• 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!

Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

Bronson said:
Nope

The GSEs bought up most of the bad loans and convinced investors any losses would covered by the Feds. You are bleeting a debunked talking point. A recent economic report has confirmed beyond all refute that the CRA was the root cause of the crisis.

Facts > your propaganda
Click to expand...

You lack facts and speak nonsense.

Our analysis examining the type of lenders extending credit to LMI census tracts found no evidence that tracts with proportionally more lending by CRA-covered lenders experienced worse outcomes, whether measured by delinquency rates, high-PTI loans, or higher-priced lending. In fact, the evidence suggests that loan outcomes may have been marginally better in tracts that were served by more CRA-covered lenders than in similar tracts where CRA-covered institutions had less of a footprint. Loan purchases by CRA-covered lenders also do not appear to have been associated with riskier lending. Additionally, this analysis found no evidence that either the CRA or the GSE goals contributed to house prices appreciation during the 2001-2006 subprime buildup.

Our regression discontinuity tests, which focus on lending and loan performance around the income levels used to determine whether loans are favored by the CRA and GSE goals, finds little evidence of an effect for either regulation, except for an increase in loan purchases by CRA-covered depositories in their assessment areas. Both loan quality and performance are clearly related to census tract income with both improving as income rises. However, these relationships are evident for both favored and not-favored loans and there is no evidence of a discontinuity at the threshold points. Data on loan volumes also fail to find evidence of a regulatory threshold effect; indeed, the share of loans originated by CRA-covered lenders in their assessment areas and the share of loans sold to the GSEs are higher in the tracts not favored by the regulations than in favored tracts. Though loan purchases by CRA-covered lenders appear to have been sensitive to the definition of a CRA-favored loan, there is no evidence that this affected the overall quality of loans originated.

Since our tests are indirect, it would be inappropriate to conclude that the test results prove that the CRA or GSE goals did not cause or contribute to the crisis. The existence of "special CRA" programs and "targeted affordable" loans in the GSE portfolios suggests that both regulations led to some loans being underwritten with different prices or terms than might otherwise have taken place. The question is, were such actions enough to materially affect market prices and standards? We do not see evidence of this in our indirect tests. However, direct evidence is potentially available by focusing on the performance of loans originated through these programs. To date, the data to conduct such analysis is not publicly available, and until it is, we may be unable to draw definitive conclusions on the role that the CRA and GSE affordable housing goals played in the subprime crisis.
Click to expand...

source

We know you lack one :lamo
 
Kushinator said:
You display your lack of knowledge on your sleeve. CRA loans were less likely to default than non-CRA loans of similar risk. Try again.
Click to expand...

How that alternate Universe working for you ? You know the one, where the sub-prime debacle stated in 2002 and was 100% GW Bush's fault ?

You realize CRA and HUD were given regulatory control over banks in the early 90 s right ?

That Fannie made a one trillion dollar commitment to the sub-prime market in 1992 and prior to that commitment only carried a 10% origination in sub-prime holdings for their previous 60 years.

You realize the one politician who was more singularly involved than anyone else, Barney Frank got to blame the banks on his way out of congress by writing a reform bill thats part of the reason our economy is so pitiful.

And he fought for lowering the underwriter standards for years on Mortgages.

You libs are insufferable with your moronic assertions that GW Bush was at all complicit in a Democrat mandated bubble that started 10 years before his election.

More "low information" liberals.
 
Fenton said:
How that alternate Universe working for you ? You know the one, where the sub-prime debacle stated in 2002 and was 100% GW Bush's fault ?

You realize CRA and HUD were given regulatory control over banks in the early 90 s right ?

That Fannie made a one trillion dollar commitment to the sub-prime market in 1992 and prior to that commitment only carried a 10% origination in sub-prime holdings for their previous 60 years.

You realize the one politician who was more singularly involved than anyone else, Barney Frank got to blame the banks on his way out of congress by writing a reform bill thats part of the reason our economy is so pitiful.

And he fought for lowering the underwriter standards for years on Mortgages.

You libs are insufferable with your moronic assertions that GW Bush was at all complicit in a Democrat mandated bubble that started 10 years before his election.

More "low information" liberals.
Click to expand...

I presented actual evidence and not uninspiring talking points from the rabid right-of-center. When you can do the same, you may try again. :moon:
 
Face it, this "great Bush Recession " was just more destructive redistributive Liberal policies and this time you guys probably killed whats left of our economy.

The regulations that madated these loans were implimented in the early 90s on the basis of " fairness" as Democrats stupidly stuck their corrupt noses in a industry that seemed to function fine for the past 70 years.

You forgot to mention that in 2005 that Bush tried to reign the GSEs in but was denied because of his Demoxrat controlled Congress.

The people that should be doing time got off scott free because you guys dont have the integrity or intelligence to understand what happened.


Instead you repeat nonsensical talking points. Unbeleivable.


Anything libs stick their nose in turns into aa disaster but the sub-prime collalse was a doosie and will probably wing up finishing us off.

Its like every liberal was raised by wolves.
 
Fenton said:
Face it, this "great Bush Recession " was just more destructive redistributive Liberal policies and this time you guys probably killed whats left of our economy.

The regulations that madated these loans were implimented in the early 90s on the basis of " fairness" as Democrats stupidly stuck their corrupt noses in a industry that seemed to function fine for the past 70 years.

You forgot to mention that in 2005 that Bush tried to reign the GSEs in but was denied because of his Demoxrat controlled Congress.

The people that should be doing time got off scott free because you guys dont have the integrity or intelligence to understand what happened.


Instead you repeat nonsensical talking points. Unbeleivable.


Anything libs stick their nose in turns into aa disaster but the sub-prime collalse was a doosie and will probably wing up finishing us off.

Its like every liberal was raised by wolves.
Click to expand...

More name calling rantings with no links. You are becoming a broken record.
 
Fenton said:
Face it, this "great Bush Recession " was just more destructive redistributive Liberal policies and this time you guys probably killed whats left of our economy.

The regulations that madated these loans were implimented in the early 90s on the basis of " fairness" as Democrats stupidly stuck their corrupt noses in a industry that seemed to function fine for the past 70 years.

You forgot to mention that in 2005 that Bush tried to reign the GSEs in but was denied because of his Demoxrat controlled Congress.

The people that should be doing time got off scott free because you guys dont have the integrity or intelligence to understand what happened.


Instead you repeat nonsensical talking points. Unbeleivable.


Anything libs stick their nose in turns into aa disaster but the sub-prime collalse was a doosie and will probably wing up finishing us off.

Its like every liberal was raised by wolves.
Click to expand...

Who controlled Congress in 2005? :lamo

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008
 
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#storylink=cpy​
 
pbrauer said:
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#storylink=cpy​
Click to expand...

The housing bubble burst when millions of Americans went default on their mortgages. This triggered the financial crisis as the derivatives market was built like a house of cards around these mortgages. Essentially, high-risk private debt was being traded on wall street like AAA+ bonds.

The root of the problem lay in the fact that millions of people who could not reasonably afford these mortgages were receiving them. The government undeniably owes some responsibility to this, given Congressional programs to push through mortgages to high-risk lendees. Both parties applauded these programs at the time, and will foolishly continue to do so. No politician wants to be seen as "hurting poor folks." The irony of such a statement is rich, given it's apparent outcome today.

P.S. are you defending fannie and freddie? Who do you think was writing all these bogus mortgages!?
 
a351 said:
3.1 percent actually.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp3q12_3rd_fax.pdf
Click to expand...

Nope

Sorry comrade. Stop pushing lies

Second-quarter U.S. GDP revised down to 1.3% - MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The government cut its calculation of U.S. growth in the second quarter to 1.3% from 1.7% in its third and final review, citing less consumer spending and business investment than previously estimated. Consumer spending rose 1.5% in the previous quarter instead of 1.7% as initially forecast. And business investment, excluding residential housing, was revised down to a 3.6% increase from 4.2%. The government also said corporate profits climbed $21.8 billion in the second quarter, compared to a $53.0 billion decline in the first quarter. The economy grew at a 2.0% pace in the first three months of the year.
Click to expand...
 
StringBean said:
The housing bubble burst when millions of Americans went default on their mortgages. This triggered the financial crisis as the derivatives market was built like a house of cards around these mortgages. Essentially, high-risk private debt was being traded on wall street like AAA+ bonds.

The root of the problem lay in the fact that millions of people who could not reasonably afford these mortgages were receiving them. The government undeniably owes some responsibility to this, given Congressional programs to push through mortgages to high-risk lendees. Both parties applauded these programs at the time, and will foolishly continue to do so. No politician wants to be seen as "hurting poor folks." The irony of such a statement is rich, given it's apparent outcome today.

P.S. are you defending fannie and freddie? Who do you think was writing all these bogus mortgages!?
Click to expand...

From the link you are quoting from pbrauer:

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.​
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
poweRob said:
More name calling rantings with no links. You are becoming a broken record.[/
QUOTE]

Ive posted a detailed explanation of the sub-prime collapse going back to its inception in the early 90s before that not one of you guys could rebut.

Some lib even tried to rip off a ridiculous Paul Krugman article on the subject.

I studdied it, read books and read the report released by the Govt.

You guys dont typically possess the character or the integrity to own up to your exponentially growing failures so why exactly do you need a link ?

And if a link alone proves the ridiculous assertion that it all started under Bush.

Just to come on here trying to push these lies speaks volumes about your party's ideology and its not good as every aspect of our Country has gotten worse under your parties ideological leader.

But yes, blame Bush, thats all you have. Well that and "links" to subjective fools like Krugman and other liberal news sights.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Ive posted a detailed explanation of the sub-prime collapse going back to its inception in the early 90s before that not one of you guys could rebut.

Some lib even tried to rip off a ridiculous Paul Krugman article on the subject.

I studdied it, read books and read the report released by the Govt.

You guys dont typically possess the character or the integrity to own up to your exponentially growing failures so why exactly do you need a link ?

And ad if a link alone proves the ridiculous assertion that it all started under Bush.

Just to come on here trying to push thst lies speaks volumes about your party's ideology and its not good as every aspect od our Country has gotten worse under your parties ideological leader.

But yes, blame Bush, thats all you have. Well that and "links" to subjective fools like Krugman and other liberal news sights.
Click to expand...

You were debunked and debunked hard. Get over it. It's not anyone else's fault that you refuse to read what was even brought to you. Or even watch a vid that was brought right to you of GW Bush himself.

Denial won't get you out of this pickle you got yourself into the past couple of pages.
 
poweRob said:
You were debunked and debunked hard. Get over it. It's not anyone else's fault that you refuse to read what was even brought to you. Or even watch a vid that
was brought right to you of GW Bush himself.

Denial won't get you out of this pickle you got yourself into the past couple of pages.
Click to expand...

LOL. !!! By who ? Some clown with a youtube account ? By some clown who ignores the prior decade that in multiple books, articles and studdies shows that the Democrats forced lending and then pushed GSE's to aquire those toxic MBSs so they could be bundled with good loans and sold off to investment banks to finance the secondary markets.

There are these nifty little things that are called "books" and if they didn't counter every goofy idea of the left on the subject of Sub prime you people might actually chose to read them instead of using them to roll your weed on.

But you know what, given your level of knowledge of the sub-prime I can definitely believe you got the whole of your education from a video that completely ignores the 10 years prior and the regulatory control that was given to CRA and HUD to force lending and lower underwriting standards.

You know just what your ideology will let you learn and I think thats HILLARIOUS and sad. It means any amount of knowledge you possess is as shallow as your convictions.

The GSEs, historically where voted out Democrats go to get rich were up to a 40% origination of their yotal mortgages by 2008. Up from the usual 10% they maintained for 70 years

You or any other lib on this or any other debate site cannot rebut me or prove me wrong.

One your not smart enough and two you have only misinformation amd partisan lies to uphold a coreupt liberal ideology.
 
Fenton said:
LOL. !!! By who ? Some clown with a youtube account ? By some clown who ignores the prior decade that in multiple books, articles and studdies shows that the Democrats forced lending and then pushed GSE's to aquire those toxic MBSs so they could be bundled with good loans and sold off to investment banks to finance the secondary markets.

There are these nifty little things that are called "books" and if they didn't counter every goofy idea of the left on the subject of Sub prime you people might actually chose to read them instead of using them to roll your weed on.

But you know what, given your level of knowledge of the sub-prime I can definitely believe you got the whole of your education from a video that completely ignores the 10 years prior and the regulatory control that was given to CRA and HUD to force lending and lower underwriting standards.

You know just what your ideology will let you learn and I think thats HILLARIOUS and sad. It means any amount of knowledge you possess is as shallow as your convictions.

The GSEs, historically where voted out Democrats go to get rich were up to a 40% origination of their yotal mortgages by 2008. Up from the usual 10% they maintained for 70 years

You or any other lib on this or any other debate site cannot rebut me or prove me wrong.

One your not smart enough and two you have only misinformation amd partisan lies to uphold a coreupt liberal ideology.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. The CRA was about eliminating redlining. All evidence shows that default rates on CRA loans were lower than non-CRA loans.
 
poweRob said:
uh... this was you:



Last quarter was 3rd quarter. 3.1% growth. Your link is citing 2nd quarter. As it says right there in your link's headline..

Second-quarter U.S. GDP revised down to 1.3%​


No one is lying. Not even you. You are just wildly wrong again... Comrade.
Click to expand...

You have to be joking. That 3.1% is hilariously misleading. It's all fueled by massive govt spending and inventory accumulation. We already know that businesses are sitting on excess inventory because of a lackluster holiday shopping season.

Q3 was originally 2% (I have NP admitting I was mistaken between q2 and q3) and revised up due to massive govt spending. An increase by 10%. Consumer spending only increased by 1.4%. A total collapse of personal consumption. Personal consumption was actually revised DOWN from the initial 2% GDP projection.

Fixed investment was around .01%. The lowest since q1 2011. Good luck getting hired in the private sector with those kind of numbers. Finally we need to see growth rates of GDP higher than 5%. 3% is below average at best.
 
Kushinator said:
You are wrong. The CRA was about eliminating redlining. All evidence shows that default rates on CRA loans were lower than non-CRA loans.
Click to expand...

The CRA = root cause. It's beyond refute. Government created a market through legislation that otherwise never would have existed. The GSEs bought a large % of the loans in an effort to expand their portfolios. They removed risk by promising investors their money was insured by the Federal Govt. Ie the taxpayer.


It was the GSEs who received bailouts far larger than any private company. Banks had to lower lending standards to comply with CRA regulations.

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending? by Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru :: SSRN

Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.
Click to expand...
 
Moderator's Warning:
Tone down the rhetoric, people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom