Page 31 of 34 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 337

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

  1. #301
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Since your'e a objective "economist" working in "areas" I'm surprised youv'e completely missed the lower lending standards that fueled the sub-prime collapse.
    Oh, I'm well aware of those. But they were pushed by the unregulated private brokers who were selling their crap off to Wall Street.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Or are you simply trying to skirt the issue and not answer my question ? You know, since you make me run away or beat "the pants off me". Actually NO liberal young or old has ever successfully beaten the pants off of me in a debate or otherwise. Your typical example of winning a debate is always self exclaimed with you patting your self on the back because you managed to post multiple lies and misdirections and refused to answer pertinant questions. Thats not a WIN, thats desperate.
    Sounds like someone might need to take a trip to the POUTER Room.

  2. #302
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    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.
    I will paraphrase what your correcting stating....in a nutshell

    banks did not want to loan money to high risk borrowers, the federal government told banks that if they would loan the money on those high risk loans, ....government would cover the cost for any lost........because government wanted people to own homes.

    being that the government was willing to cover any bad debt, the banks willingly loaned out money to people making 50,000 a yr, ......buying 350,000 houses

  3. #303
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    The ordered solution was greater compliance with CRA through greater contact and negotiation with community groups in urban areas where CRA was felt to be needed the most.
    There was no order in Buycks-Roberson. There was a consent decree that the court approved. I know...all these confusing legal terms and concepts. Maybe you shouldn't have brought the matter up.

    And greater compliance with CRA would have amounted to what exactly -- taking more applications from surrounding communities? CRA didn't require any lender to extend a dollar's worth of credit to anyone. Other and entirely unrelated law of course does forbid overt discrimination by lenders among those who in fact do apply for credit. That was illegal long before CRA came along and even longer before Bill Clinton came along. It is still illegal today (ask Wells Fargo), and it will continue to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    If banks didnt play ball, they could have their CRA rating torched and even their access to federal rate loans would be in jeapordy.
    That's another total right-wing lie, this time a perversion of language in an FRB paper noting that asking for CRA compliance is hardly much of a burden as compared to a quid pro quo that includes a bank charter, FDIC insurance, and access to the discount window. None of those things could have been revoked or in any way altered or limited as the result of an adverse CRA review. Such claims are just more deliberate distortion and fabrication.

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    You keep implying that there was no teeth and no regulation that enforced CRA, when I have already shown you sources that say they do. I guess we can agree to disagree at this point as have differing sources on what was going on.
    Hah! There is no compromise between truth and falsehood. You promote and defend the side of total falsehood. I denounce it and will continue to do so.

  4. #304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    banks did not want to loan money to high risk borrowers,
    It's pretty obvious here that you fundamentally misunderstand the origins of the credit crisis. Borrowers who qualify at prime terms are not high-risk. And that's where the bulk of 1990's CRA lending went. This is why CRA portfolios performed better than industry averages.

    The people who eventually caused the problems meanwhile didn't care one whit how risky the borrowers were or how impossible loans were rigged into being to repay. Their concern was for the up-front fees and profits they could realize in writing, selling, and then securitizing paper of any quality at all. Strip off the profit and sell off the risk. I'll be gone, and you'll be gone. It will all be somebody else's problem. That was Wall Street and its network of private-label securitizing shops in league with unscrupulous brokers, crooked appraisers, and befuddeld bond ratings agencies. That's who destroyed the global economy -- fancy-pants rich folks. Not low-and moderate-income Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    the federal government told banks that if they would loan the money on those high risk loans, ....government would cover the cost for any lost........because government wanted people to own homes.
    Botched again. The GSE's bought loans that met their minimum underwriting standards. Then they packaged those and sold them to institutional investors with an agency guaranty. The original lenders -- the banks and S&L's who wrote the mortgage loans -- already had their money back. They weren't guaranteed anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    being that the government was willing to cover any bad debt, the banks willingly loaned out money to people making 50,000 a yr, ......buying 350,000 houses
    LOL! The P&I on a 30-year fixed at 3.5% would mean a back-end ratio of 38% for a borrower with a $50K annual income. That's about the upper limit, but a borrower with assets sufficient to cover taxes, hazard insurance, any HOA fees, and any outstanding consumer debt would be a reasonable approval.

  5. #305
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    It's pretty obvious here that you fundamentally misunderstand the origins of the credit crisis. Borrowers who qualify at prime terms are not high-risk. And that's where the bulk of 1990's CRA lending went. This is why CRA portfolios performed better than industry averages.

    The people who eventually caused the problems meanwhile didn't care one whit how risky the borrowers were or how impossible loans were rigged into being to repay. Their concern was for the up-front fees and profits they could realize in writing, selling, and then securitizing paper of any quality at all. Strip off the profit and sell off the risk. I'll be gone, and you'll be gone. It will all be somebody else's problem. That was Wall Street and its network of private-label securitizing shops in league with unscrupulous brokers, crooked appraisers, and befuddeld bond ratings agencies. That's who destroyed the global economy -- fancy-pants rich folks. Not low-and moderate-income Americans.


    Botched again. The GSE's bought loans that met their minimum underwriting standards. Then they packaged those and sold them to institutional investors with an agency guaranty. The original lenders -- the banks and S&L's who wrote the mortgage loans -- already had their money back. They weren't guaranteed anything.


    LOL! The P&I on a 30-year fixed at 3.5% would mean a back-end ratio of 38% for a borrower with a $50K annual income. That's about the upper limit, but a borrower with assets sufficient to cover taxes, hazard insurance, any HOA fees, and any outstanding consumer debt would be a reasonable approval.
    I went right to the heart of the issue, and I am correct....government pressed for all Americans to own homes.

    as to your lol...yes you are funny......there are many cases of people buying homes, more then 5 times there annual income.

  6. #306
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    I went right to the heart of the issue, and I am correct....government pressed for all Americans to own homes.
    Absurd. Every administration since the Great Depression has had a policy of working to INCREASE home ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    as to your lol...yes you are funny......there are many cases of people buying homes, more then 5 times there annual income.
    You of course failed to understand the hypothetical you were creating. Just thought I'd point that out.

  7. #307
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    recovery is still slow and exceptionally delicate. we aren't out of the woods yet.
    There is no "job growth."

    Look - 385,000 minus 485,000 doesn't equal "growth" it equals a negative number.

    It's amazing how the Obama media focuses on the gains and ignores the losses....

    Put a republican in office and they get really good on the math and realize the negative numbers.

    Doesn't matter anyways because half of these clowns who post have no interest in the truth and only care about political gangbanging. Democrats would rather beg for bread on the street than have anyone other than a republican in office.... Er beg their government to provide for them.

    I'm so sick of it...

  8. #308
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,373

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    I will paraphrase what your correcting stating....in a nutshell

    banks did not want to loan money to high risk borrowers, the federal government told banks that if they would loan the money on those high risk loans, ....government would cover the cost for any lost........because government wanted people to own homes.

    being that the government was willing to cover any bad debt, the banks willingly loaned out money to people making 50,000 a yr, ......buying 350,000 houses
    Bankers don't give snow away in winter and no one forced them to make those subprime loans. They did need investors/patsies to buy them up after the wrote them though.
    They had a friend named GW Bush who sold $440 Billion in subprime garbage to Fannie Mae in 2002. Is that what you meant by the Federal Govt. garanteeing bad loans?
    Why do you think the entire housing bubble happened on the GOP's watch? Do you think Dems could have ever gotten away with it? I doubt they could or would.

    Fannie and Freddie were just another investor for the banks to swindle. GW Bush himself turned bankers shill and boasted that he got Fannie to commit to 440 Billion $ to buy the new subprimes in his 2002 "Minority Housing Initiative Program." He even evoked 911 and promised that the plan would "turn incredible evil into incredible good," I swear, I'm not making that up. Heres the bit about Fannie in 2002


    And so, therefore, I've called -- yesterday, I called upon the private sector to help us and help the home buyers. We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented. Freddie Mac is interested in helping. I appreciate both of those agencies providing the underpinnings of good capital.
    HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)

    Can you believe he actually said "It's in their charter, it NOW needs to be implemented"? If you know why?, it all will make sense. Anyway there's plenty more, but I fear your brain might explode.

  9. #309
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,373

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    I went right to the heart of the issue, and I am correct....government pressed for all Americans to own homes.

    as to your lol...yes you are funny......there are many cases of people buying homes, more then 5 times there annual income.
    Why do you keep saying "Government" instead of GW Bush? He is the one with the "Minorty Housing Ininiative" where he sold $440 Billion of the banks subprime garbage to Fannie Mae. It was President Bush and a complacent GOP majority in Congress that primed the housing bubble with Govt. money in 2002.
    Blaming the CRA program which did not even have subprime loans is nothing but a red herring and a poor one at that..

  10. #310
    #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 Mr.Nick View Post
    There is no "job growth."

    Look - 385,000 minus 485,000 doesn't equal "growth" it equals a negative number.

    It's amazing how the Obama media focuses on the gains and ignores the losses....

    Put a republican in office and they get really good on the math and realize the negative numbers.
    Sure there is.

    Right on the money!

    That's because the gains outweigh the losses.

    Only when the losses outweigh the gains Mr Nick. The concept isn't nearly as convoluted as you suggest.
    Last edited by a351; 01-19-13 at 08:17 AM.

Page 31 of 34 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... 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
  •