Page 126 of 128 FirstFirst ... 2676116124125126127128 LastLast
Results 1,251 to 1,260 of 1274

Thread: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

  1. #1251
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    [QUOTE 1063309773]False narrative ? Yeah, redlining never existed. And Reagan's DOJ and HUD didn't look the other way when banks were basically ignoring the anti-discrimination requirements in the CRA. I guess they were all too busy deregulating the savings and loan industry, a move that led to widespread real estate speculation, hundreds of failed institutions, and a massive federal bailout.

    >>The Democrats first, decided that the Private Sector standards, used by Banks for decades to keep the Housing markets stable where innately racist.

    No, the standards were not racist. Many of the people applying them were. Did I say that? No, I got confused. Racism in America? Hasn't existed for at least a hundred years.

    "I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro …" "They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
    [/QUOTE]


    Answer this question.

    If banks were actually guilty of discriminatory lending practices, that is they were actually refusing to lend to people based solely on the color of their skin, why did the Clinton administration force banks to lower their lending standards ?

    HUDs 1995 Afordable Housing Goals for the GSEs mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up a increasing number of loans made to low income borrowers.

    40 percent of their loan purchases had to be from low income borrowers.

    Janet Reno in 1998 bragged about her 13 successful " Fair lending " lawsuites against banks and vowed to sue even more lenders.

    Why would the Government fight legitmate discrimination by telling banks if they didn't lower their standards they were going to be subject to DOJ action ?

    Are you telling me Minority loan applicants with Good credit scores received Sub-Prime loans ?

    The way you fight legitmate discrimination based solely on color is you simply warn the banks to extend credit out to credit worthly applicants regardless of the color of their skin or else.

    Use your brain man.

  2. #1252
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Can you point to the post that asserts redlining never existed? I must have missed that one.
    Hmm. Well, perhaps I did overstate a bit. As you know, I was looking at:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Clinton's war against " Racist lenders " and his false narrative of " discrimination in lending ".
    I should have limited my sarcasm to "redlining did not exist in the 1980s." I'd say it did, and that's why Clinton warned the banks he claimed were engaging in it that they'd better stop. If it didn't, then the banks he warned had nothing to be concerned about, right?

    >>Still, given the choice between some redlining, or at least enforcement of common sense lending standards, and a housing bubble, I think it's an easy choice to make.

    I see this as a false choice, and one that gets to heart of the matter here. Some on the Right want to portray the CRA as a giveaway to blacks. They do the same thing with affirmative action. The CRA is designed to force banks to give women and minorities equal treatment, not preferential treatment. Banks are not expected to provide mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them back, rather they are expected to stop their established practice of deciding that lending to women and minorities is inherently "risky."


    I've taken some time to look around and see what what I could learn about this issue. My view hasn't changed. As yer saying, the CRA seems to have played a role, albeit a relatively small one, in the creation and implosion of the housing bubble. Some on the Right have decided that the Act, along with F & F, are pretty much solely responsible. And they absurdly claim that liberals and progressives "blame Bush and no one else."

    I don't think I can contribute anything more, if I've even contributed anything to begin with, to this discussion. I'm gonna post an excerpt from an article that I think makes a good argument, along with a few links, and then, much to the disappointment of some I'm sure, probably have nothing much more to say.

    In my searching, I found that this topic has been discussed repeatedly here at DB. I'm gonna call it a dead horse.

    I await the Krauthammer column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of leveraged loans—loans banks committed to private-equity firms that wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies, and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill Clinton's fault?

    Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them—frequently using borrowed capital. — "Subprime Suspects: The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong, Slate, Oct 7, 2008"

    "Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?," The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Mar 1, 2009

    "The Subprime Crisis: Is Government Housing Policy to Blame?," The Federal Reserve Board, Aug 3, 2011

    "The Subprime Crisis: How Much Did Lender Regulation Matter?," by Robert B. Avery and Kenneth P. Brevoort, two Fed economists, published by George Washington University, Aug 2010

    A review of the Avery and Brevoort study, by Peter van Doren of the Cato Institute, in the Spring 2011 edition of Regulation, p.61

    "It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act," Economist's View, Sept 22, 2008 (contains lots of comments)

    "The Community Reinvestment Act Did Not Induce Subprime Lending," Economist's View, Oct 5, 2012 (lots more comments)

    >>The rest of your post is just so much noise, not worth responding to.

    Yer gonna treat me that way after I gave you that wonderful little sandwich shop?

  3. #1253
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    If banks were actually guilty of discriminatory lending practices, that is they were actually refusing to lend to people based solely on the color of their skin, why did the Clinton administration force banks to lower their lending standards ?
    The answer is quite simple: the standards were not lowered. Got it?

    >>Why would the Government fight legitmate discrimination by telling banks if they didn't lower their standards they were going to be subject to DOJ action ?

    Same answer. And this "DOJ action" you refer to would have involved blocking expansions and mergers.

    >>Are you telling me Minority loan applicants with Good credit scores received Sub-Prime loans ?

    No, I'm telling you that women and minorities were being discriminated against.

    >>The way you fight legitmate discrimination based solely on color is you simply warn the banks to extend credit out to credit worthly applicants regardless of the color of their skin or else.

    "legitmate discrimination based solely on color"? I'm guessing you mean "illegitimate." The solution you point to is the one employed: lend to women and minorities who are qualified. Stop acting like they are inherently more risky.

    >>Use your brain man.

    But I'm just a commie libtard. I lack yer higher reasoning skills.

    As one of the people who complains about my occasional non-use of quote boxes, maybe you oughta stop confusing people by failing to use the tags correctly.

  4. #1254
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Hmm. Well, perhaps I did overstate a bit. As you know, I was looking at:



    I should have limited my sarcasm to "redlining did not exist in the 1980s." I'd say it did, and that's why Clinton warned the banks he claimed were engaging in it that they'd better stop. If it didn't, then the banks he warned had nothing to be concerned about, right?

    >>Still, given the choice between some redlining, or at least enforcement of common sense lending standards, and a housing bubble, I think it's an easy choice to make.

    I see this as a false choice, and one that gets to heart of the matter here. Some on the Right want to portray the CRA as a giveaway to blacks. They do the same thing with affirmative action. The CRA is designed to force banks to give women and minorities equal treatment, not preferential treatment. Banks are not expected to provide mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them back, rather they are expected to stop their established practice of deciding that lending to women and minorities is inherently "risky."


    I've taken some time to look around and see what what I could learn about this issue. My view hasn't changed. As yer saying, the CRA seems to have played a role, albeit a relatively small one, in the creation and implosion of the housing bubble. Some on the Right have decided that the Act, along with F & F, are pretty much solely responsible. And they absurdly claim that liberals and progressives "blame Bush and no one else."

    I don't think I can contribute anything more, if I've even contributed anything to begin with, to this discussion. I'm gonna post an excerpt from an article that I think makes a good argument, along with a few links, and then, much to the disappointment of some I'm sure, probably have nothing much more to say.

    In my searching, I found that this topic has been discussed repeatedly here at DB. I'm gonna call it a dead horse.

    I await the Krauthammer column in which he points out the specific provision of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced Bear Stearns to run with an absurd leverage ratio of 33 to 1, which instructed Bear Stearns hedge-fund managers to blow up hundreds of millions of their clients' money, and that required its septuagenarian CEO to play bridge while his company ran into trouble. Perhaps Neil Cavuto knows which CRA clause required Lehman Bros. to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term debt in the capital markets and then buy tens of billions of dollars of commercial real estate at the top of the market. I can't find it. Did AIG plunge into the credit-default-swaps business with abandon because Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now members picketed its offices? Please. How about the hundreds of billions of dollars of leveraged loans—loans banks committed to private-equity firms that wanted to conduct leveraged buyouts of retailers, restaurant companies, and industrial firms? Many of those are going bad now, too. Is that Bill Clinton's fault?

