• 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!

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

That is exactly what it did, made the misery index artificially lower. Unemployment numbers were changed in 1994 when discouraged workers were dropped from the roles of the unemployed. That distorts the unemployment numbers and that is why today's rate is actually 9.36%

So when the number of people leaving the workforce increased before, that made the index higher, but when it increased now, it made it lower. Makes perfect sense. :lol:
 
So when the number of people leaving the workforce increased before, that made the index higher, but when it increased now, it made it lower. Makes perfect sense. :lol:

Get someone to explain it to you as I am exhausted. Nothing changes the mind of an ideologue. You want badly for Obama policies to succeed and they haven't so you ignore them.
 
That was before Frank, Waters, Meeks, etc. got into office and refused to let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be reformed.

It's nice talking point, but unfortunately it's completely false.

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.

FT.com / UK - Oxley hits back at ideologues
 
Does this mean you wont be changing your mind then?:shock:

I did change my mind, grew up a Democrat and haven't voted for a Democrat President since 1976. Have always been a Conservative but saw the Democrat Party leave me. In other words I grew up and learned that Democrat rhetoric about spending in the name of compassion never led to compassionate spending.
 
I did change my mind, grew up a Democrat and haven't voted for a Democrat President since 1976. Have always been a Conservative but saw the Democrat Party leave me. In other words I grew up and learned that Democrat rhetoric about spending in the name of compassion never led to compassionate spending.


Don’t you find that a bit conflicting to admit that you voted twice for a president that has increased debt as a percent of GDP, (bush +20.7%) while demonizing one (obama +15.4%) that has lower spending as a percent of GDP?:2wave:
 
Don’t you find that a bit conflicting to admit that you voted twice for a president that has increased debt as a percent of GDP, (bush +20.7%) while demonizing one (obama +15.4%) that has lower spending as a percent of GDP?:2wave:

Considering the options, no I don't have a problem with that at all. I have absolutely no use for the Obama economic policies and lack of leadership shown by this Administration. Liberals love to use percentage change while ignoring actual numbers. Bush add 4.9 trillion in 8 years or 600 billion a year, Obama has added 4.4 trillion in 3 years or 1.4 trillion a year. Which one cost the taxpayers more money in debt service?
 
Considering the options, no I don't have a problem with that at all. I have absolutely no use for the Obama economic policies and lack of leadership shown by this Administration. Liberals love to use percentage change while ignoring actual numbers. Bush add 4.9 trillion in 8 years or 600 billion a year, Obama has added 4.4 trillion in 3 years or 1.4 trillion a year. Which one cost the taxpayers more money in debt service?

Yes, liberals and their voodoo math skills and magical numbers and such. LOL

Too funny.
 
Don’t you find that a bit conflicting to admit that you voted twice for a president that has increased debt as a percent of GDP, (bush +20.7%) while demonizing one (obama +15.4%) that has lower spending as a percent of GDP?:2wave:


Really?

2011 Fiscal Year has Federal Spending as a % of GDP at 23.88%, previous 3 years were 23.75%, 25.10%, and 20.90%. Since 2009, the last time federal spending exceeded 20% of GDP was 1995.
 
Don’t you find that a bit conflicting to admit that you voted twice for a president that has increased debt as a percent of GDP, (bush +20.7%) while demonizing one (obama +15.4%) that has lower spending as a percent of GDP?:2wave:

Do you have a source for that data?
 
Was there a housing crisis in the 30 years following the passage of CRA? No. Why not? Because CRA wasn't the problem.

HUUUUUUGGGGEEE pile of bull****. Increased activity in CRA in 94, 98 and 2002 in response to legislative changes heated up the housing market to the point where it lifted off the Consumer Price Index. Meaning, it went off the pricing rails and exceeded incomes. CRA was the fuel for a decent portion of the default swap market and F&F accounted for around $9 trillion in paper from 2000 to 2007. We were due for a market correction in 2002 for the housing market and it went up for another 5 years after that.

Your response is uneducated, uninformed and partisan.

Now onto Liblady :
how many times does someone have to tell you that CRA had absolutely NOTHING to do with the sub prime crisis? those regulations didn't force ANY institution to make bad loans. just quit already.

FALSE. In order to qualify for prime fed rates, make an aquisition, merger or be purchased themselves a bank was required to satisfy CRA regulators that they were within mandated rates on CRA qualifying loans. Its written into the law and banking rules and regulations. CRA was strenghtened in 95,99, and 2005 and again in 2007. If a bank wanted to grow they complied by whatever means they could cook up.

Did banks qualify for those regulations by using predatory lending? Absolutely. Did banks write paper they knew was terrible, bundle it and pass it to F&F? Absolutely. When government regulation not only encourages but mandates bad paper and facilitates hiding the same, you are going to get a bad result and almost never the one you want. To say that the CRA has nothing to do with it is partisan positioning. Bank margings are 4 to 6%. Forcing a bank to write 2% of bad paper a year will bankrupt them in a big hurry and put all of their underwriting at risk. Its not the amount or percentage its the cascade effect from the bad paper going bad and chaining into other paper the bank has written--dropping the market.
 
