• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mitt should expose Obama's roll in the economic meltdown of 2008..

Redress said:
Giant's game not nearly the same thing as nomination speech. I am sure you believe that it isn't why it is moved, but considering some of the things you believe.....
Click to expand...


where are the 50,000 people staying that came into town for this?.....is it the "Magic Garden Lodge"??

I have seen nothing about how they are making it with no place to go tonight? will they riot??
or maybe there is a OWS protest they can form...?...
 
Last edited:
KopeAcetic said:
I'm sorry but I have to ask. Travis you were caught in an obvious lie that you perpetuated for multiple posts, finally get caught in it and now you are changing the subject? Can you please explain why you feel this is rational behavior in an honest debate?
Click to expand...

if you try to use English I will attempt to answer what Im sure is a stellar question,...... what lie?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Wrong Tim, they got high ratings because the ratings agencies were paid by those seeking the ratings, not because of who was "insuring" them.
Click to expand...

Look, I could get into the whole chronological order how how things went down, but I don't have that kind of time. People generally buy things that appeal to them and are willing to pay more for the things they are most appealed by. We pay less for things that do not appeal to us. Notwithstanding the beginning of the end with Lehman and Bear (Which by the way was not what you or most thik it was) the BIG problem with the crisis wasn't that banks held toxic loans, it was that AIG couldn't possibly pay out the insurance on them. It started with the exposing of this scheme by the run on Lehman and Bear, and then grew exponentially out of control when the Fed realized that there was approx 34 *T*rillion (Yes TRILLION) insured by AIG alone. Well you might ask yourself well how could that be? How could there by 34 Trillion, and the answer is that AIG had it's hand in every transaction as it moved from institution to institution. Each time it moved it was re-insured by AIG and you might ask, well why would they need to re-insure something? Good question, and the answer is that because they money doing it, and each time the buyer wanted a new guarnator for the (What the buyer already knew) bad loans.

It was essentially a game of hot potatoe. Everyone that played the game knew it was going to go south eventually, so no one wanted to hold the hot potatoe long enough to expose themselves. All the while AIG was making tons of cash as the potatoes moved faster and gaster into and out of each others hands.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Look, I could get into the whole chronological order how how things went down, but I don't have that kind of time. People generally buy things that appeal to them and are willing to pay more for the things they are most appealed by. We pay less for things that do not appeal to us. Notwithstanding the beginning of the end with Lehman and Bear (Which by the way was not what you or most thik it was) the BIG problem with the crisis wasn't that banks held toxic loans, it was that AIG couldn't possibly pay out the insurance on them. It started with the exposing of this scheme by the run on Lehman and Bear, and then grew exponentially out of control when the Fed realized that there was approx 34 *T*rillion (Yes TRILLION) insured by AIG alone. Well you might ask yourself well how could that be? How could there by 34 Trillion, and the answer is that AIG had it's hand in every transaction as it moved from institution to institution. Each time it moved it was re-insured by AIG and you might ask, well why would they need to re-insure something? Good question, and the answer is that because they money doing it, and each time the buyer wanted a new guarnator for the (What the buyer already knew) bad loans.

It was essentially a game of hot potatoe. Everyone that played the game knew it was going to go south eventually, so no one wanted to hold the hot potatoe long enough to expose themselves. All the while AIG was making tons of cash as the potatoes moved faster and gaster into and out of each others hands.

Tim-
Click to expand...

great post..lots of truth in there Tim.. thank you...
 
Deuce said:
So let's clarify:
Things that happened when Clinton was president: Obama's fault.
Things that happened when Bush was president: Obama's fault.
Things that happened when Obama was president: Obama's fault.
Things that will happen after Obama is out of office: Obama's fault.
Click to expand...

I never once heard GWB blame anyone.. ever...he was class..
 
Hicup said:
Look, I could get into the whole chronological order how how things went down, but I don't have that kind of time. People generally buy things that appeal to them and are willing to pay more for the things they are most appealed by. We pay less for things that do not appeal to us. Notwithstanding the beginning of the end with Lehman and Bear (Which by the way was not what you or most thik it was) the BIG problem with the crisis wasn't that banks held toxic loans, it was that AIG couldn't possibly pay out the insurance on them. It started with the exposing of this scheme by the run on Lehman and Bear, and then grew exponentially out of control when the Fed realized that there was approx 34 *T*rillion (Yes TRILLION) insured by AIG alone. Well you might ask yourself well how could that be? How could there by 34 Trillion, and the answer is that AIG had it's hand in every transaction as it moved from institution to institution. Each time it moved it was re-insured by AIG and you might ask, well why would they need to re-insure something? Good question, and the answer is that because they money doing it, and each time the buyer wanted a new guarnator for the (What the buyer already knew) bad loans.

It was essentially a game of hot potatoe. Everyone that played the game knew it was going to go south eventually, so no one wanted to hold the hot potatoe long enough to expose themselves. All the while AIG was making tons of cash as the potatoes moved faster and gaster into and out of each others hands.

Tim-
Click to expand...
Tim, you are TERRIBLY confused, AIG had its credit rating lowered......which is TOTALLY different from the credit rating of derivatives....which is what Kope was talking about. You are melding the two together, they are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
 
Travis007 said:
if you try to use English I will attempt to answer what Im sure is a stellar question,...... what lie?
Click to expand...

You said the "real forecast" held no rain for tonight, which you gave a link to a forecast one hour after the rain was no longer on the forecast. Redress links proof of the forecast calling for rain and your next post is:

Travis007 said:
its not the reason to cancel 75,000 people...period...Obama is a fraud.. he cant get 20,000 to go.. who would?...

we had higher chance of rain at the Giants game...
Click to expand...

The logic went from "There's no rain in the forecast" to "The chance isn't high enough." There was no admittance of incorrect assumptions or mistakes, which is where the lie I was talking about comes in.
 
iliveonramen said:
Can we point out the obvious glaring fact that proving that a bank is discriminating in it's lending practices is completely different from giving loans to people that can't afford them?

Giving a loan to a black person isn't the same as giving a loan to someone that won't pay it back. See your thinking is exactly what Citi was operating on.
Click to expand...

Please investigate how many of the recipients of those loans involved in Obamas lawsuit are still current.
 
KopeAcetic said:
You said the "real forecast" held no rain for tonight, which you gave a link to a forecast one hour after the rain was no longer on the forecast. Redress links proof of the forecast calling for rain and your next post is:



The logic went from "There's no rain in the forecast" to "The chance isn't high enough." There was no admittance of incorrect assumptions or mistakes, which is where the lie I was talking about comes in.
Click to expand...

again.. we already have proven that if Obama had 75,000 people he would have had it in the rain for the amazing optic of his moron minions flooding to the stadium no matter what the weather was.. braaving the weather to faint in the rain over the Fraud Obama... its not a cat 3 hurricane..it was "rain"..Obama would be covered by a stage covering..

canceling it had nothing to do with the rain.. wake up..

where are the 50,000 that cant go tonight sleeping? where are they? will they riot?..
 
KopeAcetic said:
You do realize that the housing crisis was started because mortgage companies packaged toxic subprime mortgages as AAA and sold them off as such, so when the purchaser of said "AAA" packaged mortgages found out it was too late and lead to a spiral of debt and unpaid loans right?

Please try harder. I'm not giving anyone a pass. This wasn't all Bush's fault, it was both political parties that put us in this hole, blaming the "other side" because they're not "your team" is actually just making the situation worse.
Click to expand...

The CRA created forced relaxed lending standards which was a response to supposed minority "redlining" by banks. There was no Subprime Mortgage Market before 1996 for a reason.

The GSE's bought up the majority of the loans. They were able to do this because they had a special deal with the Federal Government. They had a 1.2 billion dollar accounting error in 2003 alone. They were led by James Johnson, a prominent Democrat and part of Obama's VP pick team, and then Franklin Raines, a crook.

Their sales pitch was "Your investment is insured by the Federal Government"

Democrats blocking GSE reform in 2004, calling the regulator a racist. The same tactics they always use when someone investigates one of their scams

Democrats Blocking Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Reform - YouTube

The Bush Administration warned 17 times about the potential crisis. It fell on deaf ears.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - New York Times

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
Click to expand...

Democrats and their allies were primarily responsible. You can find the truth here:

Amazon.com: Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (9780805091205): Gretchen Morgenson, Joshua Rosner: Books

Glad I was able to clear up a lot of misconceptions you may have had. Have a great day. :2wave:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Tim, you are TERRIBLY confused, AIG had its credit rating lowered......which is TOTALLY different from the credit rating of derivatives....which is what Kope was talking about. You are melding the two together, they are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused about anything. I think you're misunderstanding me. I acknowledge that ratings agencies rate these derivatives but what they rate them on is based on their risk. Insured by AIG was a lessor risk both on paper and in principle. The net result was an attractive investment vehicle. AIG was lowered of course they were but not before the whole thing was exposed, and that's the rub isn't it.


Tim-
 
Travis007 said:
again.. we already have proven that if Obama had 75,000 people he would have had it in the rain for the amazing optic of his moron minions flooding to the stadium no matter what the weather was.. braaving the weather to faint in the rain over the Fraud Obama... its not a cat 3 hurricane..it was "rain"..Obama would be covered by a stage covering..

canceling it had nothing to do with the rain.. wake up..

where are the 50,000 that cant go tonight sleeping? where are they? will they riot?..
Click to expand...

No, stop. You're changing the subject again. What Obama's reasoning for changing it is not at all in what I'm talking about. I honestly don't care at all one way or the other why Obama changed locations, it's not relevant. I'm talking about you saying the weather report had no rain.
 
KopeAcetic said:
You said the "real forecast" held no rain for tonight, which you gave a link to a forecast one hour after the rain was no longer on the forecast. Redress links proof of the forecast calling for rain and your next post is:



The logic went from "There's no rain in the forecast" to "The chance isn't high enough." There was no admittance of incorrect assumptions or mistakes, which is where the lie I was talking about comes in.
Click to expand...

again at 10pm the chance of rain is 0%... if they planned to have it in an open air arena ( which can get wet with rain..its built for that...lol) theyd have had it.. can you imagine Chris TINGLES SCREWBALL Mathews screaching "THE RAIN IS STOPPING ITS OUR ONLY REAL GOD OBAMA, HE HAS PARTED THE SKIES"..as the fraufd hits the stage?...

so where are the 55,000 ticket holders that cant get in tonight going to go... my guess is the "Magic Garden Lodge"
 
Last edited:
KopeAcetic said:
No, stop. You're changing the subject again. What Obama's reasoning for changing it is not at all in what I'm talking about. I honestly don't care at all one way or the other why Obama changed locations, it's not relevant. I'm talking about you saying the weather report had no rain.
Click to expand...

it says NO RAIN... 0%..again..0%... its Sept in NC.. they knew it could rain..they didnt plan on 55,00 NO SHOWS...

is this starting to resononate yet?
 
Hicup said:
I'm not confused about anything. I think you're misunderstanding me. I acknowledge that ratings agencies rate these derivatives but what they rate them on is based on their risk. Insured by AIG was a lessor risk both on paper and in principle. The net result was an attractive investment vehicle. AIG was lowered of course they were but not before the whole thing was exposed, and that's the rub isn't it.



Tim-
Click to expand...

You Sir are CORRECT
 
Travis007 said:
again at 10pm the chance of rain is 0%... if they planned to have it in an open air arena ( which can get wet with rain..its built for that...lol) theyd have had it.. can you imagine Chris TINGLES SCREWBALL Mathews screaching "the RAIN IS STOPING ITS GOD OBAMA"..as the frauf hits the stage?...

so where are the 55,000 ticket holders that cant get in tonight going to go... my guess is the "Magic Garden Lodge"
Click to expand...

Again, I don't care about the tickets, they are not part of this conversation. The speech isn't scheduled for 10pm, 10pm is when the rain was no longer in the forecast.
 
KopeAcetic said:
Again, I don't care about the tickets, they are not part of this conversation. The speech isn't scheduled for 10pm, 10pm is when the rain was no longer in the forecast.
Click to expand...

Obama cared about the tickets.. not the rain...you and Obama dont mesh well...

I believe The Barry Soetero Comedy and Tragedy Hour begins at 10pm on Bravo
 
Last edited:
Travis007 said:
you and Obama dont mesh well...

I belive the Barry Soetero Comedy and Tragedy Hour begins at 10pm on the SCIFI station..
Click to expand...

You are correct, I do not mesh well with Obama, and that is not the subject of this discussion. Your obstruction basically proves what I've been calling you on :(.
 
KopeAcetic said:
You're linking to "The American Speculator"? With one of their top stories today being "False Choices From a Failed Messiah"...? That's like a liberal linking to the daily Kos with a top story of the day being "Bush is evil and to blame for everything." I'm sorry but far right and far left propaganda doesn't sit well, no matter what they claim as facts. Can you find this information on a non biased site?
Click to expand...

shrug...

