• 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. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Boo Radley said:
Forbes' article isn't much help but if. We accept the unlikely claim of a total of 16 %, you're looking a an annual income for my brother of more than 250k. He'll live.

From your second article:

. . . this horse-trading method provides an opportunity for hospitals to earn windfall profits: If the hospital gets $2,000 for MRIs, it will start encouraging patients to get more MRIs.

The Obamacare Revolt: Physicians Fight Back Against the Bureaucratization of Health Care - Reason.com

Now this:


With more demand – the tens of millions of individuals expected to become covered by Medicaid or other health insurance coverage as implementation of PPACA continues – must come additional supply. The expansion of the health insurance marketplace as a result of PPACA, in addition to a number of incentives contained in PPACA for primary care providers, has prompted the establishment of new medical schools. These new medical schools, like Quinnipiac University’s Frank H. Netter, M.D. School of Medicine and the University of California-Riverside School of Medicine, are modifying the traditional medical school model to emphasize primary care as a career path.

Read More PPACA Prompts Demand for New Medical Schools, Increase in Primary Care Physicians — Healthcare Reform Digest


Have to leave now, but I will be back later, and will provide you with more.
Click to expand...

Ok, well then you will get this when you get back.

I can appreciate your wanting to use your "brother" as an example of the whole, but I am going to look at the information available.

It seems to me, the "making of a doctor" is not an overnight process. My understanding is it takes many years of medical school, internship, etc. in order to be allowed to practice medicine in the United States. I'm guessing qualified Doctors should have entered medical school about the time Bush was elected to his second term in order to be qualified to practice on any of the new patients Obamacare will be covering in the near future.
 
Conservative said:
Individual wealth creation really bothers you, doesn't?
Click to expand...

No quite the opposite actually.

Looks like jealousy to me. How does my buying a home affect govt. debt?
Click to expand...


The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States. A savings and loan or "thrift" is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members—a cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society. In 1995, the RTC had closed 747 failed institutions, worth a book value of $402 billion, with an estimated cost of $160 billion.[1] In 1996, the General Accounting Office estimated the total cost to be $370 billion, including $341 billion taken from taxpayers.[2]
Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the recent assets bubble pop (The Great Bush Recession) that was more expensive.
 
winston53660 said:
No quite the opposite actually.




The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States. A savings and loan or "thrift" is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members—a cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society. In 1995, the RTC had closed 747 failed institutions, worth a book value of $402 billion, with an estimated cost of $160 billion.[1] In 1996, the General Accounting Office estimated the total cost to be $370 billion, including $341 billion taken from taxpayers.[2]
Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the recent assets bubble pop (The Great Bush Recession) that was more expensive.
Click to expand...

So what does any of that have to do with your lies about the Clinton surplus that the Treasury Dept. doesn't show? And I "how does my buying a home affect govt. debt?"

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
winston53660 said:
There is no lie in Clinton having a BUDGET surplus.
Click to expand...

What is it about Obama's record that leads people like you to divert back to the past? The Treasury is the keeper of the data and we pay debt service on that data so suggest if you have a problem with the numbers take it up to them and get a refund for the taxpayers. Looks to me like about 1.5 trillion added to the debt during the Clinton term, 4.18 trillion to 5.72 trillion.
 
winston53660 said:
No quite the opposite actually.





The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States. A savings and loan or "thrift" is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members—a cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society. In 1995, the RTC had closed 747 failed institutions, worth a book value of $402 billion, with an estimated cost of $160 billion.[1] In 1996, the General Accounting Office estimated the total cost to be $370 billion, including $341 billion taken from taxpayers.[2]
Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also the recent assets bubble pop (The Great Bush Recession) that was more expensive.
Click to expand...

How on earth can people be so misinformed ?

And you have a " Website" and everything. You blame the one person who for the entire length of his Presidency actually tried to get a handle on the Massive and Corrupt Fannie and Freddie.

Who by 2008 held over 5 TRILLION in junk mortgages or junk mortgages backed by toxic Mortgage Backed Securities.

Its more evidence of my hypothesis, that Liberals use their twisted ideology to define the truth, not the other way around.

Clinton, through a long list of Executive Orders in his 1995 National Homeowners Strategy basically built the market by one, lowering Capital Resuirements on loans purchased by the GSEs from 10 to 3% and change how banks complied with CRA regulations forcing them to make loans to people at or below 80% of the mean income level for the Community they served.

Janet Reno threatening banks and the 1994 Riegle Neal Act that tied a banks CRA score to their abillity to grow and acquire new proeperties.

Plus he appointed his Democrat criminal buddies to run Fannie and Freddie. Franklin Raines ? Ring a bell ?

Hell if people like you have a Website, maybe I should start one. I at least know what I'm talking about.
 
Conservative said:
What is it about Obama's record that leads people like you to divert back to the past?
Click to expand...

Because history is there and one can learn something from it.

The Treasury is the keeper of the data and we pay debt service on that data so suggest if you have a problem with the numbers take it up to them and get a refund for the taxpayers. Looks to me like about 1.5 trillion added to the debt during the Clinton term, 4.18 trillion to 5.72 trillion.
Click to expand...

So? It still doesn't mean Clinton didn't have a budget surplus Even after ten years previously of deficit spending.
 
Fenton said:
How on earth can people be so misinformed ?

And you have a " Website" and everything. You blame the one person who for the entire length of his Presidency actually tried to get a handle on the Massive and Corrupt Fannie and Freddie.

Who by 2008 held over 5 TRILLION in junk mortgages or junk mortgages backed by toxic Mortgage Backed Securities.

Its more evidence of my hypothesis, that Liberals use their twisted ideology to define the truth, not the other way around.

Clinton, through a long list of Executive Orders in his 1995 National Homeowners Strategy basically built the market by one, lowering Capital Resuirements on loans purchased by the GSEs from 10 to 3% and change how banks complied with CRA regulations forcing them to make loans to people at or below 80% of the mean income level for the Community they served.

Janet Reno threatening banks and the 1994 Riegle Neal Act that tied a banks CRA score to their abillity to grow and acquire new proeperties.

Plus he appointed his Democrat criminal buddies to run Fannie and Freddie. Franklin Raines ? Ring a bell ?

Hell if people like you have a Website, maybe I should start one. I at least know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


What does 2008 have to do with the 90's bust? Nada.
 
winston53660 said:
Because history is there and one can learn something from it.



So? It still doesn't mean Clinton didn't have a budget surplus Even after ten years previously of deficit spending.
Click to expand...

If Clinton had a budget surplus then you shouldn't have any trouble showing it on the site I gave you, The U.S. Treasury. You think any other site is relevant?

Like far too many you buy what you are told but really have no idea what you are talking about. Debt service is paid on the U.S. National Debt which is made up of total deficits between Public Debt and Intergovt. holdings. Easy to forget Intergovt. holdings, isn't it? Obligations for the future have no place in the liberal live for today world.
 
Conservative said:
If Clinton had a budget surplus then you shouldn't have any trouble showing it on the site I gave you, The U.S. Treasury. You think any other site is relevant?

Like far too many you buy what you are told but really have no idea what you are talking about. Debt service is paid on the U.S. National Debt which is made up of total deficits between Public Debt and Intergovt. holdings. Easy to forget Intergovt. holdings, isn't it? Obligations for the future have no place in the liberal live for today world.
Click to expand...

Been there done that all the relevant links are there.
 
winston53660 said:
What does 2008 have to do with the 90's bust? Nada.
Click to expand...

No now your'e craw fishing. Typical.

You said Bush's " Great Recession ", the asset bubble pop, a bubble that was mandated by the Democrats all under the false pretensr of " redlining".

Cmon, is it that dificult to be honest ?

In 2004 when Fannies Regulator was warning them of Fannie's imminent doom, Democrats sat in front of Republican chaired committees and lied about the health of the GSEs.

And right around 2004 was when they went for broke and got into NINA loans and began purchasing MASSIVE amounts of privately created Toxic Mortgage Backed Securities.

Bush's " great recession" was actually just fallout from Democrat policies enacted in the 90s.

If your'e going to make ridiculous statements HERE your'e going to be corrected.
 
Fenton said:
No now your'e craw fishing. Typical.

You said Bush's " Great Recession ", the asset bubble pop, a bubble that was mandated by the Democrats all under the false pretensr of " redlining".

Cmon, is it that dificult to be honest ?

In 2004 when Fannies Regulator was warning them of Fannie's imminent doom, Democrats sat in front of Republican chaired committees and lied about the health of the GSEs.

And right around 2004 was when they went for broke and got into NINA loans and began purchasing MASSIVE amounts of privately created Toxic Mortgage Backed Securities.

Bush's " great recession" was actually just fallout from Democrat policies enacted in the 90s.

If your'e going to make ridiculous statements HERE your'e going to be corrected.
Click to expand...

Why the partisan rhetoric in every post?

It was private sector action that led to the financial crisis. And please remember, deregulation is a party platform of the GOP.
 
Kushinator said:
Why the partisan rhetoric in every post?


It was private sector action that led to the financial crisis. And please remember, deregulation is a party platform of the GOP.
Click to expand...


Partisan hackery Kush when you Ignore who BOUGHT the majority of jacked up loans Kush ?

Fannie Mae started turning low quality loans into Securities way before banks made their own Toxic MBSs. Created their first Toxic Security in 1997 and by 2000 held the market share and by 2004 owned over 40% of all Privately created MBSs.

Partisan Hackery is making such a disjointed generic statement like " it was the private sector that did it " while you ignore the vast Corruption that came out of the Democrat party from 1993 to 2008....and it continues.

Country-Wides incestous relationship with Fannie Mae and the sweet heart loans that went out to Politocians like Chris Dodd.

Angelo Mozilo and Franklin Raines fined tens of millions for their corruption, but still walked away with a net profit and no jail time.
Thats not partisan Hackery, thats the truth.

Initially there was no profit and all risk for a bank to make a Sub-Prime Loan. Why do you think they had to be forced to create them ? But hey, Democrats needed banks to stay up and running so they created a relief valve and put the GSEs under the Regulatory Control of HUD with a rising Quota of bad loans purchased

It shifted the moral hazard from the banks to the Anerican tax payer.

Now our Central bank is loading its books with toxic debt by the hundreds of Billions and Democrats are crossing their fingers hoping their " too big to fail" narrative sticks

Its not gonna, you cant perform the Heist of the Century, of the Millenia and not get noticed.

Tell me Kush, your a intelligent guy, if there was actual " discrimination" , that is people were being denied loans based on the color of their skin, WHY did they have to lower lending Standards to fight it ?

And your statement on GOP regulations is ridiculously irrellevent.
 
Fenton said:
Partisan hackery Kush when you Ignore who BOUGHT the majority of jacked up loans Kush ?
Click to expand...

Fannie Mae is not the democrats!

Fannie Mae started turning low quality loans into Securities way before banks made their own Toxic MBSs. Created their first Toxic Security in 1997 and by 2000 held the market share and by 2004 owned over 40% of all Privately created MBSs.
Click to expand...

You are making tons of qualitative statements that lack support. MBS's are not toxic in nature, and simply reflection innovation in the financial industry. It's when companies use fraudulent practices to both roll mortgages out the door and securitize them that creates a problem. The industry requires regulation!

Partisan Hackery is making such a disjointed generic statement like " it was the private sector that did it " while you ignore the vast Corruption that came out of the Democrat party from 1993 to 2008....and it continues.
Click to expand...

Please don't make it out like corruption is solely a Democrat phenomenon. Corruption is not party specific.

Country-Wides incestous relationship with Fannie Mae and the sweet heart loans that went out to Politocians like Chris Dodd.
Click to expand...

Sweet-heart loans were a byproduct of crony-capitalism. Again, it is not political party specific. It is a stretch to link GSE's to Countrywide activities.

Angelo Mozilo and Franklin Raines fined tens of millions for their corruption, but still walked away with a net profit and no jail time.
Thats not partisan Hackery, thats the truth.
Click to expand...

That is cowboy capitalism at work.

Initially there was no profit and all risk for a bank to make a Sub-Prime Loan. Why do you think they had to be forced to create them ? But hey, Democrats needed banks to stay up and running so they created a relief valve and put the GSEs under the Regulatory Control of HUD with a rising Quota of bad loans purchased
Click to expand...

