Page 6 of 70 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 694

Thread: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    01-09-12 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,014

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Some one else expressed this better than I would have in another thread on another topic. Let me quote:
    Let's see, Sorros funds MoveOn.org and Sorros single-handedly destroyed The Bank of England...I would say he's pretty good at meyhem. That is no fallacy my friend.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    nope
    lots of good paper survived the meltdown
    high end assets held their value
    my personal residence has done nothing but appreciate since the bubble burst (but at a lower rate)
    25% of all Americans are in homes underwater. That you are not is not going to change the dynamic.

    no they didn't
    fannie and freddie required loans to conform to their regulations
    that's why they were bypassed when the makers of non-conforming loans found a way to sell them on wall street instead of to the traditional secondary lender, fannie mae
    interest rates were low
    those high risk non-conforming loans were generating substantially higher yields than would be realized with conforming loans
    that demand on wall street for high yield paper is what sparked the bubble
    Read Cuomo's lips. They compelled "higher risk, higher default" loans. Go find the original 20 minute speech and Q and A. Couldn't be more clear. The point of it all is not so much that higher risk loans were made, but that more buyers were pulled into the market. The added buyers started the bubble, not that some buyers were higher risk.

    fannie made stupid investments, by buying the CDOs in an effort to enjoy the gains other lenders were realizing because those other lenders did not have to make conforming loans ... at least as long as wall street was buying them
    but fannie's and freddie's regulatory restrictions prohibiting non-conforming loans prevented them from being a substantial party to the bubble
    their investments in CDO's caused them (and the taxpayers who backed their losses) to be the victim of the bubble
    Yes, we agree. Fannie was stupid like everyone else. But the bubble was 4-5 years inflated by then. Fannie's involvement at that point did not matter. They were just trying to make money too at that point. FF did lower their lending standards too though. They did start to make lousier loans, again so as to not miss out on the frenzy. However, I am talking about what got it all started. There was essentially no stopping it after the first few years, until it popped. No politician was going to stop it.


    not true. there were the usual number of creditworthy borrowers receiving loans. at the time, i was underwriting lots of them
    Again, it really does not matter. Your credit worthy buyers were willing to pay more for a house than what had been the usual inflationary increase. Because the bubble had begun. Glass Steagle was repealed in 1999. MBS's etc didn't really start to fly for another few years, as investment firms saw the huge opportunity to make money off the bubble.


    i missed seeing your cite which would show us that lenders were required to make non-creditworthy loans
    offer that up and i will make good on my promise - now to the both of you

    again, offer a cite showing that lenders were required to make non-creditworthy loans and i will make a public apology to both of you
    now, banks were expected to make creditworthy loans in any neighborhood from which it was accepting deposits. previously, banks would accept deposits from low end communities while refusing to make ANY loans within those communities. that failure by the banks to make legitimate, creditworthy loans instigated the Community Reinvestment Act. neither that act, nor its regulations, required banks to make non-creditworthy loans
    As Cuomo said "higher risk, higher default rates". As I noted, this would come down to a definition of "credit-worthy", and "not credit worthy". However, we have the exact video of Cuomo admitting a setllement, based on a DoJ lawsuit against a Texas bank, that the bank had agreed to make loans that he admitted were "higher risk", etc.

    Dude, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck .... its a duck.

    you keep insisting this and yet you cannot offer anything to prove it. prove it. prove me wrong by proving the government required lenders to issue non-creditworthy loans
    You can hide behind "non-credit worthy" all day long. Clearly they were compelled to make "less credit worthy" loans. Loans they had deemed "non-credit worthy" before the settlement.


    I encourage folks to look at the video. The answers, in Cuomo's own words, start at about 2:15. Enjoy.

  3. #53
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,197

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    That is whacked logic. Housing inflation spread from the US, for sure. But it spread the same way there as here, that being banks started making lousy loans, bringing more buyers in. That downgrading of loan standards began right here in the USA. See Cuomo's exact words in the video.
    It is not whacked logic. There is no spread of housing costs. There is no global housing market. Housing prices are EXTREMELY localized. If US lenders were FORCED to give loans to subprime in the US then it would be a localized housing bubble.