Don’t you find that a bit conflicting to admit that you voted twice for a president that has increased debt as a percent of GDP, (bush +20.7%) while demonizing one (obama +15.4%) that has lower spending as a percent of GDP?:2wave:

LOL get that by leaving out discretionary spending didja?
Source?

-
 
Yes, liberals and their voodoo math skills and magical numbers and such. LOL

Too funny.

voodoo math skills? Hmmm, I would just love to find a liberal that will show any of those skills at all. I don't think liberals are capable of doing basic math. Who do you blame for the 2009-2011 deficits? where are my numbers wrong?
 
I wish we could just lie to people for a while, tell them unemployment is down for the next 3 or 4 months, jack up the GDP slightly, give mainly just good news. I'll bet the economy would start improving. All the gloom and doom makes people want to hold on to their money. Always thought economic news was a self-fulfilling prophesy.
 
HUUUUUUGGGGEEE pile of bull****. Increased activity in CRA in 94, 98 and 2002 in response to legislative changes heated up the housing market to the point where it lifted off the Consumer Price Index. Meaning, it went off the pricing rails and exceeded incomes. CRA was the fuel for a decent portion of the default swap market and F&F accounted for around $9 trillion in paper from 2000 to 2007. We were due for a market correction in 2002 for the housing market and it went up for another 5 years after that.

Bull**** indeed!! :lol:

There was no mortgage crisis in '94, '98, or '02. The subprime fiasco really exploded between '02 - '06, and the VAST majority of loans were given out by private lenders who weren't even regulated under CRA. Careful ... you can throw out your back missing the ball by that much!
 
Bull**** indeed!! :lol:

There was no mortgage crisis in '94, '98, or '02. The subprime fiasco really exploded between '02 - '06, and the VAST majority of loans were given out by private lenders who weren't even regulated under CRA. Careful ... you can throw out your back missing the ball by that much!

Yeah, this isnt misinformed at all. What you are blind to is that you can write more and more as housing prices go up and up. The problem becomes the value isnt intrinsic anymore it becomes part of a postive feedback occurring from writing paper that shouldnt be getting done IE artifically created demand because they couldnt satisfy financial particulars or money down requirements. It takes TIME for that kind of underwriting to implode.

4th largest commercial bank in the US was Washington Mutual and they pledged to write $1billion in CRA type paper in 2004. They were done in 2007. I dont think the facts bear out your opinion. This one just so we are on the same page :
and the VAST majority of loans were given out by private lenders who weren't even regulated under CRA
I dont think thats factual.
 
Yeah, this isnt misinformed at all. What you are blind to is that you can write more and more as housing prices go up and up. The problem becomes the value isnt intrinsic anymore it becomes part of a postive feedback occurring from writing paper that shouldnt be getting done IE artifically created demand because they couldnt satisfy financial particulars or money down requirements. It takes TIME for that kind of underwriting to implode.

4th largest commercial bank in the US was Washington Mutual and they pledged to write $1billion in CRA type paper in 2004. They were done in 2007. I dont think the facts bear out your opinion. This one just so we are on the same page : I dont think thats factual.

Well you think wrong. WAAAAAY wrong.

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.

Read more: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

The fact is that Fannie and Freddie were pushed into the subprime market by the private lenders who were taking away their business.

Private lenders—not the government-backed Fannie and Freddie—issued the vast majority of subprime loans, and to low- and moderate-income borrowers in particular. Fannie and Freddie did not guarantee and securitize large quantities of subprime loans. - In fact, Fannie Mae actually lost market share because it chose not to “participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005” because it “determined that the pricing offered for these mortgages often was insufficient compensation for the additional credit risk associated with these mortgages.” As economist Dean Baker stated, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector….In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face—kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.” - In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld acknowledged that Fannie and Freddie’s role in Lehman’s demise was “de minimis,” or so small that it does not matter.

How Did This Happen? » Myths and Facts about the Financial Crisis
 
Yeah...your source is...terrible. McClatchy and a hard left echo chamber. Cmon.
A Poisonous Cocktail - Forbes.com

Liberals pooh-pooh the idea that a 30-year-old law could have contributed to the current subprime crisis and credit crunch. But what they ignore is the massive expansion of CRA-commitments forced on banks in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.

According to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, in the first 20 years of the act, up to 1997, commitments totaled approximately $200 billion. But from 1997 to 2007, commitments exploded to more than $4.2 trillion. (Keep in mind this is more than four times the size of the current health bill being debated in Congress.) The burdens on individual banks can be enormous. Washington Mutual, for example, pledged $1 trillion in mortgages to those with credit histories that "fall outside typical credit, income or debt constraints," and was awarded the 2003 CRA Community Impact Award for its Community Access program. Four years later it was taken over by the Office of Thrift Supervision. In 2004 Bank of America ( BAC - news - people ) agreed to provide $750 billion in CRA loans to applicants with poor credit who had previous difficulty obtaining a mortgage. By 2008 Bank of America was reporting that CRA loans represented only 7% of its portfolio but 29% of its losses. Numerous large banks are now in the middle of enormous CRA commitments. In 2004 J.P. Morgan Chase ( JPM - news - people ) agreed to provide $800 billion of such loans over the course of 10 years.

What you are driving at is the percentage of loans serviced. What Im driving at is the orgination of the failed loans and the impact on the banks' balance sheets. Bottom line: the banks with the rosiest CRA investiture got the best rates from the fed, got easy bundling and underwriting assurances from F&F and went to bankrupt or headed to the public trough the fastest. Compliance = bad financial picture. Non-Compliance = stunted growth opportunities but better P&L.
 
The fact is that Fannie and Freddie were pushed into the subprime market by the private lenders who were taking away their business.

That is a perfect example of liberalism......saying F&F were forced to underwrite trillions in crappy loans is like saying a woman was forced to joined the prostitution industry when she noticed other high end call girls were driving nice cars. F&F bundled and re-sold trillions in garbage......claiming anything otherwise suggests you aren't a person to be taken seriously.
 
Yeah...your source is...terrible. McClatchy and a hard left echo chamber. Cmon.
A Poisonous Cocktail - Forbes.com

What you are driving at is the percentage of loans serviced. What Im driving at is the orgination of the failed loans and the impact on the banks' balance sheets. Bottom line: the banks with the rosiest CRA investiture got the best rates from the fed, got easy bundling and underwriting assurances from F&F and went to bankrupt or headed to the public trough the fastest. Compliance = bad financial picture. Non-Compliance = stunted growth opportunities but better P&L.

You're complaining about my sources as you cite Forbes? :lol: Wasn't there a billionaire Republican of that name who ran for president a few years back?

But to answer your comment, no, I'm not separating perentage serviced from origination. Either way you look at it the non-CRA lenders dominated the subprime market. What's more, the private lenders -- unlike CRA-regulated banks -- were not required to consider the mortgagee's ability to repay. As aresult, non-CRA loans performed much worse than CRA-regulated loans. Wasn't there some sort of official inquiry into all this? Oh yeah, there was!

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of the high cost loans - a proxy for subprime loans - had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law. [The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, January 2011]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf

What about the Federal Reserve? Didn't they look into it, too? Yep.

We find little evidence that either the CRA or the GSE goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis. Our lender tests indicate that areas disproportionately served by lenders covered by the CRA experienced lower delinquency rates and less risky lending. Similarly, the threshold tests show no evidence that either program had a significantly negative effect on outcomes. [Federal Reserve, 8/3/11]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2011/201136/201136pap.pdf
 
Last edited:
Forbes' business is money. When it comes to markets, be it commodities, banking or wall street, they generally are a decent source.

Ive read both of those reports before now. They come under the heading of government based CYA. I find it amusing that someone that is so distrusting of government finds using them as a corroborating source so easy.

I find it hard to believe that $9 trillion in paper going through Fannie and Freddie from 2000 to 2007 is "not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis" to quote your article. Actually, I can't believe it at all. Nor should you.

-
 
Forbes' business is money. When it comes to markets, be it commodities, banking or wall street, they generally are a decent source.

Ive read both of those reports before now. They come under the heading of government based CYA. I find it amusing that someone that is so distrusting of government finds using them as a corroborating source so easy.

I find it hard to believe that $9 trillion in paper going through Fannie and Freddie from 2000 to 2007 is "not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis" to quote your article. Actually, I can't believe it at all. Nor should you.

-

The Fed is independent -- not responsible for decisions about the GSEs or CRA. They have no reason to cover up anything. Forbes' numbers sound like bull**** to me. Do you really think that poor people took out $9 trillion in mortgages? It doesn't pass the laugh test.

Nor have you refuted any of the major points:

* the vast majority of subprime was issued by non-CRA banks;
* what little subrime regulated banks did issue strongly outperformed non-regulated loans;
* no one had to twist the banks arms to give out loans; they were giving them to anyone who breathed (and I'm sure some who didn't).
 
Last edited:
Did anyone else see 60 Minutes and their expose of mortgage fraud and cover up? Quite eye opening.

Here's an article about it:


60 Minutes Shines Spotlight on Persistent Mortgage Fraud

First, I want to give the credit where it’s due. This is Michael W. Hudson’s story that 60 Minutes appropriated. He found Eileen Foster, the senior executive and fraud monitor at Countrywide Financial, and detailed her story way back in September, including how the company treated her allegations at the time (Foster got fired for her trouble, and Countrywide started concealing the results from their fraud monitoring from the monitors themselves). Hudson has been in front of the mortgage fraud story since his book The Monster detailed the fraud at Ameriquest.
 
Back
Top Bottom