Nobody was forced to create anything. They created them because it was profitable. Revisionist nonsense might cut it with the anti-Obama crowd; not with me.

Subprime loans can be extremely possible.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?

It shifted the moral hazard from the banks to the Anerican tax payer.
Click to expand...

Acquisitions funded by FDIC institutions occurred in the fallout. Moral hazard was a byproduct of private securitization market.

Now our Central bank is loading its books with toxic debt by the hundreds of Billions and Democrats are crossing their fingers hoping their " too big to fail" narrative sticks
Click to expand...

Your definition of toxic must be rather.... liberal!

Tell me Kush, your a intelligent guy, if there was actual " discrimination" , that is people were being denied loans based on the color of their skin, WHY did they have to lower lending Standards to fight it ?
Click to expand...

CRA is not about lowering lending standards. You know this already.

And your statement on GOP regulations is ridiculously irrellevent.
Click to expand...

It is simply a matter of fact.
 
Conservative said:
Of course you don't see how inefficient your govt. is nor do you understand human behavior at all. Give people something they believe is free and there is no incentive to lower costs thus what you get with ACA is higher costs, massive debt, and fewer doctors.
Click to expand...

We have incentive in the free market in medicine to lower costs. Doctors order tests they don't really need. It benefits them to do so, and Americans actually believe doing more is better when the opposite is often true. So, I would argue you don't understand the nature of medicine in the market place.
 
ocean515 said:
Ok, well then you will get this when you get back.

I can appreciate your wanting to use your "brother" as an example of the whole, but I am going to look at the information available.

It seems to me, the "making of a doctor" is not an overnight process. My understanding is it takes many years of medical school, internship, etc. in order to be allowed to practice medicine in the United States. I'm guessing qualified Doctors should have entered medical school about the time Bush was elected to his second term in order to be qualified to practice on any of the new patients Obamacare will be covering in the near future.
Click to expand...

It does take many years of school, as does other things that are less profitable. No one has a "right" to make any money, let alone a lot of money. But that misses the point, no one is asking that doctors go into the poor house. But reform, that lowers cost, is likely to have SOME effect. So, that in and of itself isn't anything to lose our minds over. Using you're numbers, which or not really anymore sound than mine, shouldn't scare doctors. They will still be making an excellent reward on their investment.

Now, as for the doctor shortage, of course it isn't instant, which is why other health personal (a cheaper and sometimes even a more efficient option) will also play a role. Few things in life are instant, but you still have to take a step before you can get anywhere. We've spent a lot of years doing nothing. I'm willing to live through messy if it moves forward.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, your opinion noted, problem is facts get in the way of your personal opinion and support for failed leadership in Obama. You really need to get over your BDS. the govt set record tax revenue collection in 2007 with the Bush tax cuts so that dog don't hunt any more. Obama budgets and high unemployment led to the deficits we have today. Obama has never had a deficit less than a trillion
Click to expand...

Yes, how to lie with statistics 101...wait until the economy gets big enough that the resulting tax revenue is a record and declare victory. While it is true that IRS income tax collections set a record in 2006 and 2007, that record came 7 years after the previous record set inn 2000, and represented only a 14% increase over the tax receipts of 2000, yet GDP rose over the same period by 40%.

The fact is (you like facts...oh sorry, you hate facts that don't fit with your argument) the Bush tax cuts significantly cut income tax revenue. They fell by 21% from 2000 to 2003 and then took three more years, to 2006, to reach 2000 levels....meanwhile GDP climbed by near 40%. In 2007, income tax receipts were 8.4% (the highest level post Bush tax cuts) and lower than the 10 year average income tax / GDP collection pre-tax cut (see table).

Had income tax levels remained at the 8.5% of GDP level, current tax collections would be $250B higher (almost 1/2 of the current deficit) and our debt would likely have been $2 to 2.5T lower...