You can ignore the facts because you don't like The American Spectator. Your choice.
 
Mason66 said:
Please investigate how many of the recipients of those loans involved in Obamas lawsuit are still current.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant?

Discrimination is when I have one group I give loans to...but don't give loans to another group with the same income/credit rating. The lawsuit didn't say that they are black therefore they should get loans easier. It said they were unfairly discriminated again...discrimination is unfairly applying you're rules based on age/gender/race/ etc.

The article states how many individuals are current from the lawsuit...of course we just went through a housing bubble where individuals from all income brackets lost their homes.

I guess the question is...do you think their blackness makes them a higher credit risk than individuals with the same credit score and income? Because that's what Citibank lending practices implied.
 
KopeAcetic said:
I will have to look it up but to be honest I'm not sure at this point I can trust what you're saying. As you said before in using the logic in the OP: yes Obama is directly involved in the crisis as a community organizer, but that's quite a hyperbolic statement I'm sorry. You're blaming the people who got the loans (people will always try to live outside their means, if anything is learned from the past 20 years it should be this) but you're not blaming the companies.

It's the companies duties to protect themselves from the bad loans, the original intention of Obama's involvement was to expand the market by allowing minorities into the mortgage game (the responsible hard working individuals that deserved the loans, not the people that just wanted to live outside their means). I remember hearing a report about how much minorities who wanted a house were driven to take on variable rate mortgages because they weren't told they qualified for others.

I don't know to be honest, I'll read the link but it just doesn't seem to line up logically at this point.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming the people who got the loans.

I'm blaming the people...like Obama...who induced the banks to give loans to people who had no business getting them.
 
iliveonramen said:
How is that relevant?

Discrimination is when I have one group I give loans to...but don't give loans to another group with the same income/credit rating. The lawsuit didn't say that they are black therefore they should get loans easier. It said they were unfairly discriminated again...discrimination is unfairly applying you're rules based on age/gender/race/ etc.

The article states how many individuals are current from the lawsuit...of course we just went through a housing bubble where individuals from all income brackets lost their homes.

I guess the question is...do you think their blackness makes them a higher credit risk than individuals with the same credit score and income? Because that's what Citibank lending practices implied.
Click to expand...

Its not only relevent its the whole issue...answer the question...
 
iguanaman said:
But what about the housing bubbles head cheerleader and his "Minority Housing Initiative"? I guess GW Bush was working for Obama all along.

Just listen to GW's speech, it's right out of Karl Marx

HUD Archives: President George W. Bush Speaks to HUD Employees on National Homeownership Month (6/18/02)
Click to expand...

Yes. Bush was part of it...to begin with. When it was clear there was a problem and Bush wanted fixes put into place, his Democratic Congress refused...soon, it was too late.
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

You can ignore the facts because you don't like The American Spectator. Your choice.
Click to expand...

I understand you think I am simply shrugging information you feel to be true because I don't agree with it but I assure you that is not the point of why I am refusing to trust it. I'll actually give the reasons:

My reasoning for not trusting a highly partisan information source on a subject I don't have all of the facts on is simple: If you don't have all of the facts it's quite simple for someone to give you one side of the story to fill the gaps in, and to make it seem logical. This is why I don't trust highly partisan sources (American Spectator - daily KOS, MSNBC - Fox News). I try to read some of the more unbiased reporters from each side (you can't ever get truly unbiased information, so I try to get my information from as many, least biased sources as possible).

I'm not ignoring simple facts because it's from a right-wing site, I try to get a broad understanding of the facts without being partisan, it's the only way to get real information and the broadest knowledgebase.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets."

In other words, we can't say that the banks making NIJA loans did it because of CRA, but it sure sounds good and fits into the narrative that we cons want to believe.....even though the CRA loans were CONFORMING (and defaulted at much lower rates 04-08) and the NIJA loans were not.

This is a very big, complicated crash and anyone who thinks that the CRA was responsible in any measure doesn't understand it.


PS...when a group of the major subprime lenders came before Congressional hearings, they were asked about the effect of the CRA on them, all of them said it had no influence on them.
Click to expand...

The CRA was the tool used by the community activists...like Obama. That got the ball rolling which then snowballed, got bigger and bigger and hit the wall.

Result: Meltdown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom