• 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!

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows [W:256]

sangha said:
It's called "financial deregulation". There was a time when the bank that issued the mortgage was required to hold onto it. Once that rule was abandoned, a mortgage became "just another asset" and could be bought and sold like any other debt-based security



Yes, it was the insecurity of the creditors which caused the crisis more than the insecurity of the underlying mortgages (though the latter was on pretty shaky ground too)
Click to expand...


You can thank the Clinton administration for that REGULATION, not " DE-regulation ".......Lol

You people are so ill informed its scary.

Banks sold their trash loans to Fannie and Freddie, who were under HUD mandate to purchase a increasing amount of worthless loans.

Hell, Clintons Vice Chair appointee Jamie Gorelick Lobbied banks publicly to sell Fannie Mae their junk loans.

Fannie and Freddie then packaged them and sold them off as " AAA " securities. But they were toxic worthless trash.

Clintons 1995 CRA changes increased the GSEs Quota for Subprime mortgage loans to 40 percent.

Thats 4 out of 10 loans they purchased had to be crap loans.

In 2000, Cuomo increased their subprime quotas to 5 out of 10 loans AND committed them to purchase 2.4 Trillion dollars in junk loans.

So no, not " deregulation " , REGULATION.
 
sangha said:
It's called "financial deregulation". There was a time when the bank that issued the mortgage was required to hold onto it. Once that rule was abandoned, a mortgage became "just another asset" and could be bought and sold like any other debt-based security



Yes, it was the insecurity of the creditors which caused the crisis more than the insecurity of the underlying mortgages (though the latter was on pretty shaky ground too)
Click to expand...

Looks like we are on the same page on this one, Sangha.
 
sangha said:
It's called "financial deregulation". There was a time when the bank that issued the mortgage was required to hold onto it. Once that rule was abandoned, a mortgage became "just another asset" and could be bought and sold like any other debt-based security


Yes, it was the insecurity of the creditors which caused the crisis more than the insecurity of the underlying mortgages (though the latter was on pretty shaky ground too)
Click to expand...

It's been proven repeatedly that deregulation was directly responsible for the crisis in 07-08!
 
Montecresto said:
It's been proven repeatedly that deregulation was directly responsible for the crisis in 07-08!
Click to expand...


Lol !

Not by you, thats for sure.

The last time you tried to " Prove " that DE-regulations caused the Collapse you refused to acknowledge the fact that it was Regulations in the 90s that created these loans in the first place.

You refused to read anything that countered your generic talking points.

I posted an excerpt from Janet Reno's 1998 speech where she praised the new CRA REGULATIONS for the number of successful lawsuits leveled against lenders for not providing " equal " credit.

Why are you even here if all you're going to do is perpetuate talking points without backing them up ?
 
Stii wrong!

WASHINGTON — The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html

This conclusive report points to 30 years of deregulation of the financial sector was responsible for the 2007-2008 crisis, and you're quoting democrates to try to prove your point lol, :lamo

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
Stii wrong!

WASHINGTON — The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html
Click to expand...


LOL !!

I accuse you of posting talking points and you respond with....talking points.

And te New York Times Op ed ? Are you friken kidding me ? Are you that lazy ?

Why not just post Krugman's piece where he defended Fannie and Freddie for their unprecedented Securities fraud ?

I can easily blow holes in that Oped too.
 
Montecresto said:
Forgot this part! No oped.


This conclusive report points to 30 years of deregulation of the financial sector was responsible for the 2007-2008 crisis, and you're quoting democrates to try to prove your point lol,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
Click to expand...


No I've sourced directly to the actual Policies that were put in place in the Mid 90s.

Ive sourced to documentation contained within Clintons 1995 Homeowner-ship strategy.

The HUD mandates that forced our GSEs to purchase 4 out of 10 and then 5 out of 10 subprime loans.

The Federal push to target " racist lenders " that were not providing " equal credit " and I've sourced the consequences of all those new REGULATIONS.

You ignored them.

The Housing Bubble was born out of Regulations that forced lenders to provide equal credit by lowering their standards.

The Financial crisis was born out of Clintons GSE Regulations that forced them to buy, bundle and sell off crap securities YEARS BEFORE private investment banks started to create their own MBSs.

You ignored that too.

Again, it was REGULATIONS that were at the heart of the crisis.

I guess you would also ignore the fact that banks had been making mortgages for DECADES without creating a systemic bubble.

Government intervention lowered their standards via the threat of DOJ action and the rest is History
 
The government report I sourced, sunk your argument to the bottom of the ocean. We had best be about regulating our financial markets better, or we'll see more of the same.
 
eohrnberger said:
So you are saying the monkey Bush face is more attached to real events then?
How about the Bush/Hitler?
Or maybe the vampire? Or the devil?

Really! Such rubbish!

How quickly you forget how all the progressives / liberals / Democrats turned on Bush in the most vehement, despicable and crude ways.

Of the criticism that is worth of any real attention, it all came far too late in the case of Obama.
From the time the Biased Lame Stream Media went sweet on Obama to only recently, any legitimate criticism of Obama and his policies was met with cries of 'Racist' and 'Racism'.

If anything, you object to the now lost outright protection, favoritism and nothing but positive reporting the Biased Lame Stream Media condoned on Obama.
ObamaProtectedByMedia_zps1d12e916.jpg


Search your feeling and your memories. You know it to be true.
Click to expand...

yes, quite different. No he's not a citizen. No socialist, communist, fascist, Muslim, terrorist, witch doctor, nonsense. Cmpared to what Obama has faced, Bush's nutters were light humor.
 
Boo Radley said:
yes, quite different. No he's not a citizen. No socialist, communist, fascist, Muslim, terrorist, witch doctor, nonsense. Cmpared to what Obama has faced, Bush's nutters were light humor.
Click to expand...

In your mind's eye, through your rose colored glasses, from your memory, yes, I'm sure you see it that way. Kant kinda says that 'it's not really the thing itself'. I'm thinking that I'm a bit closer to the truth than you are on this one.
 
Boo Radley said:
yes, quite different. No he's not a citizen. No socialist, communist, fascist, Muslim, terrorist, witch doctor, nonsense. Cmpared to what Obama has faced, Bush's nutters were light humor.
Click to expand...

You have a very selective memory that is also very short term challenged.
 
obvious Child said:
If that was so...why didn't the housing market collapse before that?

You do realize you only need a fraction of houses with mortgages to go under before the securitization of those mortgages starts sending financial instruments into a domino right? With the push for reduced obstacles to home ownership along with bad policies towards F&F, that set the blocks for what really screwed us.

Honestly, I don't think the problem itself was the bad loans. It was how Wall Street repackaged the securities under those loans that did us in along with the totally fraudulent rating systems. Bad loans were an issue, but housing itself as a total percent of the GDP is not enough to cause that level of damage.
Click to expand...



Had it not been for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I think the bubble would have collapsed long before 2008.

From 2000-2004 Fannie and Freddie purchased Trillions in Sub-prime securities and loans acting basically as a buffer while they stocked their portfolios full of junk debt. They were the primary consumer of CountryWides trash loans and the primary consumer of Securities backed by Sub-prime loans.

The Freddie and Fannie foundation even bragged about CountryWide being one of their primary originators of loans that were made with little or no income information or verification.


And on top of that they were being run like Enron on steroids and defended by Congress right up until they were declared insolvent.

Their actions and their implicit Government guarantee produced demand for a product that was essentially worthless and their participation in the Market pushed the collapse into 2008 and allowed it to have systemic consequences as MBSs backed by Sub-prime debt found it's way into CDO tranches in Capital Markets all over the world.

Fannie and Freddie haven't given a itemized account of their debt yet, but you can get some idea of their practices and the amount of trash they held thanks to Eric Holders actions post 2008 and the FEDs QE.

First, our Fed has agreed to purchase 1.5 Trillion total in junk " AAA " rated securities from Fannie and Freddie through the Feds QE.

Then FNMA's post 2008 lawsuit against multiple invest banks for selling Fannie Mae junk securities revealed the amount in purchases in Securities that Fannie alone willingly purchased.

6 BILLION FROM BANK OF AMERICA...
25 BILLION FROM MERYYL LYNCH
27 BILLION FROM COUNTRYWIDE
33 BILLION FROM JP MORGN
30 BILLION FROM ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
14 BILLION FROM DEUTCHE BANK
14 BILLION FROM CREDIT SUISSE
11 BILLION FROM GOLDMAN SACHS
10 BILLION FROM MORGAN STANLEY\
6.2 BILLION FROM HSBC
6 BILLION FROM ALLY
5 BILLION FROM BARCLAYS
4 BILLION FROM CITIGROUP
2 BILLION FROM NOMURA

Next is Holder's continued shakedown of Banks and Lenders who were following their CRA mandates. His lawsuit against Bank of America and Wells Fargo who chose to settle out of court rather than fight the US government.

What the GSEs wound up with in their portfolios when they collapsed doesn't speak to the amount of " AAA " securities THEY distributed out into the markets. It wasn't just Fannie and Freddie that collapsed, Capital markets filled with CDOs tranches that were loaded with toxic MBSs collapsed around the world and the Real Estate Market still to this day sits in a massive sea of debt and foreclosures.

All of those worthless securities were backed by worthless loans, and given the minimal Homeownership rates from 2000-2006 they couldn't of originated under Bush. At least not the majority of them.
 
Montecresto said:
The government report I sourced, sunk your argument to the bottom of the ocean. We had best be about regulating our financial markets better, or we'll see more of the same.
Click to expand...

It wasn't even relevant.

Keep the Government out of the private sector, keep Liberal mandates to force " equity " out of the free market, or else you'll see more of the same.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yeah, the Wall Street securitization of mortgages was definitely a big part of it. Not sure how a loan, a mortgage, someone's debt becomes some sort of investment vehicle.
Click to expand...

Easy. The debt is a series of payments. That can be made into a security where the former owner of the debt, such a a bank promises to pay those cash payments to the holder of the security. Mortgaged backed securities are an old investment option. But because bad loans were repackaged and rated at AAA (which I believe someone should have gone to jail for given how they generated those ratings) they infiltrated a huge number of portfolios. Once a few start going bad, they all fall and once they lose the AAA rating, then institutions for the most part, including pension funds like CALPERs are required to sell and there starts the fire sale. It's only a matter of time before the dominos start taking down highly leveraged firms who needed the face value of those assets to balance their debt. Turning a string of payments into a security is fine as long as you know what's in that security. The way they repackaged the subprime made that basically impossible to know.

Anyway, when the banks 'insured' these financial vehicles with CDSs, as soon as the belief that they were bad investments got around, the house of cards came down. The CDSs had to pay off, and AIG lost allot of money.
Click to expand...

AIG got greedy. At its peak, it had CDS liability of far in excess of its actual assets. Even if a fraction went bad they'd be insolvent. Lots of dumb managerial financial decisions were made by the banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies that no one at the government forced them to make. They got greedy and they paid.

It's the lack of belief that the investments would be OK which spread like wildfire, and caused the bubble to pop. Remember, credit, Latin for 'to believe' as in the one who loans the money believes the borrower will pay it back, is a powerful thing, and when it's gone, well, it doesn't return easily or quickly.
Click to expand...

Well, it's that and mandatory mark to market accounting. Once something sells in the market, that's the GAAP price and that impacts your solvency. Furthermore, the MBS from subprime weren't paying out the money that they were believed to be worth and thus weren't worth what they were paid for. That's not up for debate. Once that starts, it's a mad dash to sell assets to maintain solvency.
 
Fenton said:
Wall street ??
Click to expand...

No one forced them to securitize those mortgages. No one.

Fannie and Freddie started buying, packaging and then securitizing those loans as early as 1998.

They pushed billions of " AAA " trash securities out into the Capital markets.
Click to expand...

If they were trash, why did they make money? Or do you not know what "Trash" means? CRA loans were profitable, so much so that the private non-CRA banks jumped it. And they were profitable for decades. Again, if that was the cause...why didn't it happen decades ago?

And from 2000-2004 Fannie and Freddie were the primary consumers of securities backed by Subprime loans.

Their participation not only influenced the markets, but created demand for a product that should have been exposed as worthless junk years before the collapse.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't seem to know what "profitable" means. I don't disagree that F&F played a big role in this, but no one made these private entities securitize or buy these MBS. People got greedy. Also remember that the vast majority of NPLs were non-CRA covered bank issued.

I'm not saying Wall street was blameless, but you had two Government Service Enterprises that were exempt from SEC reporting requirements, who had a direct line of credit to the US Treasury, who's debt carried with it a inherent Government guarantee that were buying up massive amounts of worthless securities.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't give a single answer to my question. Again, no one made Wall Street do this. Especially since the CRA banks were the minority issuer of NPLs.

Without their participation the sub prime mortgage crisis would have never gotten off the ground because Banks wouldn't have had a way to unload all of their worthless subprime loans
Click to expand...

No other way? You mean like how they securitized and sold billions of dollars of MBS on their own?
 
Conservative said:
Reagan's inflation war? Reagan took office with an extremely high inflation rate and misery index. It wasn't Reagan's inflation war it was the war he inherited due to Carter's failed economic policies as he does what most liberals want to do, micromanage the economy from the Federal level
Click to expand...

Try to fail a little less:

Volcker's Announcement of Anti-Inflation Measures - A detailed essay on an important event in the history of the Federal Reserve.

I doubt you even know who Volcker was.
 
obvious Child said:
Try to fail a little less:

Volcker's Announcement of Anti-Inflation Measures - A detailed essay on an important event in the history of the Federal Reserve.

I doubt you even know who Volcker was.
Click to expand...

LOL, typical liberal arrogance. I am probably old enough to be your granddad. Doesn't change the reality, Reagan inherited a high misery index and his leadership pulled out of the recession. Can you name for me one example of Obama positive leadership that promoted the greatness of America and positive economic growth?

By the way, that article was 1979 and the recession began in 1980 then the double dip in 1981 before Reagan economic policies were even passed.
 
Conservative said:
LOL, typical liberal arrogance. I am probably old enough to be your granddad. Doesn't change the reality, Reagan inherited a high misery index and his leadership pulled out of the recession. Can you name for me one example of Obama positive leadership that promoted the greatness of America and positive economic growth?

By the way, that article was 1979 and the recession began in 1980 then the double dip in 1981 before Reagan economic policies were even passed.
Click to expand...

You realize you haven't actually addressed that article. You just personally attacked me. And you're trying to change the topic. Of course the article is from 1979. It's funny you don't even understand how the Fed's actions caused it the 1980-1981 recession because you literally have no understanding of what happened. Thanks for proving to me once again you nothing but a blowhard.

It's that kind of behavior as to why I make the assertions about your actual experience, aka, none.
 
obvious Child said:
You realize you haven't actually addressed that article. You just personally attacked me. And you're trying to change the topic. Of course the article is from 1979. It's funny you don't even understand how the Fed's actions caused it the 1980-1981 recession because you literally have no understanding of what happened. Thanks for proving to me once again you nothing but a blowhard.

It's that kind of behavior as to why I make the assertions about your actual experience, aka, none.
Click to expand...

Yep, you nailed, no experience at all, thanks for the response and showing why you are a waste of time and why I made a mistake in responding to your post. Won't do that again for another 6-8 months
 
Conservative said:
Yep, you nailed, no experience at all, thanks for the response and showing why you are a waste of time and why I made a mistake in responding to your post. Won't do that again for another 6-8 months
Click to expand...

You can insult me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact I constantly point out the Jupiter sized holes in your arguments.

It's funny how you still don't understand how the actions taken by Volcker (who you still don't know and tells me just how old you really are) impacted the economy down the road.

Hey did you finally figure out the difference between chain, real and nominal? How about when a table is cumulative or not?
 
eohrnberger said:
In your mind's eye, through your rose colored glasses, from your memory, yes, I'm sure you see it that way. Kant kinda says that 'it's not really the thing itself'. I'm thinking that I'm a bit closer to the truth than you are on this one.
Click to expand...

I think not.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think not.
Click to expand...


What I see is someone who thinks they are right on every issue when the reality is the actual data proves you wrong. You do think and you do feel, too bad you don't verify those thoughts and the actual results.
 
j-mac said:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/14643 AUGUST NBC-WSJ POLL.pdf



We constantly hear in here how Obama is doing such a great job from the progressive members. How when we say that the polls are against him, we are just not taking our information from the right sources, or we don't know how to read the polls....Well, here is a poll from NBC for God's sake....In all areas it seems that American's of ALL stripes are just fed up with this liar in office....

Domestically - 40% approve, 60% disapprove
Foreign policy - 30% approve 70% disapprove
Right track/Wrong track - 22% approve, 71% disapprove.....

etc...

This is clearly a contender, if not the winner of the absolute worst President this country has ever had.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened with Bush when he was in, and nothing changed. This is the teeter-totter of single party rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom