• 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!

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

Somerville said:
I will agree that the housing crisis and subsequent recession were not
totally Bush's fault, but his Administration did little to nothing to change the bubble or the regulations that the evil person Barney Frank supposedly created singlehandedly.

The Government Accountability Office, the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority, the St Louis Federal Reserve and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, have all rejected the argument made by the ideologically-driven, that federal affordable housing policies were responsible for the proliferation of actual high-risk mortgages.



Fenton makes the claim


and those with knowledge tell us otherwise
Click to expand...

You can find all of the supporting data you need on the internet to cherry pick around my primary claim.

That sub-prime bubble was Federally mandated through HUD and CRA regulations that were bolstered under Clinton.

Prior to the 90s the GSEs could only buy mortgages that were prime. In 1989 The Financial Institution Reform Recovery and Enforcment Act " encouraged banks to go through the motions to comply with CRA regulations by proving they were looking for applicants that fit the CRA requirements.

In 1995 Clinton requested the publishing of the HUD National Home Ownership Strategy and then moved the previous CRA enforcments from a process strategy to a "performance evaluation" system where banks instead of going through the proccess of meeting CRA requirements but not implementing them, which was legal under the 1989 bill, had to actually show they were making loans to low income borrowers.

The Reigle-Neil Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994 tied new acquisitions of every bank into CRA compliance.

HUD..different but equally destructive regulator set quotas that started at 30% and went to 50% under Clinton amd then finally 55% under Bush.

In 2002 the GSEs were at the 1 trillion dollar mark on low quality loans.

The "Brookings Institute in 2004 ".....over the last decade Treasuries studies have shown that CRA helped to spur over a trillion in home mortgage , small bussiness, and community development lending to low and moderate income communities "

Andrew Cuomo in 2000 ( HUD Secretary ) and not a Con...anounced that the GSEs were commited to purchasing 2 Trillion in "affordable mortgages".

1997- the GSEs were offering 97% loan to value mortgages.
2001 - the GSEs were offering loans with no down.
2007- 55% of all GSEs mortgages had to be (LMI). Low quality. 38% of that had to be from "undeserved areas" and 25% had to be very low income borrowers

1995-2007 1.3 Trillion in loans were purchased with 5% less down payment.


2008 27 Million low quality loans, 20 million were on the books of Federal Agencies.

12 million were held or guaranteed by the GSEs

I could go on and on. The amount of objective data that proves this collapse was mandated by HUD and CRA regulations that forced the lowering of lendings standards and set quotas for the GSEs is almost endless.

I wosh some of you would wake the hell up.
 
Fenton said:
I wosh some of you would wake the hell up.
Click to expand...


Not in your universe, I ain't - I prefer the real one



Provide me with some sources for these numbers
1997- the GSEs were offering 97% loan to value mortgages.
2001 - the GSEs were offering loans with no down.
2007- 55% of all GSEs mortgages had to be (LMI). Low quality. 38% of that had to be from "undeserved areas" and 25% had to be very low income borrowers

1995-2007 1.3 Trillion in loans were purchased with 5% less down payment.


2008 27 Million low quality loans, 20 million were on the books of Federal Agencies.

12 million were held or guaranteed by the GSEs
Click to expand...

You make the claim -- YOU provide the backup
 
I found your source(s) Pinto and Wallison - two guys who like to make up their own definitions and also two guys known to use bad figures


Got any others?
 
Somerville said:
Not in your universe, I ain't - I prefer the
real one



Provide me with some sources for these numbers


You make the claim -- YOU provide the backup
Click to expand...

Wow, you went from defending the one politician who was more involved in the sub prime collapse than any one individual or group of individuals to arguing quantity ?

Why do you think the Dems didn't want that disgusting POS back ?

I'm on a droid, and busy trying to isolate a cheecky Op-amp on a PLC PCB board. Ill post the links later.

You see I'm multi-tasking using process signal analysis to trouble shoot a faulty PCB on a component level AND educating you about the liberal democrats complicity in the sub prime crash at the same time.

You know you could, instead of wasting bandwidth defending crook politicians simply go look them up your self..

You might realize the GSEs financed the near economic collapse of our Country trying to adhere to liberal Democrat mandates under HUD and CRA.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Wow, you went from defending the one politician who was more involved in the sub prime collapse than any one individual or group of individuals to arguing quantity ?

Why do you think the Dems didn't want that disgusting POS back ?

I'm on a droid, and busy trying to isolate a cheecky Op-amp on a PLC PCB board. Ill post the links later.

You see I'm multi-tasking using process signal analysis to trouble shoot a faulty PCB on a component level AND educating you about the liberal democrats complicity in the sub prime crash at the same time.

You know you could, instead of wasting bandwidth defending crook politicians simply go look them up your self..

You might realize the GSEs financed the near economic collapse of our Country trying to adhere to liberal Democrat mandates under HUD and CRA.
Click to expand...



Your "I'm on a droid" excuse is getting old when one goes back to do a word count on your postings.


No, I'm not looking it up for myself, I've actually done it already - I want to see if you are using easily refuted sources - which I believe you are as the numbers do coincide.
 
Somerville said:
I found your source(s) Pinto and
Wallison - two guys who like to make up their own definitions and also two guys known to use bad figures


Got any others?
Click to expand...

Lol....that wasn't my source but nice attempt at doing nothing.

I use multiple sources and not one of you Lib lackeys has even come close to countering my argument.

The usual lib rebut starts like this..

" no way you lie this is just a Conservative effort to spread lies. blah blah George Bush blah Krugman is God..."

and after a few rebuts from me or the other bright posters who understand, truly understand the sub-prime crisis it turns into this...

"...well sure Democrats were part of the blame, they did some of that stuff but GEORGE BUSH BLA BLA BLA BLA....

You get it ?
 
Fenton said:
Lol....that wasn't my source but nice attempt at doing nothing.

I use multiple sources and not one of you Lib lackeys has even come close to countering my argument.

The usual lib rebut starts like this..

" no way you lie this is just a Conservative effort to spread lies. blah blah George Bush blah Krugman is God..."

and after a few rebuts from me or the other bright posters who understand, truly understand the sub-prime crisis it turns into this...

"...well sure Democrats were part of the blame, they did some of that stuff but GEORGE BUSH BLA BLA BLA BLA....

You get it ?
Click to expand...


Yeah I 'get it' - You got nothin', you know you got nothin' and never shall your mind be changed - the fall back position of the True Believer




Oh and one other item: Pinto and Wallison would be TWO sources, not one
 
Somerville said:
Yeah I 'get it' - You got nothin', you know you got nothin' and never shall your

mind be changed - the fall back position of the True Believer




Oh and one other item: Pinto and Wallison would be TWO sources, not one
Click to expand...

Pinto and Wallison are YOUR sources apparently.

Read the thread. Ive posted plenty of objective evidence, quotes from HUD and the GSEs, from Cuomo, Ive posted historical events, time, date, the actual names of the laws and regulations and agencies that created this mess.

What have you posted ? Because NOTHING youv'e posted or will post will contradict anything I've said unless your'e willing to lie.

The typical rebut from a Lib is the simplistic accusation that "its Bush's Fault" and then some desperate attempt starting somewhere around 2005. Unbeleivable.

Someone even tried to quote Krugman. Paul Krugman. Yes, the lunatic Oped writer for the NY times.

I guess that was supposed to be objective.

Its not my fault your'e either too slow or too partisan to see the truth here.

Ive "got nothing" but post after post of data. Youv'e offered up nonsense. Like your ignorant hopes to jail some banker, when the Govt GSEs financed this disaster.

And people like you vote. Wow
 
Last edited:
Again, all the evidence presented has led me to this conclusion:
The CRA does not require loans to unqualified borrowers. The enforcement measures implemented in the 1990s may have indirectly encouraged banks to give riskier loans. CRA loans were not a sufficiently significant portion of the defaulted loans to be the most significant cause of the mortgage crisis.
 
Hard Truth said:
Again, all the evidence presented has led me to this conclusion:
The CRA does not require loans to unqualified borrowers. The enforcement measures implemented in the 1990s may have indirectly encouraged banks to give riskier loans. CRA loans were not a sufficiently significant portion of the defaulted loans to be the most significant cause of the mortgage crisis.
Click to expand...

Someone obviously isnt listening.

You keep focusing on CRA qualified/CRA regulated etc etc. We keep saying it was the catalyst and the mechanisms that allowed the risk to get socialized was enabled and legislated to allow easier compliance with CRA. CRA wasnt the SOLE source of the blame, the straw man argument you keep pushing; it was an element in the crisis.
Click to expand...

Just as obviously with bolded, then why were people that were previously unqualified getting loans after CRA regulations were changed in the 90s?
 
Hard Truth said:
Again, all the evidence presented has led me to

this conclusion:
The CRA does not require loans to unqualified borrowers. The enforcement measures implemented in the 1990s may have indirectly encouraged banks to give riskier loans. CRA loans were not a sufficiently significant portion of the defaulted loans to be the most significant cause of the mortgage crisis.
Click to expand...

Then no amount of objective data will convince you.

CRA was the catalyst to a massive housing bubble and HUD regulations were the catalyst that bank rolled the collapse.

Youv'e got some predispositon to not accept the truth for some reason and its unfortunate.

So many people are completelx unable to analyze data objectively.

And this is huge.
 
iguanaman said:
Neither is your revisionist crap. You have nothing but drivel that only fools would believe.
Click to expand...

Nicely worded to skirt the rules against personal attacks. :argue

Somehow I don't think reasoned argument is the way to get through to you.:roll:
 
Fenton said:
Pinto and Wallison are YOUR sources apparently.

Read the thread. Ive posted plenty of objective evidence, quotes from HUD and the GSEs, from Cuomo, Ive posted historical events, time, date, the actual names of the laws and regulations and agencies that created this mess.

What have you posted ? Because NOTHING youv'e posted or will post will contradict anything I've said unless your'e willing to lie.

The typical rebut from a Lib is the simplistic accusation that "its Bush's Fault" and then some desperate attempt starting somewhere around 2005. Unbeleivable.

Someone even tried to quote Krugman. Paul Krugman. Yes, the lunatic Oped writer for the NY times.

I guess that was supposed to be objective.

Its not my fault your'e either too slow or too partisan to see the truth here.

Ive "got nothing" but post after post of data. Youv'e offered up nonsense. Like your ignorant hopes to jail some banker, when the Govt GSEs financed this disaster.

And people like you vote. Wow
Click to expand...



Yep - got it. Fenton says it is so, therefore it is and if I don't believe him then I'm just one of those crazy wackjobs who's got nothing but hatred of Bush.

You have made a lot of absolutist statements with zero confirmation that hasn't come from AEI, CATO, the Hoover guys or similar ideologues and as Prof Krugman says - He's been right more often than any of his critics, so why believe those guys.
 
Somerville said:
Yep - got it. Fenton says it is so,
therefore it is and if I don't believe
him then I'm just one of those crazy wackjobs who's got nothing but hatred of Bush.

You have made a lot of absolutist statements with zero confirmation that hasn't come from AEI, CATO, the Hoover guys or similar ideologues and as Prof Krugman says - He's been right more often than any of his critics, so why believe those guys.
Click to expand...

Krugman ? He just said that " austerity " caused pur 3rd quarter shrinkage.

We spent 900 billion, more in total Federal outlays than the prior quarter.

What "austerity" is he talking about ?

Krugmans a lunatic OpEd writer for the NY times.

He traded his objectivity for his Obama lust. He's only been "right" because he parrots the moronic drivel from the left.

Hey, post his opinion on the sub-prime. I dare you. Cmon, I need a good laugh.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nicely worded to skirt the rules against personal attacks. :argue


Somehow I don't think reasoned argument is the way to get through to you.:roll:
Click to expand...

Thats his 110%. Its the best he has to offer and the culmanation of all of his Liberal ideology.

Very little factual data. Lots of Obama worship and insults.
 
Fenton said:
Thats his 110%. Its the best he has to ofer and the culmanation of all of his Liberal ideology.

Very little factual data. Lots of Obama worship and insults.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Nice to have my impression confirmed by someone who's been here longer.:thanks
 
OpportunityCost said:
then why were people that were previously unqualified getting loans after CRA regulations were changed in the 90s?
Click to expand...

As I said "The enforcement measures implemented in the 1990s may have indirectly encouraged banks to give riskier loans."

However, no one in these dozens of pages has quoted or linked to the language in the CRA or the promulgating regulations that requires lenders to loan to unqualified borrowers. Such requirements do not exist.
 
Fenton said:
Then no amount of objective data will convince you.

CRA was the catalyst to a massive housing bubble and HUD regulations were the catalyst that bank rolled the collapse.

Youv'e got some predispositon to not accept the truth for some reason and its unfortunate.

So many people are completelx unable to analyze data objectively.

And this is huge.
Click to expand...

Why can't you or anyone else point to the language in the CRA or the promulgating regulations that requires lenders to loan to unqualified borrowers? I am partially convinced that beginning in the 19990s there was pressure be to provide more loans to low income and minority people, but nothing requiring loans to unqualified buyers. Many people with an income well below the median can still afford to buy a home, especially in places with high income neighborhoods included in the same geographic area as low income areas. (i.e. Marin and San Mateo counties are lumped in with Alameda County and San Francisco in California for determining median income)
 
Paul Krugman, what does that fool know?

Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[7][8] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[9]

Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[10][11] liquidity traps, and currency crises. He is the 20th most widely cited economist in the world today[12] and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.[13]

As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and Awards..........

1991, American Economic Association, John Bates Clark Medal.[87] Since it was awarded to only one person, once every two years (prior to 2009), The Economist has described the Clark Medal as 'slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize'.[88]
1992, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS).[35]
1995, Adam Smith Award of the National Association for Business Economics[89]
1998, Doctor honoris causa in Economics awarded by Free University of Berlin Freie Universität Berlin in Germany
2000, H.C. Recktenwald Prize in Economics, awarded by University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany.
2002, Editor and Publisher, Columnist of the Year.[90]
2004, Fundación Príncipe de Asturias (Spain), Prince of Asturias Awards in Social Sciences.[91]
2004, Doctor of Humane Letters honoris causa, Haverford College[92]
2008, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for Krugman's contributions to New Trade Theory.[93] He became the twelfth John Bates Clark Medal winner to be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize.
2012, Doctor honoris causa from the Universidade de Lisboa, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa and Universidade Nova de Lisboa[94][95]

A May, 2011 Hamilton College analysis of 26 politicians, journalists, and media commentators who made predictions in major newspaper columns or television news shows from September 2007 to December 2008 found that Krugman was the most accurate. Only nine of the prognosticators predicted more accurately than chance, two were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were no better or worse than a coin flip. Krugman was correct in 15 out of 17 predictions, compared to 9 out of 11 for the next most accurate media figure, Maureen Dowd. Krugman's result was found to be statistically significant at the p<0.001 level.[96]

Foreign Policy named Krugman one of its 2012 FP Top 100 Global Thinkers "for wielding his acid pen against austerity".[97]
Wikipedia
 
Hard Truth said:
beginning in the 19990s there was pressure be to provide more loans to low income and minority people, but nothing requiring loans to unqualified buyers.
Click to expand...

I suspect the answer is that "low income and minority people" and "unqualified buyers" are categories with at least some overlap.:cool:
 
Requiring lenders to prove that they are serving their entire community is not the same as forcing them to provide loans to every idiot who asks for one, no matter how bad their credit and work history etc.
 
Hard Truth said:
Requiring lenders to prove that they are serving their entire community is not the same as forcing them to provide loans to every idiot who asks for one, no matter how bad their credit and work history etc.
Click to expand...

Again, the categories may very well overlap.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Again, the categories may very well overlap.:cool:
Click to expand...

Sure they do. I'm sure many bankers would rather just refuse all loans to certain races and neighborhoods rather than assess people as individuals because it would be faster and cheaper. That is why the CRA was necessary-there was a long history of arbitrary discrimination.
 
Hard Truth said:
Sure they do. I'm sure many bankers would rather just refuse all loans to certain races and neighborhoods rather than assess people as individuals because it would be faster and cheaper. That is why the CRA was necessary-there was a long history of arbitrary discrimination.
Click to expand...

I have never argued that there should not have been a CRA or something like it. But I would also argue that unintended consequences can be just important as the intended ones.:caution:
 
Hard Truth said:
Paul Krugman, what does that fool know?



Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[7][8] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[9]

Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[10][11] liquidity traps, and currency crises. He is the 20th most widely cited economist in the world today[12] and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.[13]

As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and Awards..........

1991, American Economic Association, John Bates Clark Medal.[87] Since it was awarded to only one person, once every two years (prior to 2009), The Economist has described the Clark Medal as 'slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize'.[88]
1992, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS).[35]
1995, Adam Smith Award of the National Association for Business Economics[89]
1998, Doctor honoris causa in Economics awarded by Free University of Berlin Freie Universität Berlin in Germany
2000, H.C. Recktenwald Prize in Economics, awarded by University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany.
2002, Editor and Publisher, Columnist of the Year.[90]
2004, Fundación Príncipe de Asturias (Spain), Prince of Asturias Awards in Social Sciences.[91]
2004, Doctor of Humane Letters honoris causa, Haverford College[92]
2008, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for Krugman's contributions to New Trade Theory.[93] He became the twelfth John Bates Clark Medal winner to be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize.
2012, Doctor honoris causa from the Universidade de Lisboa, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa and Universidade Nova de Lisboa[94][95]

A May, 2011 Hamilton College analysis of 26 politicians, journalists, and media commentators who made predictions in major newspaper columns or television news shows from September 2007 to December 2008 found that Krugman was the most accurate. Only nine of the prognosticators predicted more accurately than chance, two were significantly less accurate, and the remaining 14 were no better or worse than a coin flip. Krugman was correct in 15 out of 17 predictions, compared to 9 out of 11 for the next most accurate media figure, Maureen Dowd. Krugman's result was found to be statistically significant at the p<0.001 level.[96]

Foreign Policy named Krugman one of its 2012 FP Top 100 Global Thinkers "for wielding his acid pen against austerity".[97]
Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Post all of the WIKI and other lib lovung data you want to about Krugman.

He's a moron. Look the abillity to memorize facts and dates and mathematical theorems does take a certain amount of intelligence but thats where Krugmans abillity stops.

The application of that knowledge tells a different story.

Either he is so partisan he is willing to damage his reputation by ignoring mass amounts of data or there is something actually wrong with him.

Anyone who argues for the policies of Obama isn't playing with a full deck.

There is no way to objectivly reason away his failure and the failure of his policies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom