Page 24 of 34 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 337

Thread: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

  1. #231
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    You can continue to spin the story as much as you like. The fact of the matter is that CRA loans were less likely to default than non-CRA loans.
    You were debunked like 5 posts ago yet you continue to grasp onto a laughable talking point from 2008 when Democrats were in full CYA mode

    It's embarrassing

    A new study concludes that the CRA CLEARLY did lead to riskier lending. It's beyond refute. That's why there was no Subprime Mortgage Market before the CRA genius. Strong lending practices were in place for a reason. It was Government Regulation that softened them, hence the seed of the 2008 Financial Crisis was the CRA. It was the root cause that created a market that never would have existed otherwise.

    Your talking point was debunked years ago. You're just repeating the lies of Barry Ritholtz

    A Poisonous Cocktail - Forbes.com

    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.

    For all the talk of unsold condos in Miami and foreclosed McMansions in California, the epicenters of the mortgage crisis are inner-city urban areas--precisely those areas where the CRA was most applicable. As the Boston Federal Reserve put it in a massive 2008 study, "In the current housing crisis foreclosures are highly concentrated in [urban] minority neighborhoods." The study found that borrowers in these areas were seven times more likely to be foreclosed on than the general population. Analysis by the Pew Research Center and another by The New York Times found that mortgage holders in these areas had foreclosure rates four times higher than the national average.

    In short, the CRA is compelling banks to make trillions in loans to individuals who have poor credit and who often can't or won't make their payments.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/bu...anted=all&_r=0

    Fannie, a government-sponsored company, had long helped Americans get cheaper home loans by serving as a powerful middleman, buying mortgages from lenders and banks and then holding or reselling them to Wall Street investors. This allowed banks to make even more loans — expanding the pool of homeowners and permitting Fannie to ring up handsome profits along the way.

    But by the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie’s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans.
    It's true that a company like CountryWide didn't necessarily make "CRA Loans" but their business practices were directly influenced by the lowered lending standards of that legislation. Not only that, but the GSE's bought up 70% of Countrywide's loans. You keep forgetting that inconvenient little fact that destroys the house of cards you keep pathetically clinging to.

    The GSEs were the largest securitizers of loans on the market. Nobody else came close. They fueled the market for ALL loans and were the backbone of a bloated and distorted market their lobbyists helped create in WA.

  2. #232
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,736

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Bronson, the next thing you will have to refute will be quotes and articles from Federal Depositories, that put out papers stating that the CRA was not responsible for the financial crisis. Because the government would never spin an investigation into a government policy---ever.

    Ive gone round and round on this subject with a number of posters here. Its more or less a source war.

  3. #233
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You have to be joking. That 3.1% is hilariously misleading. It's all fueled by massive govt spending and inventory accumulation.

    Consumer spending only increased by 1.4%. A total collapse of personal consumption.

    Personal consumption was actually revised DOWN from the initial 2% GDP projection.

    Fixed investment was around .01%. The lowest since q1 2011.

    Finally we need to see growth rates of GDP higher than 5%.

    3% is below average at best.
    Sure, government spending contributed a great deal, but private investment and a decline in trade deficits also played a key role.

    1.6% actually, a .1 percent increase over the second quarter figures. Just how would that qualify as a total collapse?

    Well, yes and no. The second revision shaved off .6 percent from the initial estimate, and the final estimate bumped it back up by two tenths.

    Non residential investment ticked down by 1.8, Residential investment increased by 13.5%. Private investment as a whole saw a 6.6 percent increase.

    Says who?

    Nope, it's just average I'm afraid. 3.25% is the running median for gdp growth since the end of WWII.

  4. #234
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You were debunked like 5 posts ago yet you continue to grasp onto a laughable talking point from 2008 when Democrats were in full CYA mode

    It's embarrassing

    A new study concludes that the CRA CLEARLY did lead to riskier lending. It's beyond refute. That's why there was no Subprime Mortgage Market before the CRA genius. Strong lending practices were in place for a reason. It was Government Regulation that softened them, hence the seed of the 2008 Financial Crisis was the CRA. It was the root cause that created a market that never would have existed otherwise.

    Your talking point was debunked years ago. You're just repeating the lies of Barry Ritholtz

    A Poisonous Cocktail - Forbes.com





    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/bu...anted=all&_r=0



    It's true that a company like CountryWide didn't necessarily make "CRA Loans" but their business practices were directly influenced by the lowered lending standards of that legislation. Not only that, but the GSE's bought up 70% of Countrywide's loans. You keep forgetting that inconvenient little fact that destroys the house of cards you keep pathetically clinging to.

    The GSEs were the largest securitizers of loans on the market. Nobody else came close. They fueled the market for ALL loans and were the backbone of a bloated and distorted market their lobbyists helped create in WA.
    President Bush pushing his "ownership society"






    Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
    By Jo Becker, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Stephen Labaton
    Published: Sunday, December 21, 2008


    WASHINGTON — "We can put light where there's darkness, and hope where there's despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home."

    - President George W. Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

    The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, "scared the hell out of everybody."

    It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.

    The president listened as Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.

    Then his Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson Jr., told him that to stave off disaster, he would have to sign off on the biggest government bailout in history. Bush, according to several people in the room, paused for a single, stunned moment to take it all in.

    "How," he wondered aloud, "did we get here?"

    Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of home ownership, Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, "faced with the prospect of a global meltdown" with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

    There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

    But the story of how the United States got here is partly one of Bush's own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

    From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

    Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Bush chose to oversee them - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

    As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."

    The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

    ...


  5. #235
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,735

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by StringBean View Post
    The housing bubble burst when millions of Americans went default on their mortgages. This triggered the financial crisis as the derivatives market was built like a house of cards around these mortgages. Essentially, high-risk private debt was being traded on wall street like AAA+ bonds.

    The root of the problem lay in the fact that millions of people who could not reasonably afford these mortgages were receiving them. The government undeniably owes some responsibility to this, given Congressional programs to push through mortgages to high-risk lendees. Both parties applauded these programs at the time, and will foolishly continue to do so. No politician wants to be seen as "hurting poor folks." The irony of such a statement is rich, given it's apparent outcome today.

    P.S. are you defending fannie and freddie? Who do you think was writing all these bogus mortgages!?
    The banksters were writing those mortgages, then dumping the toxic stuff onto Fannie and Freddie. Bank of America was just fined billions for doing just that.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #236
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,736

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The banksters were writing those mortgages, then dumping the toxic stuff onto Fannie and Freddie. Bank of America was just fined billions for doing just that.
    Which misses the essential point. Regulation gave them somewhere to dump those mortgages. They wouldnt accept high risk loans without both government pressure to accept some of them, and a place to dump the risk.

    Bankers dont just take on risk for the heck of it--examine the motivation and follow the money.

    As for PeteEU, the mortgage market was heating up before Bush and all attempts to regulate it were met harshly by Dems. You cant dump it on one party or the other. Both had their hands all over this particular mess.

  7. #237
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,735

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Which misses the essential point. Regulation gave them somewhere to dump those mortgages. They wouldnt accept high risk loans without both government pressure to accept some of them, and a place to dump the risk.

    Bankers dont just take on risk for the heck of it--examine the motivation and follow the money.

    As for PeteEU, the mortgage market was heating up before Bush and all attempts to regulate it were met harshly by Dems. You cant dump it on one party or the other. Both had their hands all over this particular mess.
    Actually, you have it backward. It was BREAKING THE LAW that allowed the banksters to dump their toxic crap on Freddie and Fannie. This is why Bank of America was fined so heavily. There was a law. They broke it because they are predatory criminals. They now paid the price for their actions.

    Jeez, as long as you are protecting lawbreakers, I think I'll go out and steal me some money too. Will you tell me that I am also not responsible for my actions? Damn, I can be Al Capone, and people will tell me it's not my fault. What a great country.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #238
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,736

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, you have it backward. It was BREAKING THE LAW that allowed the banksters to dump their toxic crap on Freddie and Fannie. This is why Bank of America was fined so heavily. There was a law. They broke it because they are predatory criminals. They now paid the price for their actions.

    Jeez, as long as you are protecting lawbreakers, I think I'll go out and steal me some money too. Will you tell me that I am also not responsible for my actions? Damn, I can be Al Capone, and people will tell me it's not my fault. What a great country.
    2nd paragraph is your usual grandstanding bs, but check this out: BofA settles with Fannie Mae for $10 billion

    How much of the "toxic" loans were garnered from taking over Countrywide? Thats a big question mark for me and possibly why the fines were not even higher. Another story details how other firms are settling fines not on toxic lending practices but on foreclosing on those it shouldnt have. Ten banks settle foreclosure charges for $8.5 billion paper mishandling and skipping procedures enters into it as well.

    I dont think the fining story is all about dumping toxic loans but about breakdowns across the entire process--paperwork, disclosure, forclosure, procedures. Which would argue for not tampering with the housing market by incentivizing loan approvals, no matter how noble the goal. It should be noted that due to favorable ratings on their CRA status allowed them to play fast and loose with other rules they should have been following more closely because regulators were focusing on that issue more than bank stability issues. Not an excuse but an explanation.

  9. #239
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,735

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    2nd paragraph is your usual grandstanding bs, but check this out: BofA settles with Fannie Mae for $10 billion

    How much of the "toxic" loans were garnered from taking over Countrywide? Thats a big question mark for me and possibly why the fines were not even higher. Another story details how other firms are settling fines not on toxic lending practices but on foreclosing on those it shouldnt have. Ten banks settle foreclosure charges for $8.5 billion paper mishandling and skipping procedures enters into it as well.

    I dont think the fining story is all about dumping toxic loans but about breakdowns across the entire process--paperwork, disclosure, forclosure, procedures. Which would argue for not tampering with the housing market by incentivizing loan approvals, no matter how noble the goal. It should be noted that due to favorable ratings on their CRA status allowed them to play fast and loose with other rules they should have been following more closely because regulators were focusing on that issue more than bank stability issues. Not an excuse but an explanation.
    I strongly disagree. Without regulation, it would be completely legal for BoA to defraud Fannie and Freddie the way they did.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #240
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Then why, after trillions of dollars, are we just maintaining?

    We greatly enhanced the econonies in China and the Phillipines...you know your heros corporate america

Page 24 of 34 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... 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
  •