    Look: There was a culture of stupid, reckless lending, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the subprime lenders were an integral part. But the dumb-lending virus originated in Greenwich, Conn., midtown Manhattan, and Southern California, not Eastchester, Brownsville, and Washington, D.C. Investment banks created a demand for subprime loans because they saw it as a new asset class that they could dominate. They made subprime loans for the same reason they made other loans: They could get paid for making the loans, for turning them into securities, and for trading them—frequently using borrowed capital. — "Subprime Suspects: The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong, Slate, Oct 7, 2008"

    "Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown?," The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Mar 1, 2009

    "The Subprime Crisis: Is Government Housing Policy to Blame?," The Federal Reserve Board, Aug 3, 2011

    "The Subprime Crisis: How Much Did Lender Regulation Matter?," by Robert B. Avery and Kenneth P. Brevoort, two Fed economists, published by George Washington University, Aug 2010

    A review of the Avery and Brevoort study, by Peter van Doren of the Cato Institute, in the Spring 2011 edition of Regulation, p.61

    "It Wasn't the Community Reinvestment Act," Economist's View, Sept 22, 2008 (contains lots of comments)

    "The Community Reinvestment Act Did Not Induce Subprime Lending," Economist's View, Oct 5, 2012 (lots more comments)

    >>The rest of your post is just so much noise, not worth responding to.

    Yer gonna treat me that way after I gave you that wonderful little sandwich shop?
    NOT ONE of your links mentions the CRA changes in 1995.

    Changes that allowed Fannie and Freddie to Count their purchases of Sub-Prime loans and securities towards their HUD affordable lending goals.

    Changes that lowered Fannie and Freddies Capital requirements on Sub-Prime loans purchased down to 3 percent.

    Not one of those links mentions the over 6 Trillion in CRA commitments made over the course of the Subprime bubble.

    In 1994, Democrat James Johnson committed the GSEs to 1 TRILLION dollars in CRA purchases.

    In 2000, Andrew Cuomo committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Sub-Prime purchases.

    Didn't see that in any of your links.

    Changes that included CRA scores for lenders. Scores that were published publicly so the Feds and Community Activist groups and Plaintiffs lawyers could target these banks with very expensive lawsuites.

    Barrack Obama was one of those Plaintiffs lawyers who targeted banks for "discrimination" in Chicago.

    Not one of those links mentions the new GSE requirements mandated by Clintons National Homeownership Strategy.

    Requirements that set a rising quota for Fannie and Freddie .

    Your links didn't mention the fact that it was Fannie and Freddie in the 90s who first lobbied banks for their CRA loans.

    Loans that they bundled, turned into securities and distributed out to the Markets as "AAA" rated.

    Securities that were really backed wi worthless loans.

    In fact everyone of those links skips over all of the relevant information that explains what really happened.

    Try again I guess.

  5. #1255
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Tell me how debt to GDP ratio affects the average American and the budget of the United States?
    I've already explained that. "[T]he money used to pay the debt service comes out of the (expanded) GDP." Understand now?

    >>It is a great tool for people who love percentage change or percentage of a higher GDP number to try and make a point but it means nothing.

    It may mean nothing to you. I can't account for that. Well, I suppose I can, but I wanna try t' be polite.

    >>you believe that 6.7 trillion added to the debt is good because it is a 60% increase in the debt whereas 1.7 trillion debt is bad because it is triple the debt. Who does that make sense to?

    $1.7 trillion? Try $4.9 trillion.

    http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...eaganObama.png

    Put those numbers in constant dollars, and Mr. Bush comes out significantly worse.

    >>Sorry but we aren't paying much out of the growing GDP because the GDP isn't growing.

    http://www.roanen.com/uploads/1/0/2/...031041.png?674

    >>Do you realize that you are … ignoring the projections made when it was implemented?

    Remind me what those were, as if that makes any difference.

    >>Do you realize what happened with that 842 BILLION Dollars and the impact on the economy?

    Yes. Here's a summary for you.

  6. #1256
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    NOT ONE of your links mentions the CRA changes in 1995.
    A stupid lie, even by yer standards.

    >>Didn't see that [blah, blah, blah] in any of your links.

    You sure are a fast reader.

    >>Try again I guess.

    Not a chance. Live in yer partisan idiocy; it's not my concern.

  7. #1257
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    I've already explained that. "[T]he money used to pay the debt service comes out of the (expanded) GDP." Understand now?

    >>It is a great tool for people who love percentage change or percentage of a higher GDP number to try and make a point but it means nothing.

    It may mean nothing to you. I can't account for that. Well, I suppose I can, but I wanna try t' be polite.

    >>you believe that 6.7 trillion added to the debt is good because it is a 60% increase in the debt whereas 1.7 trillion debt is bad because it is triple the debt. Who does that make sense to?

    $1.7 trillion? Try $4.9 trillion.

    http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...eaganObama.png

    Put those numbers in constant dollars, and Mr. Bush comes out significantly worse.

    >>Sorry but we aren't paying much out of the growing GDP because the GDP isn't growing.

    http://www.roanen.com/uploads/1/0/2/...031041.png?674

    >>Do you realize that you are … ignoring the projections made when it was implemented?

    Remind me what those were, as if that makes any difference.

    >>Do you realize what happened with that 842 BILLION Dollars and the impact on the economy?

    Yes. Here's a summary for you.
    Again, what expanded GDP as not only did the debt service grow but so did the budget items other than Debt service.

    Further the 1.7 trillion debt or tripling of the debt was Reagan's, not Bush"s so again I ask you is the 6.7 trillion dollars added to the debt better than the 1.7 trillion because it is a lower percentage change in GDP?

    Today the total debt on the U.S. exceeds our yearly GDP, please tell me what President in modern history did that, Reagan, Bush? Nope, Obama

    Interesting how you tout the success of the Stimulus when so many others don't including those surveyed as to Obama's JAR

    I know how difficult this has to be for you as usually you are dealing with "low information" Obama supporters. That isn't the case with Conservatives who have the facts to refute your feelings.

  8. #1258
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,298

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    A stupid lie, even by yer standards.

    >>Didn't see that [blah, blah, blah] in any of your links.

    You sure are a fast reader.

    >>Try again I guess.

    Not a chance. Live in yer partisan idiocy; it's not my concern.
    What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? You aren't dealing with low information Obama supporters here but rather people who can actually do research and verify what they are told. Most conservatives understand economics as well as the laws that are passed along with their results. You seem to buy what you are told and the question is why?

  9. #1259
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,952
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    . . . .

    >>The rest of your post is just so much noise, not worth responding to.

    Yer gonna treat me that way after I gave you that wonderful little sandwich shop?
    Yeah. OK. Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but just seems like a soapbox spiel. Is OK.
    the Fix-is-in Bureau of Investigation

  10. #1260
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,324

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    A stupid lie, even by yer standards.

    >>Didn't see that [blah, blah, blah] in any of your links.

    You sure are a fast reader.

    >>Try again I guess.

    Not a chance. Live in yer partisan idiocy; it's not my concern.
    A Lie ??

    Well then prove its a Lie.

    Don't t turn into a child on me and throw temper tantrums.

    Back up your accusations.

    Hey you know what ? Fannie and Freddie were the only Financial entities put under SEC investigations over the Sub-Prime Collapse.

    Yep. In 2004 and 2011.

    2004 was because of Clinton appointee Franklin Raines corruption and Securities fraud and 2011 was because both of the GSEs hid all their worrhless debt.

    You have to be proud of that. That the democrats ran two American iconic institutions in to the ground.

    And Fannie Mae had been around since the 30s too.

Posting Permissions

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