Obama, 2007. "Sub Prime Lending is a Good Idea"

MrVicchio · 10-05-08, 06:51 PM

YouTube - Explosive Audio Unearthed: After the Sub Prime Crisis already started in 2007 Obama says Sub Prime Mortgages that gave houses to people WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THEM was a GOOD IDEA!!

Yes, that's right, listen to "the one" talk about how the Freddie Fannie model was a good idea.

Go on Lefties, defend him. Go for it.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways · 10-05-08, 07:04 PM

Technically, he said that it 'started out' as a good idea, implying that it went bad later. This is incorrect, but a less serious public blunder.

obvious Child · 10-05-08, 08:09 PM

Subprime lending in theory is a good idea. The problem is that the theory requires sustained increased in GDP.

And actually subprime lending in principle is the reason millions of people across the world are no longer in poverty.

Microfinance is subprime lending.

Small loans help lift millions out of poverty - USATODAY.com

Grameen Bank is one of the best examples for those in the know.

MrVicchio · 10-05-08, 08:58 PM

And Sub-Prime Lending melted the American Financial market.

Welfare housing through stupid loans, the Demcrat way to more votes.
(then pin the blame on those evil greedy republicans!)

obvious Child · 10-05-08, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

And Sub-Prime Lending melted the American Financial market.

Incorrect. Subprime lending has occurred in America for decades. The 1990s version of subprime was giving loans to people one notch below prime and then if they paid on time, their fixed rate went down. You yourself posted an article about this and then later abandoned it after I pointed that out. Subprime lending is not a monolith and is broken down into various grades of subprime.

Quote:

Welfare housing through stupid loans, the Demcrat way to more votes.
(then pin the blame on those evil greedy republicans!)

Never mind the GOP 2002 and 2004 pushes. I already gave you links from the White house's own webpage as well as from the WSJ. You never commented on them. To me that sounds like you have real problems blaming your own party for his mess. As Zyplin stated, blaming one party is not in itself bad or created credibility issues. Blaming one party for the behavior one's own party did however does raise serious credibility issues. You are appearing to have such issues.

MrVicchio · 10-05-08, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Incorrect. Subprime lending has occurred in America for decades. The 1990s version of subprime was giving loans to people one notch below prime and then if they paid on time, their fixed rate went down. You yourself posted an article about this and then later abandoned it after I pointed that out. Subprime lending is not a monolith and is broken down into various grades of subprime.

I abandoned nothing, sometimes I lose track of debates, it happens, other times I just ignore what I feel is irrelevant to the discussion. Like your pointing out Sub-Prime lending in the 1990's. That's not what caused the problem dear. It was the EXCESSIVE and UNWISE subprime lending that imploded the market.

Before, sub-prime loans were given out based on a structure, and were accepted risks lending institutions engaged in.

When the CRA kicked in and forced banks to make Sub-Prime loans, and Harold Raines engaged in a systematic lowering of standards that push Sub-Prime into the monster it became... THAT'S when the markets imploded. The government told the markets to do something (give out risky loans) and backed them up with a GCE. Of course, many of these may not have happened if the Glass Act hadn't been touched, breaking down the walls between lending and investment institutions but that's not the main problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Never mind the GOP 2002 and 2004 pushes. I already gave you links from the White house's own webpage as well as from the WSJ. You never commented on them. To me that sounds like you have real problems blaming your own party for his mess. As Zyplin stated, blaming one party is not in itself bad or created credibility issues. Blaming one party for the behavior one's own party did however does raise serious credibility issues. You are appearing to have such issues.

I have repeatedly laid blame where I see it is.

The GOP DID try to reign in Freddie and Fannie Mac, the enablers of this whole ponzi scheme. They were blocked by those in the house and senate profiting from it most.

Something you never care to admit happened.

The GOP's two greatest culpabilities in this mess are:

1. The repeal, as stated above of the glass act that tore down the fire wall between banking/lending institutions.

And

2. Not PUSHING HARD enough to sound the alarm and actually act in the interest of the country. They too rode the "Hey we're for minority and low income housing" bribe scam this really was.

And don't dare try to say otherwise. We all know both sides were competing to show "compassion" and that they "cared about the little guy". That's why there wasn't a whole lot of support from either party to shut down Freddie and Fannie, to stop the obvious time bomb coming on.

I find it amusing that the Liberals demanded no "windfall, golden parachutes" for executives from this, but defend Harold Raines 90,000,000 after basically decimating Freddie Mac (or was it Fannie Mae... doesn't matter).

The reality check is, if the CRA hadn't forced the Sub-Prime market to basically give out loans, and Freddie and Fannie hadn't been doing over time in approving every damn loan sent their way...

The new lending and investment entities wouldn't have rushed out to make huge profits by basically rip offing the GCE!

Both sides are at fault to a point, but the start of it all boils down to welfare through mortgage scheme by the Dems.

Everything else is a symptom, that's the cause.

obvious Child · 10-05-08, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

It was the EXCESSIVE and UNWISE subprime lending that imploded the market.

Incorrect again. It was the changing of the down payment requirements and stable income by both parties from 1995 to 2004 which changed policies at Freddie and Fannie. The Democrats set the stage but the it was the GOP who pushed hard in 2002 and 2004 for serious changes to the down payment structure. Bush himself argued that the down payment was the singular obstacle to American home ownership.

And by the way, you can check your own posts easily to see if the thread is still active, meaning someone likely replied to you.

Quote:

Of course, many of these may not have happened if the Glass Act hadn't been touched, breaking down the walls between lending and investment institutions but that's not the main problem.