Tax revenue - before and after bush tax cuts.jpg

Sorry, no credible economist believes the Bush tax cuts were anything but deficit builders. Remember, the whole tax cut program was designed to eliminate the surplus.... of course, if there wasn't much of a surplus, a surplus destroyer is going to create deficits. All in, there was a $12T delta between forecast and actual results.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...989_1_tax-cuts-top-tax-brackets-national-debt


The $12 Trillion Misunderstanding | RealClearPolitics

---nice footing error, George. After delivering the biggest forecast bust in world history we are suppose to trust the Republicans with our finances? Right. Why do you think they call them Cons?
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
Ok, well then you will get this when you get back.

I can appreciate your wanting to use your "brother" as an example of the whole, but I am going to look at the information available.

It seems to me, the "making of a doctor" is not an overnight process. My understanding is it takes many years of medical school, internship, etc. in order to be allowed to practice medicine in the United States. I'm guessing qualified Doctors should have entered medical school about the time Bush was elected to his second term in order to be qualified to practice on any of the new patients Obamacare will be covering in the near future.
Click to expand...


Some reading:

By Denis Cortese
President and CEO, Mayo Clinic
To create meaningful health care reform that benefits patients, every stakeholder will have to rethink their role. As providers, we need to shift our primary focus from providing episodic care for the ill to providing continuing, preventive, coordinated care that keeps people health. There will always be a need for treating the ill, but that should not be the basis of a heatlh care system.
Reforming payment to reward coordinated care that creates value (better outcomes, better safety and better service) is something we at Mayo Clinic are excited about. This strategy aligns with the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center cornerstones for health care reform -- Create Value, Coordinate Care, Reform the Payment System, and Provide Health Insurance for All. These cornerstones are the result of a consensus process involving more than 2,000 representatives of stakeholder groups inlcuding patients and families.

Will Health Care Reform Squeeze Doctors? - Health Care Experts

PROVISIONS AFFECTING PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN PROVIDERS
Healthcare reform is also addressing the looming shortage of primary care providers. To encourage more medical students to concentrate on primary care, healthcare reform provides for expanded funding for scholarships and loan repayments for primary care providers working in underserved areas beginning in 2011. To supplement workforce shortages, reform initiatives will also expand primary care and nurse training programs, such as the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program, beginning in July 2011.10 Primary care providers (pediatricians, family physicians, and internists) will also receive increased Medicaid payments starting in 2013, gradually increasing to Medicare payments levels by 2014.11

(Snip)

CONCLUSION
Overall, changes to the US healthcare delivery system under the reform initiatives are intended to improve the quality of care delivered to patients, as well as to reign in healthcare costs and increase patient access. Many physicians are critical of healthcare reform for failing to address issues regarding: the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR); increases in the cost of pharmaceuticals production; and, changes to the Medicare benefit structure for patients.14 While time will tell who the ultimate winners and losers will be, amid the looming uncertainty of reform, one thing remains clear – healthcare reform must be viewed as a process rather than as a single event. This series will continue to explore this process in the next issue with a discussion regarding the impact of healthcare reform on employers.

http://www.healthcapital.com/hcc/newsletter/2_11/effects.pdf
 
Boo Radley said:
We have incentive in the free market in medicine to lower costs. Doctors order tests they don't really need. It benefits them to do so, and Americans actually believe doing more is better when the opposite is often true. So, I would argue you don't understand the nature of medicine in the market place.
Click to expand...

I would argue that you lack basic logic and common sense as well. Doctors order tests for fear of being sued and if you believe a govt. run program is going to be any better you really are very naïve.
 
upsideguy said:
Yes, how to lie with statistics 101...wait until the economy gets big enough that the resulting tax revenue is a record and declare victory. While it is true that IRS income tax collections set a record in 2006 and 2007, that record came 7 years after the previous record set inn 2000, and represented only a 14% increase over the tax receipts of 2000, yet GDP rose over the same period by 40%.

The fact is (you like facts...oh sorry, you hate facts that don't fit with your argument) the Bush tax cuts significantly cut income tax revenue. They fell by 21% from 2000 to 2003 and then took three more years, to 2006, to reach 2000 levels....meanwhile GDP climbed by near 40%. In 2007, income tax receipts were 8.4% (the highest level post Bush tax cuts) and lower than the 10 year average income tax / GDP collection pre-tax cut (see table).

Had income tax levels remained at the 8.5% of GDP level, current tax collections would be $250B higher (almost 1/2 of the current deficit) and our debt would likely have been $2 to 2.5T lower...

View attachment 67150407

Sorry, no credible economist believes the Bush tax cuts were anything but deficit builders. Remember, the whole tax cut program was designed to eliminate the surplus.... of course, if there wasn't much of a surplus, a surplus destroyer is going to create deficits. All in, there was a $12T delta between forecast and actual results.

Ruth Marcus: The shifting line on tax cuts - Washington Post


The $12 Trillion Misunderstanding | RealClearPolitics

---nice footing error, George. After delivering the biggest forecast bust in world history we are suppose to trust the Republicans with our finances? Right. Why do you think they call them Cons?
Click to expand...

Wow, how typical, you believe human nature is going to be the same regardless of the taxes. Very few economists consider human behavior in their analysis and it is human behavior that drives the number one component of GDP which affects govt. revenue. It isn't tax cuts that cause deficits it is spending. Learn that and you will have more credibility.
 
Kushinator said:
Fannie Mae is not the democrats!




You are making tons of qualitative statements that lack support. MBS's are not toxic in nature, and simply reflection innovation in the financial industry. It's when companies use fraudulent practices to both roll mortgages out the door and securitize them that creates a problem. The industry requires regulation!



Please don't make it out like corruption is solely a Democrat phenomenon. Corruption is not party specific.



Sweet-heart loans were a byproduct of crony-capitalism. Again, it is not political party specific. It is a stretch to link GSE's to Countrywide activities.



That is cowboy capitalism at work.



Nobody was forced to create anything. They created them because it was profitable. Revisionist nonsense might cut it with the anti-Obama crowd; not with me.



What does this even mean?



Acquisitions funded by FDIC institutions occurred in the fallout. Moral hazard was a byproduct of private securitization market.



Your definition of toxic must be rather.... liberal!



CRA is not about lowering lending standards. You know this already.



It is simply a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

Fannie Mae is where Democrats for the last 20 years have run off to get rich, not too mention it was stacked with Politicians by Clinton from 1993 to 1998.
I find it a bit hypocritical to hear those on the left demand justice for the people who ran the Investment Banks but Franklin Raines ? Nah, he's cool.

Hell he even helped out Obama in 2003.

And I HAVE, multiple times provided data, resources, quotes, video's, links etc to back up my argument.

And it's usually followed with a response somewhere along the lines of..." Nuh- Uuuu, Bush did it. ". I get sick of posting page after page of evidence if it's in the end going to be ignored .

And yes, MBS aren't inherently toxic and prior to Fannie Mae buying and bundling crap with Good they were a safe bet for any portfolio due to THE HIGH STANDARDS THE LOANS WERE PURCHASED UNDER. I think Fannie created the first one in the 80s.

My definition of toxic I thought by now was clear. MBSs backed by sub-prime mprtgages or mixed with Sub-Prime Mortgages.

And you can sit their and say the private securities market did this till you turn blue, the point is with out the mandates and REGULATIONS put in place by Clinton there would have been no market for mixed bags of AAA rated toxic securities.

And stop pretending Franklin Raines and his Ilk and the entire " affordable lending " industry wasn't absolutely dependent on the value of their crap AAA rated securities.

I mean their value was so critical by 2004 Fannie bought up hundreds of billions of private toxic MBSs.

And yes CRA WAS a substandard loan. Banks complied to CRA standards by making loans available to people who were at or below 80% of the mean income level for the community that bank serviced. And again, I can't get an answer for a very simple question.

Why did standards have to be lowered to combat " discrimination " ?

But since CRA loans only comprised of about 2 Trillion of Fannies junk , in order for the massive unprecedented scam to continue, standards for purchasing and lending needed to be continually lowered.

In 2004 when Fannie's regulator was warning the Democrats , Politicians like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and Artur Davis ( Democrats ) were sitting in front of Republican chaired Comittee's lying about the fiscal health of the GSE's.

So yes Kush, there has always been a political component to this story, Obama being number 3 on the list of Politicians who recieved the highest campaign Contributions from Fannie e not too mention the whole friken sub-prime agenda was a mismanaged attempt by the Democrats to vend out socia and economic " justice" under false pretenses.
.
 
Conservative said:
Wow, how typical, you believe human nature is going to be the same regardless of the taxes.
Click to expand...

WTF is this bull**** argument you keep putting forth; human nature? The reason it is bull**** comes from the actual results the Bush tax cuts had on human nature. Where did it go?

fredgraph.png
 
Kushinator said:
WTF is this bull**** argument you keep putting forth; human nature? The reason it is bull**** comes from the actual results the Bush tax cuts had on human nature. Where did it go?

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Where does your money go when you get more in your paycheck? More spendable income is the result of tax cuts and that drives economic activity. Economic activity is what creates jobs and economic growth. Human behavior drives economic activity.
 
Fenton said:
And yes, MBS aren't inherently toxic and prior to Fannie Mae buying and bundling crap with Good they were a safe bet for any portfolio due to THE HIGH STANDARDS THE LOANS WERE PURCHASED UNDER. I think Fannie created the first one in the 80s.
Click to expand...

Bundling of multi-risk "tranches" is actually a means of diversifying to hedge interest rate risk. Remember, F&F MBS's were not the trigger points of the crisis; it was private lending securitization that had the greatest propensity for mis-rating.

Ginnie Mac created the first mortgage backed security in 1970 FWIW.

My definition of toxic I thought by now was clear. MBSs backed by sub-prime mprtgages or mixed with Sub-Prime Mortgages.
Click to expand...

Not all sub-prime mortgages were bad. It was those that originated from private lenders who lacked both regulation and adequate risk management standards. Your definition is uninformed.

And you can sit their and say the private securities market did this till you turn blue, the point is with out the mandates and REGULATIONS put in place by Clinton there would have been no market for mixed bags of AAA rated toxic securities.
Click to expand...

Bad argument.

Why on earth would ratings agencies mis-rate mortgages; the babe in the woods routine? These securities were just too sophisticated for the poor folks at S&P (or Moody's or Fitch). It certainly wasn't the fault of Wall Street firms that massaged lenders into abandoning risk management so to boost the supply.

Nah.... It was da gubermint.

And stop pretending Franklin Raines and his Ilk and the entire " affordable lending " industry wasn't absolutely dependent on the value of their crap AAA rated securities.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Fannie originated securities that were the problem. Come on.... get with it! It was the massive decline in real estate value, to which F&F were forced to write down. As markets deemed mortgage paper was worth $0.50 - $0.70 on the dollar in a matter of days, the balance sheets of the F&F went into disarray; you know that whole assets/liabilities thing....

I mean their value was so critical by 2004 Fannie bought up hundreds of billions of private toxic MBSs.
Click to expand...

No they didn't! WTF man, you really need to get some objective sources of information. The toxicity of mortgages did not really occur until a period of time between the end of 2005 through the third quarter of 2006. And where were they coming from? Why it was private investment banks! Think Bear Stearns and their special purpose vehicles.

And yes CRA WAS a substandard loan. Banks complied to CRA standards by making loans available to people who were at or below 80% of the mean income level for the community that bank serviced. And again, I can't get an answer for a very simple question.
Click to expand...

No, that is not true at all. Some loans were higher risk and some were not. The CRA actually helped ensure lending integrity was still held in high fashion. In comparison to non-CRA loans of the same risk, CRA loans were/are less likely to default! Imagine that.

Why did standards have to be lowered to combat " discrimination " ?
Click to expand...

What standards?

But since CRA loans only comprised of about 2 Trillion of Fannies junk , in order for the massive unprecedented scam to continue, standards for purchasing and lending needed to be continually lowered.
Click to expand...

You still peddle the same nonsense. CRA loans were of high-quality. Secondly, F&F were not in trouble due to defaults that interrupt cash-flows. Sure there was an overall elevated rate of foreclosure, but F&F's problem revolved around valuation.

In the future, i would appreciate it if you would address my comments individually, as i have done. Otherwise it makes it difficult to follow the trajectory of the discussion.

Thanks in advance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom