess the question is...do you think their blackness makes them a higher credit risk than individuals with the same credit score and income? Because that's what Citibank lending practices implied.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the article posted but I think the numbers were 189 loans made and 18 current as of now. Please tell me how it is only 10% of those involved in the lawsuit could stay current.

If you are going to blame the housing bubble then the numbers must be 10% across the board that have been able to stay current. Is that the case?

Isn't it obvious, no matter what the court ruled, and we don't know why they ruled that way, that the people were initially turned down because they were not qualified for the loans?

If a bank has a 90% default rate on their loans, they go out of business.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm not blaming the people who got the loans.

I'm blaming the people...like Obama...who induced the banks to give loans to people who had no business getting them.
Click to expand...

You don't blame people that took something for nothing?
 
Mason66 said:
I didn't read the article posted but I think the numbers were 189 loans made and 18 current as of now. Please tell me how it is only 10% of those involved in the lawsuit could stay current.

If you are going to blame the housing bubble then the numbers must be 10% across the board that have been able to stay current. Is that the case?

Isn't it obvious, no matter what the court ruled, and we don't know why they ruled that way, that the people were initially turned down because they were not qualified for the loans?

If a bank has a 90% default rate on their loans, they go out of business.
Click to expand...

Thank you... exactly..Obama sued banks to give bad loans because he is a race hustler...and Mitt should make this clear.. as Obama claims it was all GWB and he is a savior
 
Mason66 said:
You don't blame people that took something for nothing?
Click to expand...

I dont either.. they were told from Obama they were deserving..they were pawns..
 
Travis007 said:
Thank you... exactly..Obama sued banks to give bad loans because he is a race hustler...and Mitt should make this clear.. as Obama claims it was all GWB and he is a savior
Click to expand...

I think it goes farther than just the initial loans too. After this precedent was set, the banks had no choice but to give loans to people that did not qualify, so Obamas hand is in more of this than just the 90% default rate on his own lawsuit.
 
Travis007 said:
I dont either.. they were told from Obama they were deserving..they were pawns..
Click to expand...

Yes but somebody with integrity that knows they do not qualify should not take the loan.
 
I didn't read the article posted but I think the numbers were 189 loans made and 18 current as of now. Please tell me how it is only 10% of those involved in the lawsuit could stay current.

If you are going to blame the housing bubble then the numbers must be 10% across the board that have been able to stay current. Is that the case?
Click to expand...
No...but I would definately say that the white individuals they loaned to meeting the standards the lawsuit are based on are probably the same. Which is the point of the settlement. Of course they are higher risk because they are lower income....but the bank already were loaning to individuals under the criteria they met. The lawsuit wasn't about X amount of black people need loans therefore change standards to give them loans.

It was these black individuals meet the same criteria as these white individuals...why did you give loans to the whites and not the blacks.

Isn't it obvious, no matter what the court ruled, and we don't know why they ruled that way, that the people were initially turned down because they were not qualified for the loans?
Click to expand...

The bank ruled on the side of the lawsuit because the data provided from the records of Citi proved that it was giving loans to white individuals with the same criteria of the black individuals they turned down. It's not new...redlining does exist and has a pretty large stack of empirical data that proves it exists.

If a bank has a 90% default rate on their loans, they go out of business.
Click to expand...
Of course...I have a feeling you're under the impression this lawsuit was about loosening standards...not fairly applying their current standards to everyone that walks into the bank.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes. Bush was part of it...to begin with. When it was clear there was a problem and Bush wanted fixes put into place, his Democratic Congress refused...soon, it was too late.
Click to expand...

90% of those subprime stinkers had already been written by 2007 and foreclosures were already on the rise. It was already way too late. Why do you think nothing was done while the GOP had full control? Say in 2002-2006 when 2 million subprime loans were made and sold.
 
Travis007 said:
How many White people did Obama represent? ...and they were turned down becasue they simply did not qualify...LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHERS...
Click to expand...

Travis....the lawsuit was based on the fact that white individuals meeting the same criteria as the black individuals the lawsuit represented where getting loans....just the black people weren't.

It has nothing to do with not qualifying...it has to do with the fact that White Person A with say 20,000 in income with a credit score of 620 got a loan and Black Person B with an income of 20,000 in income with a credit score of 620 did not get a loan.

You see how that's unfair! That was done on a massive scale as in whole neighborhoods of minorites were discriminated against. The lawsuit had nothing to do with saying Person B (black person) should only have 15,000 in income and a credit score of 500. It wasn't about applying different standards...it was about applying the standards already used regardless of race.
 
Travis007 said:
I dont either.. they were told from Obama they were deserving..they were pawns..
Click to expand...

Everyone who took a bad mortgage did so only because Obama told them they should take it, and every bank who offered those bad mortgages were doing so only because they were forced in a lawsuit by Obama?

Crazy Crazy Crazy
 
Mycroft said:
Like the liberals, you are blaming that which came later.

I suggest you check out the link I gave Gimmesometruth
Click to expand...

You mean the red herring about the CRA program that stopped banks from refusing loans because of their location and did not modify any other qualifications?
What came later WAS the problem and Bush was the head cheerleader. Subprime loans would not qualify under CRA rules.
Bush and the banks threw out the rules in a mad dash to swindle homeowners and investors alike.
 


 
 
Mycroft said:
[video=youtube;Lr1M1T2Y314]www.youtube.com/watch?
Click to expand...
Um....the 1999 HUD crackdown on housing discrimination.....was not the CRA.

But that doesn't matter to Faux viewers, it is all too complicated for them to understand.

Nice attempt at a video mash-up, but too bad it is all out of context and poorly edited.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um....the 1999 HUD crackdown on housing discrimination.....was not the CRA.

But that doesn't matter to Faux viewers, it is all too complicated for them to understand.

Nice attempt at a video mash-up, but too bad it is all out of context and poorly edited.
Click to expand...

It laid the groundwork...set the concept in motion. Obama and Acorn took that ball and ran with it. THEY are the ones to use the power of the CRA.
 
Mycroft said:
It laid the groundwork...set the concept in motion. Obama and Acorn took that ball and ran with it. THEY are the ones to use the power of the CRA.
Click to expand...
Um, again, the "power" of the CRA existed long before the crash, they were a tiny percentage of the total number of loans made after 2002, their default levels were lower than the subprime market BECAUSE they had HIGHER requirements than the non-conforming subprime loans that did default. The speculation and subsequent housing crash was NOT caused by a tiny sector of conforming loans, you just have no understanding of the housing market if you believe this myth.

If you REALLY believe this myth, tell me, how did the CRA requirements cause WORLD-WIDE housing speculation? Did it cause housing speculation in Iceland, both in the residential AND business property markets too?
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
It laid the groundwork...set the concept in motion. Obama and Acorn took that ball and ran with it. THEY are the ones to use the power of the CRA.
Click to expand...

So Bush get a pass from you for selling $440 Billion of the banks subprime mortgages to Fannie Mae? Do you think Bush had Barney Franks hand up his ass while he gave that speech to HUD? The entire CRA program effected no more than a few 100 milion dollars in mortgages. You do look foolish...and ridiculously partisan.

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
So Bush get a pass from you for selling $440 Billion of the banks subprime mortgages to Fannie Mae? Do you think Bush had Barney Franks hand up his ass while he gave that speech to HUD? The entire CRA program effected no more than a few 100 milion dollars in mortgages. You do look foolish...and ridiculously partisan.

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Click to expand...

Bush's speech was three years before Barney's speech. Yes, Bush encouraged Fannie to take on more low-income loans. He also recognized later when Fannie had gone overboard and tried to put on the brakes. That's when Barney got into the act and prevented any correction.

Now you...you insist on misrepresenting what you are presented with. I said that the CRA...the actions of ACORN (and Obama) were at the root of the meltdown. I didn't say it was all there was to the meltdown. The very first link I presented spelled that out quite well.

Your misrepresentations are noted...and dismissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom