Page 55 of 145 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765105 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 1443

Thread: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

  1. #541
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post

    He is a democrat.
    Bingo !

  2. #542
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Lets see if this dog will hunt: Most mainstream print sources lean left. "Mainstream" news sources have been notoriously biased over and over.

    Part 2. The fed has no dog in the CRA fight.

    bwahahahahaha

    What, do you suppose is the long term impact on the banking market stemming from CRA? Who do you think has the most to lose or gain from from more government meddling into the home lending market? Good god, you cannot possibly believe what you typed. The Fed has everything to lose by more banks being unstable. The fed is covering for policy implemented from the top. Nothing more, nothing less.
    You should drop it. It's not going well for you. You can't come up with a single source that supports your view that passes the laugh test. Your arguments are becoming more and more illogical. For example, if the Fed loses as a result of banks being unstable, and CRA makes banks unstable, why on earth would the Fed be covering up problems in the CRA?

  3. #543
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Because they already tightened standards and are looking at implementation changes.More governmental intrusion into private and commercial banking means more power for the FED. It seems you are missing that basic point. The fed is all about power. CRA gave them a direct road to institute loans that allowed them to exercise direct power over banking decisions.

    One government agency pushing banks into poor financial positions in which the fed gains greater control and you have the stones to say they have no dog in the hunt? They are the hunt.
    Clue up.

  4. #544
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Because they already tightened standards and are looking at implementation changes.More governmental intrusion into private and commercial banking means more power for the FED. It seems you are missing that basic point. The fed is all about power. CRA gave them a direct road to institute loans that allowed them to exercise direct power over banking decisions.

    One government agency pushing banks into poor financial positions in which the fed gains greater control and you have the stones to say they have no dog in the hunt? They are the hunt.
    Clue up.


    "Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes." ~ Randall Kroszner, Federal Reserve Governor

  5. #545
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    A few things fueled the Housing and Financial crisis.

    1. Housing prices going to high coupled with decreasing financial standards. CRA goes directly to this point. People were buying more house than they could afford or refinancing to erase debt every 5 years.
    a. CRA lowered standards at the bottom rung and also upward as well.
    b. The higher the amount of CRA paper an institution had the greater the losses were when the economy downturned.

    2. Allowing bundling of mortgages and loans as part of the credit default swap model for spreading loan risk. Unfortanately it spread the risk everywhere.
    a. Fannie and Freddie went deeper and deeper into the market as credit dried up in late 2006-early 2007. It increased the government underwriting risk.
    b. As the bubble popped, people with re-fi's and ARMs (California) were basically screwed because their paper was more than their house.
    c. As more people got underwater, more people weighed the default cost versus the completely broke AND homeless cost.
    d. Some $9 trillion worth of the housing market was funded through F&F and then bundled out commercially.

    The aftermath is the fed saying that its all ok. Because the truth is that some 15% of all US banks cannot withstand a stress test--IE a bank run. The fed is neck deep in using government funds to "re-stabilize" banks and commercial lending institutions. Of course they are presenting info that says its all good--if they fail the clamor to completely abolish the fed AND over regulate the financial industry will clamp the money supply so tight you will need to present 20% down and yearly income higher than the loan amount. Not to mention a financial crisis that will make 2008 look a slight correction by comparison.

    Its about power. Its about control. Its about laying off blame. Some of you are so adamantly opposed to the fed and to big banking yet those are the exact sources you as so sure are right. Its hilarious.
    Ask a simple question. Can you really take their assurances at face value?

    Go ask someone that really understands the housing market and lending standards where things are right now--the answer wont be what you read from the fed.

  6. #546
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Because they already tightened standards and are looking at implementation changes.More governmental intrusion into private and commercial banking means more power for the FED. It seems you are missing that basic point. The fed is all about power. CRA gave them a direct road to institute loans that allowed them to exercise direct power over banking decisions.

    One government agency pushing banks into poor financial positions in which the fed gains greater control and you have the stones to say they have no dog in the hunt? They are the hunt.
    Clue up.
    Again, you provide nothing to back up your assertions. In this case it's probably because there has, in fact, been no reform to tighten CRA standards, which kind of guts your argument. In fact the opposite is true. There have been some minor reforms to expand CRA oversight to other types of loans and there are ongoing discussions about expanding income requirements to increase the number of loans subject to CRA.

    But at the end of the day there is simply zero evidence that CRA contributed to the financial meltdown. If anything it appears that the problem would have been worse without CRA.

  7. #547
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    See post #578
    Last edited by Kushinator; 12-07-11 at 01:24 AM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #548
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    A few things fueled the Housing and Financial crisis.

    1. Housing prices going to high coupled with decreasing financial standards. CRA goes directly to this point. People were buying more house than they could afford or refinancing to erase debt every 5 years.
    a. CRA lowered standards at the bottom rung and also upward as well.
    b. The higher the amount of CRA paper an institution had the greater the losses were when the economy downturned.

    2. Allowing bundling of mortgages and loans as part of the credit default swap model for spreading loan risk. Unfortanately it spread the risk everywhere.
    a. Fannie and Freddie went deeper and deeper into the market as credit dried up in late 2006-early 2007. It increased the government underwriting risk.
    b. As the bubble popped, people with re-fi's and ARMs (California) were basically screwed because their paper was more than their house.
    c. As more people got underwater, more people weighed the default cost versus the completely broke AND homeless cost.
    d. Some $9 trillion worth of the housing market was funded through F&F and then bundled out commercially.

    The aftermath is the fed saying that its all ok. Because the truth is that some 15% of all US banks cannot withstand a stress test--IE a bank run. The fed is neck deep in using government funds to "re-stabilize" banks and commercial lending institutions. Of course they are presenting info that says its all good--if they fail the clamor to completely abolish the fed AND over regulate the financial industry will clamp the money supply so tight you will need to present 20% down and yearly income higher than the loan amount. Not to mention a financial crisis that will make 2008 look a slight correction by comparison.

    Its about power. Its about control. Its about laying off blame. Some of you are so adamantly opposed to the fed and to big banking yet those are the exact sources you as so sure are right. Its hilarious.
    Ask a simple question. Can you really take their assurances at face value?

    Go ask someone that really understands the housing market and lending standards where things are right now--the answer wont be what you read from the fed.


    "Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes." ~ Randall Kroszner, Federal Reserve Governor

  9. #549
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    "Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes." ~ Randall Kroszner, Federal Reserve Governor
    Reading comprehension. Doesnt address the loans as a total. Doesnt address the failure rate. Doesnt address the loosening of standards as a whole in the loan process. Its saying that "higher priced" (read commercial, probably) CRA loans were about 6%. Woo woo, that says...about nothing.


    -

  10. #550
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

    But at the end of the day there is simply zero evidence that CRA contributed to the financial meltdown. If anything it appears that the problem would have been worse without CRA.
    You do understand that the widespread use of credit default swaps gained widespread use because of its use in the home market?
    You do understand that the easing of rules was part of a compromise package to pass new rules for CRA in 97?
    You do understand saying zero means it had NO impact. We know that isnt true or it wouldnt have been calls to reform it as the first act of the 2008 housing and finance committees.

    Current figures are that some $1trillion in paper guaranteed by GSEs has foreclosed. No impact eh?

Posting Permissions

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