    This statement by you is bass ackwards: "This was a supply side bubble based on CDO's mislabeled as AAA, causing massive amounts of capital to pour into housing". CDO's did not drive money into housing. Mortgage Backed Securities did not buy the houses. It was the demand for housing, with more folks buying, that drove up the price of the actual houses, not CDO's. That these mortgages could then be bundled and sold certainly got many more financial institutions into chasing the profits, but the inflation impetus in housing comes from the bottom. From what folks were willing to pay, and the loans they could get. It was truly simple supply and demand. New buyers, ultimately backed by FF, started to drive up demand, and prices.
    First of all Fannie and Freddie gaurantee'ing loans is supply side economics. You are virtually backing loans, lower rates (price) therefore driving up demand. Keep in mind, lending is based on risk, so people that normally would virtually be unable to affrod credit are really just people that could never pay the rate in order to get credit. So if you say it was a purely demand back bubble that's contradictory to Freddie and Fannie as the cause.

    Second of all, if it's purely demand driven...you would of had to of seen seen interests rise over time as supply and demand became out of whack (lenders vs. capital). The only way to make that not the case is make it more lucrative to loan (higher interests rates). The thing is...that didn't happen. There was more than enough capital to fuel the boom. In fact there was a synthetic CDO market created due to the fact there was so much more supply than demand! They created CDO's then created synthetic CDO's to bet on current CDO's!

    Another thing, if the bubble was because of Fannie and Freddie, that would not explain the global housing prices all rising. Housing is very local. You can drive 300 miles and see such a massive increase and decrease in housing costs. If this was fueled only by say Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages, then there would of been no bubble in Ireland, England etc. It had to be something global, like global capital markets.

    As for the CRE, that is almost insignificant to the debate, although I know folks like to throw it in there. It did not mean much until Fannie and Freddie began to underwrite all those sub-prime mortgages that the Clinton Administration compelled on the lenders. That is what opened the floodgates.
    I agree Fannie and Freddie are partially to blame and need reform. There should be no private government backed firms! I think Fannie and Freddie need to exist, without them there's not affordable housing for even middle class families. Fannie and Freddie are the reason for the 30 year mortgage. They should not be chasing higher stock prices though, which is what they did during the bubble. Fannie and Freddie were responsible in what mortgages the purchased until 2005, which is already when during the bubble and they had to compete with private lenders that were bringing in massive profits.


    Additional reading which shows fannie and freddie started giving "risky loans" in the middle of the bubble.
    About.com: http://seekingalpha.com/article/98270-how-much-are-fannie-and-freddie-to-blame

    I actually agree with you in some ways that Fannie and Freddie need major reform. I disagree in the fact they are the cause of the bubble. In fact they are the scapegoats of the bubble.

  4. #54
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Oh my the terrible evil labor unions marching in solidarity with other protesting the end to wall street corruption! How absurd!
    Oh, is that what they're doing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #55
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    may those who are anti-union live to see why we had them in the first place.
    They've outlived their usefulness.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #56
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    It wasn't the labor unions who created the financial meltdown, it was Wall Street and the banks.
    Actually, it was the government; specifically the Democrats.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #57
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    It's good that the Wallstreet protest has a broad enough message that it can encompass different kinds of people. It's what has allowed their numbers to grow.

    And unlike the tea party, we won't see politicians giving speeches anytime soon, or trying to hijack the movement. People wouldn't stand for it. They are against Republican and Democrat alike, as long as they support the financial cartels of Wallstreet.
    It's more like: the Democrats know they're going to have a hard enough time getting re-elected, without hitching their wagon to these teams of socialist clowns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #58
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,147

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    25% of all Americans are in homes underwater. That you are not is not going to change the dynamic.
    using your number, we can then conclude that 75% of the mortgages are NOT underwater. now let's compare that to what you originally posted:
    The bubble had to burst. When it did, every portfolio, derivative, piece of land, etc, went underwater.
    hopefully, my added emphasis will illustrate where you were wrong



    Read Cuomo's lips. They compelled "higher risk, higher default" loans. Go find the original 20 minute speech and Q and A. Couldn't be more clear. The point of it all is not so much that higher risk loans were made, but that more buyers were pulled into the market. The added buyers started the bubble, not that some buyers were higher risk.
    CRA - the response to the banking industry's tactic of red lining areas in which it would not make loans - required lenders to make loans in the same communities from which they realized deposits
    now, would a reasonable person expect the loans in those formerly red lined areas to be as sound as those in more affluent areas? but simply because the community is less affluent does not automatically mean that members of that community are not sound credit risks
    CRA did then cause more loans to become available. but NOTHING required lenders to make un-creditworthy loans. at least nothing you have been able to cite thus far

    Yes, we agree. Fannie was stupid like everyone else. But the bubble was 4-5 years inflated by then. Fannie's involvement at that point did not matter. They were just trying to make money too at that point. FF did lower their lending standards too though. They did start to make lousier loans, again so as to not miss out on the frenzy. However, I am talking about what got it all started. There was essentially no stopping it after the first few years, until it popped. No politician was going to stop it.
    look at the date of this report: http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/747/FNMSPECIALEXAM.pdfit it is may 2006. AFTER it was learned that fannie mae was cooking the books. and still the shrub did nothing. because profits were still flowing. it wasn't until the meltdown that the taxpayers picked up the ongoing tab for the now massive losses

    Again, it really does not matter. Your credit worthy buyers were willing to pay more for a house than what had been the usual inflationary increase. Because the bubble had begun.
    does anyone knowingly buy during a bubble, when they know to expect losses [rhetorical question]
    lenders were making liar loans because they were making money on them
    as soon as they made the loans AND realized their fees they flipped the mortgage paper to the voracious market, which wanted higher yields than it could realize on more conventional paper
    the lenders were not holding these loans but were instead selling the risk to an ignorant marketplace

    Glass Steagle was repealed in 1999. MBS's etc didn't really start to fly for another few years, as investment firms saw the huge opportunity to make money off the bubble.
    many of us in the banking industry knew when glass-steagle was repealed that we were in for a financial rollercoaster with the taxpayer ultimately paying for the ride. this repeal assured that profits would be privatized while any losses would be socialized

    As Cuomo said "higher risk, higher default rates". As I noted, this would come down to a definition of "credit-worthy", and "not credit worthy". However, we have the exact video of Cuomo admitting a setllement, based on a DoJ lawsuit against a Texas bank, that the bank had agreed to make loans that he admitted were "higher risk", etc.
    interest rates are determined by degree of risk ... banking 101
    lenders not complying with CRA were hammered. usually by acorn when said lender was involved in a prospective merger. its non-compliance was a hurdle which had to be surmounted if it wanted to participate in the merger/acquisition
    so, the lenders made loans they would not keep but would lay off to unwitting investors. they did this rather than looking for good credits within the formerly red lined communities. and since the lender was not intending to to hold onto the mortgage paper it was writing, it realized enhanced loan yields/fees and CRA compliance

    Dude, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck .... its a duck.
    problem is, you don't know what the duck you are talking about

    You can hide behind "non-credit worthy" all day long.
    not hiding whatsoever
    that was the assertion, that lenders were being required by the government to make un-creditworthy loans
    i even promised to make a public apology if you could offer any cite to show the government actually required lenders to make un-creditworthy loans. and thus far, neither of you have been able to proffer such a cite

    Clearly they were compelled to make "less credit worthy" loans. Loans they had deemed "non-credit worthy" before the settlement.
    nope
    all they had to do was comply with the CRA, and make loans to creditworthy applicants from formerly red lined communities
    nothing compelled them to write non-creditworthy loans

    I encourage folks to look at the video. The answers, in Cuomo's own words, start at about 2:15. Enjoy.
    i wasted my time watching that heavily edited faux news propaganda piece against Obama. it told us nothing ... at least those of us who understand lending
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  9. #59
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by Frolicking Dinosaurs View Post
    Judging from this thread, Tea Party conservatives only like grassroots organizing and groups with similar ideas / goals joining together when it fits with their beliefs.
    I'm guessing that works both ways, Dino.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  10. #60
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Labor Unions Join Wall Street Occupiers for "Mass Rally'

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Not really...Public Divided on Occupy Wall Street Protesters - Rasmussen Reports™

    According to a new poll by Rasmussen Reports, 33 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protesters (only 27 percent have a negative view, while 40 percent have no opinion). Most importantly, 79 percent of Americans agree with the protesters primary point that the “The big banks got bailed but the middle class got left behind.”
    Even if 79% agree with that sentiment it has little to do with lounging around for three weeks in protest on Wall St. That ill-designed bailout and stimulus program was put together by our elected officials, using what they believed was the "best" method of stimulating the economy.

    I'd much rather spend 3 weeks seeking employment, working, educating myself, and doing what I need to do to secure my future on my own than sitting around shouting about how everything is Wall St.s fault.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


Page 6 of 70 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •