Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

dad2three2001 said:

Got it, You want to keep the focus narrowly defined on your crappy premise that CFPB would harm US though CONservatves have NEVER been correct on policy. Ever

You are pushing MORE right wing myths as you have amnesia of 2001-2009....

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

Being that the housing bubble was largely in the middle class to wealthier suburbs, and not in the inner city, it is the height of absurdity to assert that the Community Reinvestment Act had much of a role. Moreover, the housing bubble was not restricted to the United States, nor was it restricted to residential real-estate as there was a huge commercial real-estate bubble as well. It all traces back to the deregulation of credit default swaps in the late 90s / early 2000s. This created a situation where a lender did not have to concern themselves with whether a loan would be repaid or not, as they would then take mortgages, bundle them into securities, and then back them with unregulated default swaps. Blame lies with both parties and more than one administration.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

It seems that your entire argument is based on the notion that the housing bubble was precipitated by modifications of the CRA in 1995. Do you not realize for that to be the case, the housing bubble would have had to originate and to have primarily been based in minority areas of inner cities. Virtually every major city in the country had a housing bubble out in the upper middle class and wealthy suburbs, but I can't think of a single major city in the country that had one in the impoverished minority inner city.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

I agree that the blame lies with both parties and with more than one administration. The history I posted earlier supports that pretty well. I don't agree however that the housing bubble was caused by risky loans to the responsible middle class. As the housing bubble burst, and their home values plummeted, many in the middle class found themselves under water and in deep financial trouble. But most did their damndest to dig out and save their credit ratings, reputations, and the equity they had in their homes.

Those who had little or no equity and little credit rating to protect didn't care. When making payments became difficult or a bother, they walked away. And THAT is what crashed the housing market.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

Well what it seems to you that my argument is and what my argument actually is are definitely two different things.

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

First YOUR premise was Bush went to Congress 17 times to reform F/F. Weird how the GOP Congress didn't take HIM seriously? AS he pushed F/F into purchasing $440 BILLION in MBS''s to meet his goals, starting in 2004

Want to give me the link to the "Bloomberg Market article". YOU TALKING KEVIN HAZLET'S BUSH ISN'T GUILTY THING? The guy from AEI who like the rest of AEI, has been jumping through hoops to lie?

YOUR NEW LINK, NYT? CRA. Had ZERO to do with Bush's subprime crisis. Only 6% of ALL loans 2004-2008 were done by banks even under CRA requirements, NOT that they were even done for CRA purposes, lol



Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law

Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.

BANKSTER:

Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

"Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."

Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

NOW let's get back to FACYS

Clinton huh?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


"(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

"In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/files/references/Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac_090911_v2.pdf


The American mortgage market was about $500 billion in 1990. During the 1990s, it went up to nearly $1 trillion in 1993, peaked in 1998 at around $1.5 trillion. In 2000, it stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1trillion to almost $4 trillion.

About 70% of this rise was accounted for by people refinancing their conventional mortgages at lower interest rates

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


CLINTON? LOL


US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED UNDER BUSH. GET HONEST, JUST ONCE

Everything else you posit is just right wing nonsense!

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

I'll ask again. Do you know what the CFPB is? Do you know what Dodd-Frank is, and how it interacts with the CFPB which is the agency that will enforce DF?

Okay, here's a link for you since you don't want to do research yourself. I posted a great link from CBS News a few pages back. Here are some more for you.

Thanks to Dodd-Frank, Community Banks Are Too Small to Survive - Bank Think Article - American Banker

Give Small Banks a Break on CFPB Mortgage Rules - Bank Think Article - American Banker

Regulatory Burdens: The Impact of Dodd-Frank on Community Banking | Center for American Progress

As community banks leave mortgage market, former CFPB official prepares to benefit | CFPB Journal - The publication for people interested in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Small Banks Ask Break From Agency They Hoped Would Hurt BofA - Bloomberg

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.aba.com/aba/documents/dfa/dfguide.pdf&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=5CmeU_KzCpW0yAST9oFw&ved=0CCYQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNFbe6-s2xTpjubQEQqId-h9lBqPeA

Dodd-Frank may hurt community banks, consumers | Bank Credit News

Click to expand...

Ockham said:

I'll take Amnesia 2008-2016 please. The Bush years are actually looking pretty good right about now.

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

Myth No. 2: Dodd-Frank hurts small businesses and community banks.


The purpose of the law is to regulate the largest Wall Street firms, the ones most responsible for the crisis. Small banks were victims of the crisis, with hundreds failing because of big banks. Dodd-Frank will actually bring about lower deposit insurance premiums for community banks and will allow them to continue to work with their existing regulators.

Dispelling Myths of Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Legislation



Dodd-Frank doesn’t hurt small banks, says Treasury Department

“Community banks can make the argument that they don’t put our nation’s economy at stake,” Cam Fine, president and CEO of the Independent Community Bankers of America, told POLITICO earlier this year. “Before the crisis, a bank was a bank was a bank. Regulations were applied evenly across the board, no matter what your size or risk was.”

Dodd-Frank doesn


Myth No. 2: Dodd-Frank hurts small businesses and community banks.

The law is squarely aimed at better regulating the largest and most complex Wall Street firms, the ones that were most responsible for the crisis and still present the most risk.

Small community banks were victims of the crisis, with hundreds failing as a result of the big banks' risky gambles. That's why they came to Congress and asked us to modernize and strengthen financial regulations, leveling the playing field against the shadow banking industry, entities such as payday lenders and mortgage brokers that had been created to avoid regulation.


Many community banks are concerned that regulators such as the FDIC have become overzealous. But that is a product of the post-crisis environment and not a result of this law, which, by design, will help community banks continue to serve as a lifeline to small businesses.

Dodd: Deepening economic crisis and other myths about Dodd-Frank | www.statesman.com

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

Yes, I can google stuff too and can come up with link after link blaming just about anybody under the sun that anybody wants to blame for just about anything. Please understand that I know you think you're being sincere and honest. I believe I am too. And I just plain don't have the interest in a 'blame Bush' partisan food fight and the battle of the links is really REALLY boring to me. So let's just agree to disagree okay? If you should like to actually discuss the topic, I'm up for that.

Click to expand...

Ockham said:

I'll take Amnesia 2008-2016 please. The Bush years are actually looking pretty good right about now.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Your home being underwater is only a problem if you intend to sell it. Most of the people whose home values plummeted after they bought at the top of the market but had conventional mortgages are still paying them as agreed. Nobody loses his or her home because the house is underwater. It's because the person took a mortgage he never should have had to begin with in order to live in a home he should never be living in.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

You read all of my links in record time.

Payday lenders and mortgage brokers have nothing to do with what I'm posting about.

By the way, you do know, or maybe you don't, that the first link (dismissing all those "myths") was to an interview with Chris Dodd, who authored Dodd-Frank. You think he's going to say "Yes my law will kill the small banks and help the big banks"? Funny. Here, you can read the words of the utterly impartial Dodd in full here:

Dodd: Deepening economic crisis and other myths about Dodd-Frank | www.statesman.com

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Your home being underwater is only a problem if you intend to sell it. Most of the people whose home values plummeted after they bought at the top of the market but had conventional mortgages are still paying them as agreed. Nobody loses his or her home because the house is underwater. It's because the person took a mortgage he never should have had to begin with in order to live in a home he should never be living in.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Your home being underwater is only a problem if you intend to sell it. Most of the people whose home values plummeted after they bought at the top of the market but had conventional mortgages are still paying them as agreed. Nobody loses his or her home because the house is underwater. It's because the person took a mortgage he never should have had to begin with in order to live in a home he should never be living in.

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

I've read the garbage before. It's AEI, CATO, Heritage, etc talking points devoid of TRUTH

I know, let's trust right wingers who blame Bush crisis on poor people and forget their entire history from 1994-2007 on what was tied to the crisis...

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

First, I i don't believe YOU are being sincere or honest. Really simple, despite right wing MYTHS that it was Carter, CRA, Clinton, Barney, Dems fault on the Bush subprime crisis, IT WAS A BUSH REGULATOR FAILURE THAT HAPPENED, AS HE WAS THE MAIN CHEERLEADER FOR THE BANKSTERS, GUTTING REGULATORS AFTER BEING WARNED STARTING IN 2004 BY THE FBI!

Why? He had zero growth without it.

Next time instead of TRYING the lame excuse of trying to fit Clinton, Barney or the Dems in YOUR false narrative, think twice

Warren, wants to reign in to big to fail. CONservatives/Libertarians, not so much. Pretty simple really. After the 4th Bankster bailout since the first GOP great depression, they still have 'faith' their ideology will win over history!

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

Agreed, but in our highly mobile society and an iffy jobs market requiring many to relocate, that became a serious problem for a huge number of people. For many of those in the middle class, the lure of easy credit and low interest rates was too much to resist and they bought more house than they could comfortably afford after the crash when jobs were scarce, wages stagnant, and inflation kept marching right along. So many in the middle class did get hurt and there were defaults in the middle class too when jobs went away and they simply had nowhere to turn to keep up those mortgage payments. I know three different families, all salt of the earth types who had never defaulted on a debt EVER until the housing crash followed by the crappy economy we have had for the last six years. And all three finally just couldn't make it and lost those homes along with their equity and their stellar credit ratings. It was heart breaking.

I have simply seen nothing in Warren's theories about financial institution reform that would address those problems in any way.

Click to expand...

polgara said:

Well said! :thumbs: The sad thing is that many were encouraged to do! Proof that many don't think for themselves any more, but rely on others who don't care about them at all! :thumbdown:

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

Well what it seems to you that my argument is and what my argument actually is are definitely two different things.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

I can't believe anyone with any kind of critical thinking skills thinks that the homeowners who took interest only loans from brokers, or no-doc loans with a no interest period that changed to a balloon at 18%, aren't responsible for their own failures. Those were the people who hurt the ones who made good decisions before their houses became worth less than a litterbox.

It's Progressivism at its finest. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

Yeah, because Bankster should just hand out loans to ANYONE with a pulse *shaking head*

According to one narrative, people with lousy jobs, low incomes, and poor credit ratings have an uncanny ability to overwhelm the better judgement of banks and mortgage brokers, and dupe them into approving risky mortgages. I must have been sleeping that day in Econ 101 when they explained how that works.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

We have a lot of friends in our neighborhood who moved here in 2005 and 2006, and their home values plummeted after they moved in. Even with more than 20% down, they are still underwater. But they are not moving and still paying. God help them if they have to move. The problem was no fault of theirs.

My husband & I had our house built in 1998. When the value more than doubled to what we paid, we were smart and resisted the temptation of using our home as an ATM, which is why we aren't in trouble today. The people who were irresponsible are in trouble. But Warren will never tell them it was their fault (and apparently, the Warren champions who post here don't see it that way either, which explains why they support her). It's always someone else's fault....

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

IT CASCADED TO THE ENTIRE US ECONOMY IF YOU HADN'Y NOTICED!

According to one narrative, people with lousy jobs, low incomes, and poor credit ratings have an uncanny ability to overwhelm the better judgement of banks and mortgage brokers, and dupe them into approving risky mortgages. I must have been sleeping that day in Econ 101 when they explained how that works.


Subprime loans originated in late 2005 and 2006 are playing a major role in recent defaults and foreclosures.


The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1trillion to almost $4 trillion.

About 70% of this rise was accounted for by people refinancing their conventional mortgages at lower interest rates

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf



It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Nobody forced anyone to take a mortgage. A lender can't file a lien on your home without your approval. Smart people read what they commit to. Contracts are specific for a reason.

Click to expand...