I'm not even sure this is a major problem. If Investment houses had not taken out loans to buy securitized mortgages, would we even be in this mess? If they had bought them with cash instead of money from loans, then they'd simply take write downs and be done with it, the stock would tank but they'd be solvent. Instead they are taking write downs and don't have money to pay back the loans causing them to go bankrupt. AIG would of course be in a big jam due to its selling of insurance of these securities, but otherwise, no one would have gone under.

Quote:

I have repeatedly laid blame where I see it is

The GOP DID try to reign in Freddie and Fannie Mac, the enablers of this whole ponzi scheme. They were blocked by those in the house and senate profiting from it most.

Something you never care to admit happened.

Liar.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...ct-2005-a.html (Who killed The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005?)

Interestingly how a GOP dominated committee let that bill die.

Quote:

The reality check is, if the CRA hadn't forced the Sub-Prime market to basically give out loans, and Freddie and Fannie hadn't been doing over time in approving every damn loan sent their way...

That's questionable. The GAO did find that CRA loans were profitable.
Setting the Record Straight

Whoa. This doesn't make any sense.

Fannie Mae's Targeted Community Reinvestment Act Loan Volume Passes $10 Billion Mark; Expanded Purchasing Efforts Help Lenders Meet Both Market Needs and CRA Goals | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET

CRA loans were projected to be in total around $500 billion. The $700 billion bailout is expected to buy securities around 42 cents to the dollar. Where the HELL did the additional $900 billion come from? This can't be CRA. The math doesn't make sense.

Furthermore CRA banks were rated excellent or satisfactory in performance.

CRA Performance: Four of 22 Banks Ranked As 'Outstanding' by OCC: Remaining 18 were 'satisfactory'. (01-JUL-06) US Banker

MrVicchio · 10-05-08, 09:46 PM

I hate to burst your bubble on the S190 issue OC, but you aren't being honest and I think you know it.

WHY didn't the bill make it out for a vote?

Hmm? You claim it was because of the GOP.

Quote:

In 2003, 5 years ago, Republicans took control of the Senate. On July 31, 2003, in the 108th Congress, recognizing the dangers in Fannie and Freddie, and after hearings where Fannie and Freddie were taken to the carpet for improper practices, Senators John Sununu (R-NH), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) introduced legislation to strengthen and improve the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Trent Lott and John McCain were co-sponsors. This bill (S. 1508) passed the Senate Banking Committee, with Democrats opposing. With the opposition by Democrats, traditionally seen as evidence that a bill will never pass the 60-vote cloture rule for a floor vote, the bill died in the 108th Congress.

Gee, what's this? They knew they couldn't get 60 votes to make it happen?
And which party was that? Oh yeah the dems.

Quote:

On January 26, 2005, hoping for a different result in the new congress, Sununu, Hagel, and Dole re-introduced legislation (S. 190) to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill incorporated many provisions of the Sununu, Hagel, Dole legislation from the prior congress. It passed out of the Committee on another party-line vote of 11 – 9 on July 28, 2005. But again, without a single Democrat vote, the bill was doomed if brought to the floor for the critical 60-vote cloture. Only 41 Democrat votes would doom it. In a growing negative atmosphere created by the left based on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fight over an unreported crisis brewing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was likely considered futile. Again the bill was not scheduled to go to the floor where Democrats would certainly have defeated it by voting against cloture and prevented an up or down vote.

WHAT? AGAIN they couldn't get 61 votes? Damn those dirty Republic... wait, sorry that's your line. We can all see here WHY it never happened...

Quote:

In May 2006, John McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of the stalled bill, in the hopes of gathering more co-sponsors and getting a vote in the 109th Congress before the bill would die. McCain would state, “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.” The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended.

On March 14, 2006, Sununu and Hagel (R-NE) introduced an amendment to the Lobbying Reform Bill that would review the lobbying activities of GSE’s such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were becoming powerful lobbyists, funneling huge amounts of campaign money to Senate leaders, including Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of the top 25 recipients, 18 were Democrats with top Democrats exceeded 6-figure contributions from these federally-backed and controlled institutions. The amendment would have directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the lobbying activities of GSEs to determine whether these activities further their statutory housing mission. The amendment would also require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD) to conduct annual audits of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Foundations. The Amendment was defeated along party lines.

The Squeaky Wheel: S. 190 - ?Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005?

Who killed S190? Don't listen to the Spin from Obvious Child, so conviently neglecting to point out that the bill would have never passed.

Nice try though, too bad you aren't honest enough to admit the truth.

obvious Child · 10-05-08, 09:51 PM

Quote:

I hate to burst your bubble on the S190 issue OC, but you aren't being honest and I think you know it.

Uh, you're still a liar.

Quote:

You claim it was because of the GOP.

Actually, if you read the thread I posted, I don't claim it was solely because of the GOP.

As for your blog, where the hell is your references? Substantive evidence?

I'd love to see actual evidence for this:

Quote:

The bill did not obtain any of the necessary support from the Democrats, and once again, the bill died when the 109th Congress ended.

I love how that author makes absolutely no mention that the 109th committee was GOP majority.

And are you going to get around to discussing the rest of my post?

MrVicchio · 10-05-08, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Uh, you're still a liar.

I love how that author makes absolutely no mention that the 109th committee was GOP majority.

And are you going to get around to discussing the rest of my post?

WTF does having a majority have to do with it? They needed 60 vote cloture, and they weren't gonna get it.

Period, nadda, not happening, nice try at spin, but ain't flying.