Taxes were cut, where are the jobs?

j-mac said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once backed into a corner our insipidly stubborn neocon/teabagger flunkie spews forth bits and parts of reality, then covers it with his usual suppostion and conjecture, backed by biased right wing nut punditry, bloggers and hacks.

Sorry bunky, but you can't snow me. Here's what cuts throughyour smoke screen:


The facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false: Private firms dominated the subprime market boom of 2004-06, and were not even subject to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act some Republicans vilify.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factc...10140001#facts


Education requires the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, bunky. Time you learned that.
Click to expand...


OMG, you are ranting about 'the WHOLE truth' and citing Media Matters thinking that is the truth? You're a joke....Take your straw argument, and name calling somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Translation: J-Mac cannot disprove or refute the content, so he tries to slander the messenger/source name. typical neocon/teabagger flunkie, when they're wrong, they go on the personal atttack/slander mode to smoke screen their intellectual dishonesty.

The chronology of the posts shows who threw the first stone, bunky. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. The FACTS prove your little supposition/conjecture rant WRONG. Grow up an ddeal with it.
 
j-mac said:
'Neocons' 'Teabaggers' 'Lunkheads'....Look here you shithead marxist, read this and learn something.





And don't give me any of your stupid shit from thinkprogress, mediamatters, or any other leftist BS site, then ask me a strawman question...You have no intention of debating anything about this, you are a flame thrower, and worse yet a dupe of the liberal marxist left, a useful idiot as they are called.
Click to expand...

All you've done is just present yet another suppostion and conjecture diatribe
This time from a favorite of the neocon-nazi/white supremacist ilk. Not surprising, since this asshole Rockwell just keeps trying to ignore the FACT that
The facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false: Private firms dominated the subprime market boom of 2004-06, and were not even subject to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act some Republicans vilify.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factc...10140001#facts

In other words, banks were for the longest time making sensible loans to white folk of low income, but "red-lining" minorities OF THE SAME FINANCIAL STANDING. NO law forced the bankers to make bad loans, then falsely bundle those with good loans and sell them on the financial market. If you or Rockwell can find the sentence in the CRA of 1977 that does what you assert, then please present it. If not, you can go blow your smoke up each others asses, STFU, or just keep regurgitating the SOS ad nauseum.
 
Taichiliberal said:
All you've done is just present yet another suppostion and conjecture diatribe
This time from a favorite of the neocon-nazi/white supremacist ilk. Not surprising, since this asshole Rockwell just keeps trying to ignore the FACT that
The facts about the subprime mortgage market prove that claim false: Private firms dominated the subprime market boom of 2004-06, and were not even subject to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act some Republicans vilify.
http://politicalcorrection.org/factc...10140001#facts

In other words, banks were for the longest time making sensible loans to white folk of low income, but "red-lining" minorities OF THE SAME FINANCIAL STANDING. NO law forced the bankers to make bad loans, then falsely bundle those with good loans and sell them on the financial market. If you or Rockwell can find the sentence in the CRA of 1977 that does what you assert, then please present it. If not, you can go blow your smoke up each others asses, STFU, or just keep regurgitating the SOS ad nauseum.
Click to expand...


You are as bad as the group of liberals on the oversight committee that were lambasting the regulators for even offering that a problem existed, and praised Franklin Raines....Your question is a non sequitur and pure nonsense. Does a specific sentence, or phrase exist stating your strawman? No. Does the legislation as a whole open the door to this type of malfeasance that enabled the collapse? Absolutely.

All one has to do is educate themselves on Cloward/Piven to understand that. And further, that others of your mindset won't even watch their own representatives in their own words, lying, deceiving, and aiding the crash by attacking the very people sounding the alarm bells before the event happened is laughable...

You don't have to agree, but to place your fingers in your ears, and scream lalalalalala! is a fools errand....And me thinks you fit that bill.
 
Dixie said:
It all depends on who the low interest rates are for, doesn't it?

If there is relatively little risk and you can be almost certain to get your money back, a low interest rate is fine and dandy. But if there is a higher risk, like the person you are lending to has no credit history, or limited income... these things have to be considered when determining interest rates because you won't always get your money back. The more risky the loan, the higher the interest rate, that is the general rule of finance.

What we had with housing, was an interest rate through F&F that was mandated low by the government, in spite of the risk to the lenders. This 'tinkering' with how things work in the REAL world of finance, is ultimately what led to the disaster. You can point fingers at both parties, because both share the blame for it. Government had no business backing low-interest loans to low-income families who didn't have the credit or capital to secure such loans. It's pretty much that simple.
Click to expand...
News flash.....Subprime lending yields a higher interest rate, which is why these ARMs were being pushed on people with A credit.

It wasn't an issue of low interest rates. Many responsible buyers took advantage of 4% fixed rate mortgages, and are very happy with the terms of their notes. Lending 125% of the appraised value was a big part of the issue.

There was no risk, because the paper would be in someone else's portfolio before the ink was dry.
 
j-mac said:
OMG, you are ranting about 'the WHOLE truth' and citing Media Matters thinking that is the truth? You're a joke....Take your straw argument, and name calling somewhere else.
Click to expand...
You are always free to prove that the CRA affects private lenders.
 
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-190.htm



SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
 
eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse


the Bush SEC did not impliment the full GLBact.

they held back the broker rules for years so the banks could do whatever they wanted
 
Althea said:
You are always free to prove that the CRA affects private lenders.
Click to expand...

Already did. Not my fault you refuse to face the truth. Secondly and I will repeat for the last time. Nobody is saying that the CRA by itself caused the crash. I played a small but important part. There were many things that caused it. But somehow your peabrain is fixated on one thing. Good for you puddin
 
evince said:
FRS can you tell me anything about that SEC release?
Click to expand...

What do you want to know? You obviously have this burning point that you want to make, so make it. Are you going to say that banks being allowed to work as brokers helped cause the crisis? Well, if you are looking for an argument from me douchebag, you won't get it.

My contention all along has been the issue of moral hazard. There is a reason I don't go to Vegas and bet the house on black. It is because if I lose, I am in deep shit and I know there isn't anyone to bail me out.

But, the bankers always knew they would be bailed out. Fannie and Freddie always knew they would be bailed out. Why did they know? Did they have it in writing? No. No politician would do that. No, they knew that the politicians in DC are complete dumbfucks. So they knew that all they had to do was scare them into thinking that if they didn't get bailed out "catastrophic things would happen". You obviously believed it too. I say, bring it the fuck on. All we did was kick the can down the road anyway. It it is all smoke and mirrors and no amount of regulation or taxation is going to fix it.
 
evince said:
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-190.htm



SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
Click to expand...



they ONLY reason the banks kept writng all the sub prime was they made money off of them by dumping them into securities and selling them to others so the OTHERS got fucked when it all came down.


what were the rules on brokers and who could train them during this 8 years the Bush SEC held up the rules?
 
evince said:
they ONLY reason the banks kept writng all the sub prime was they made money off of them by dumping them into securities and selling them to others so the OTHERS got fucked when it all came down.


what were the rules on brokers and who could train them during this 8 years the Bush SEC held up the rules?
Click to expand...

The mess to the point that people did not know who held their papers ns the lending institutions did not know, either.

I have never seen nothing like it nd it confounded many in the industry at how involved these transactions were.
 
evince said:
they ONLY reason the banks kept writng all the sub prime was they made money off of them by dumping them into securities and selling them to others so the OTHERS got fucked when it all came down.


what were the rules on brokers and who could train them during this 8 years the Bush SEC held up the rules?
Click to expand...
If there's no market for garbage paper, then the banks couldn't sell the notes.

I put as much blame on Wall St.. Likewise, on the ratings agencies, and those in the real estate industry who gave bogus appraisels. The banks definitely take a place in line, for the reasons you mention.

Typically, the big banks...not smaller community banks.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Already did. Not my fault you refuse to face the truth. Secondly and I will repeat for the last time. Nobody is saying that the CRA by itself caused the crash. I played a small but important part. There were many things that caused it. But somehow your peabrain is fixated on one thing. Good for you puddin
Click to expand...
Whereas you may not place all the blame on the CRA, you haven't provided any recognition of the fact that the CRA has no reign over private lenders. If you wanted to know the extent of CRA involvement, you'd study default rates of CRA paper.

Now, some of those defaults could have come from middle class homeowners simply losing their jobs. There were no $400,000.00 toxic notes written for CRA qualified buyers.

They have data on defaults, by zipcode. That gives a good indication of the neighborhoods where the defaults were most prominent. That might be the fastest method to employ if you were truly interested in this topic
 
this hold up of the broker rules was Not know about by many.


It meant the banks could hire any smuck and train them however they wanted them trained and fire them whenever they didnt do what the banks said.



In the past Brokers had to aquire a lisence to sell securities and could lose it for acting improperly.


The GLBact had rules about brokers in it.

The Bush SEC held these rules BACK for 8 years while this whoile mess was built.

the banks and Bush caused this mess with their endrun arround the laws.
 
It was deregulation that no one voted for.

they fucked us on purpose for money and it blew up even in their faces
 
evince said:
this hold up of the broker rules was Not know about by many.


It meant the banks could hire any smuck and train them however they wanted them trained and fire them whenever they didnt do what the banks said.



In the past Brokers had to aquire a lisence to sell securities and could lose it for acting improperly.


The GLBact had rules about brokers in it.

The Bush SEC held these rules BACK for 8 years while this whoile mess was built.

the banks and Bush caused this mess with their endrun arround the laws.
Click to expand...

The minute I see someone try to blame this entire financial crisis on one person, they lose instant credibility because they are completely ignorant of the facts. Yeah, we get it with you. GOP = BAD and democrats = good.

The dems did no wrong. Got it. Thanks for playing. You are dismissed
 
nope not one person.

One party.

the republican party caused this mess on purpose so their owners could make more money.


The Bush admin gamed the system.


that SEC release proves it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top