New poll shows that voters trust the GOP more than Democrats...

[First]

The laws deregulating the mortage industry are listed in the timeline.

And you couldn't specify where if your life depended on it. rofl.

The dips were neglegable. None as devesating as this one.

Wow you are hilariously misinformed. The early 90's housing bust was one of the worst in U.S. history, especially in CA and FL to a lesser degree. Fucking laymen.

http://www.rntl.net/history_of_a_housing_bubble.htm

What the fuck do you think the CDOs were made of? Fairy dust loans? They were made of ALL KINDS of loans, many subprime mortgages, and many alternative loans I have listed here. Why the fuck do you think all those high risk, alternative loans were made? Because bankers have thrill issues? The laws I listed not only allowed these types of loans, but over rode state laws and practically forced them.

Huh? Do you even know what you're saying? You say "other loans" but can't specify which ones? Lord you're hilariously bad at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation#Subprime_mortgage_crisis

And the sub-prime loans weren't the only risky ones. People with good credit were taking out alternative loans and over extending themselves because of the laws I listed encouring banks to extend these kinds of loans.

And finally, what the fuck does it matter if the mortages were wrapped up in CDOs when they failed or not??? When they all fail, the same damn thing happens, Banks and investers get fucked. It doesn;t change the fact that federal laws on mortgages fucked the market.

LOL! I take this as some sort of white flag since you have continually been called out to specify the magnitude of sub-prime and non sub-prime loans as compared to CDO's, and how the government actively encouraged CDOs, specifically in which laws, etc. So far not even at attempt at fake numbers.

Pretty weak attempt at arguing buddy. I've seen a lot better.

 

[Amused]

And you couldn't specify where if your life depended on it. rofl.



Wow you are hilariously misinformed. The early 90's housing bust was one of the worst in U.S. history, especially in CA and FL to a lesser degree. Fucking laymen.

http://www.rntl.net/history_of_a_housing_bubble.htm



Huh? Do you even know what you're saying? You say "other loans" but can't specify which ones? Lord you're hilariously bad at this.



LOL! I take this as some sort of white flag since you have continually been called out to specify the magnitude of sub-prime and non sub-prime loans as compared to CDO's, and how the government actively encouraged CDOs, specifically in which laws, etc. So far not even at attempt at fake numbers.

Pretty weak attempt at arguing buddy. I've seen a lot better.

The CDOs that failed were mortgage based CDOs. The morgages that failed causing the CDOs to fail were high risk loans. The VERY type of loans the laws I spoke of allowed. Once those started to fail at increasing rates, it became a rapidly growing issue as people with good credit walked away from their homes rather than take the loss.

But at the root, are the laws passes that allowed high risk, sub-prime and alternative loans. Period. No white flag here, buddy.

As for housing bubbles. Seriously??? Are you fucking high?

Look at the top graph. The relevant line is in BLUE.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/

The 90s drop in prices was NOTHING compared to the bubble that started growing in 1998.

 

[First]

The CDOs that failed were mortgage based CDOs. The morgages that failed causing the CDOs to fail were high risk loans. The VERY type of loans the laws I spoke of allowed. Once those started to fail at increasing rates, it became a rapidly growing issue as people with good credit walked away from their homes rather than take the loss.

Then why the hell do you keep harping on about risky loans when the problem wasn't the loans in isolation but the fact that they were bundled into pools of CDOs that exponentially increased their adverse impact on the global financial markets? Seriously, do you even know what you're arguing?

But at the root, are the laws passes that allowed high risk, sub-prime and alternative loans. Period. No white flag here, buddy.

And for the nth time, wimp, please tell us why this recession was far worse despite the multi-decade existence of sub-prime loans and "alternative" (rofl) loans? Explain why this suddenly became one of the worst financial collapses in history and not just a severe recession knowing how long these types of loans have been around. Somehow you'll have to reconcile that the existence of risky loans in of itself is entirely manageable when they default under normal circumstances, normal circumstances not being when overly complex derivatives with absolutely no risk basis in reality suddenly get peddled as AAA and hedged via CDS'. Notice a trend in the existence and (in particular) the use of CDO, CDS, and lack of stringent standards for ratings?

As for housing bubbles. Seriously??? Are you fucking high?

Look at the top graph. The relevant line is in BLUE.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/

The 90s drop in prices was NOTHING compared to the bubble that started growing in 1998.

I honestly don't know if you're mentally impaired in some way or just really this stupid. You show me a graph that entirely proves my point and then use the wrong fucking line in the graph, the nominal one that doesn't take inflation into account (meaning it's worthless to the non-layman), proving that we had at least two serious dips in the past 30 years despite you specifically saying home prices haven't gone anywhere but up in the past 30 years, a flat out falsehood. And then top it off with some random comment about the current housing decline in fact dwarfing the previous recent ones, something I clearly never denied. Your arguments just flat out suck, dude.

So, keeping score, so far you've:

1) Conceded CRA loans basically almost did nothing to significantly contribute to the 2008 financial meltdown.

2) Conceded that you can't point out which laws called for Moody's et al to rate highly risky MBS as AAA.

3) And of course conceded sub-prime and "alternative" loans were absolutely dwarfed by CDO's in both size and scope by avoiding to specify in any detail whatsoever the total number of outstanding CDO's vs. sub-prime and other "alternative" loans.

 

[fskimospy]

This is why I stopped talking with him. You can't prove him wrong because he's not making any real arguments with actual evidence. He's just spouting out his opinion that isn't based upon anything other than a 'correlation equals causation' logical fallacy. Look back and see how he panicked, how hard he twisted and flailed around when called on his total lack of evidence.

He'll never give this up because he NEEDS this to be correct in order to perpetuate his world view. It's basically like a religion, it doesn't matter how many economists, how many nonpartisan agencies, how many researchers, etc. disagree with him, he knows in his heart that it must have been this way.

Think about it this way: his claims are so nebulous and so fact free, what evidence do you think you could supply that would prove him wrong? There isn't any.

 

[dmcowen674]

New poll shows that voters trust the GOP more than Democrats...

Americans are stupid and deserve to go down in flames.

 

[nick1985]

Americans are stupid and deserve to go down in flames.

Were they stupid in 2008 when they voted in your Democrats?

 

[Amused]

Then why the hell do you keep harping on about risky loans when the problem wasn't the loans in isolation but the fact that they were bundled into pools of CDOs that exponentially increased their adverse impact on the global financial markets? Seriously, do you even know what you're arguing?



And for the nth time, wimp, please tell us why this recession was far worse despite the multi-decade existence of sub-prime loans and "alternative" (rofl) loans? Explain why this suddenly became one of the worst financial collapses in history and not just a severe recession knowing how long these types of loans have been around. Somehow you'll have to reconcile that the existence of risky loans in of itself is entirely manageable when they default under normal circumstances, normal circumstances not being when overly complex derivatives with absolutely no risk basis in reality suddenly get peddled as AAA and hedged via CDS'. Notice a trend in the existence and (in particular) the use of CDO, CDS, and lack of stringent standards for ratings?



I honestly don't know if you're mentally impaired in some way or just really this stupid. You show me a graph that entirely proves my point and then use the wrong fucking line in the graph, the nominal one that doesn't take inflation into account (meaning it's worthless to the non-layman), proving that we had at least two serious dips in the past 30 years despite you specifically saying home prices haven't gone anywhere but up in the past 30 years, a flat out falsehood. And then top it off with some random comment about the current housing decline in fact dwarfing the previous recent ones, something I clearly never denied. Your arguments just flat out suck, dude.

So, keeping score, so far you've:

1) Conceded CRA loans basically almost did nothing to significantly contribute to the 2008 financial meltdown.

2) Conceded that you can't point out which laws called for Moody's et al to rate highly risky MBS as AAA.

3) And of course conceded sub-prime and "alternative" loans were absolutely dwarfed by CDO's in both size and scope by avoiding to specify in any detail whatsoever the total number of outstanding CDO's vs. sub-prime and other "alternative" loans.

OMFG. The collapse of CDOs is listed as the "SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS" on wiki. I linked to it. It explained how the sub-primes CAUSED the collapse.

The CDOs are loans grouped TOGETHER. You act as if they are the sole cause of the collapse independent of the loans? WTF???

The CDO collapse was CAUSED by Sub-Prime Mortgages Allowed by the laws I listed passed with the intent to get loans to low income folks. Period. You cannot keep pointing at CDOs and claim they are somehow independent of the loans when it is the defaulting of sub-primes that caused the collapse of CDOs.

As for housing prices, the NOMINAL home prices have NOT dipped signifigantly when compared to the housing bubble and burst.

Notice it's called the "Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Notice also that the collapse of CDOs was only one of MANY results of the "SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS"???

Also note that sub-primes are a major cause given for the housing bubble occuring.

Now, what laws and what ideology behind those laws allowed sub-prime mortgages in the first place?

Oh, right...

Had the ideological laws allowing sub-primes never been passed, the bubble, burst and collapse never would have happened.

 

[werepossum]

The laws deregulating the mortage industry are listed in the timeline.

The dips were neglegable. None as devesating as this one.

What the fuck do you think the CDOs were made of? Fairy dust loans? They were made of ALL KINDS of loans, many subprime mortgages, and many alternative loans I have listed here. Why the fuck do you think all those high risk, alternative loans were made? Because bankers have thrill issues? The laws I listed not only allowed these types of loans, but over rode state laws and practically forced them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation#Subprime_mortgage_crisis

And the sub-prime loans weren't the only risky ones. People with good credit were taking out alternative loans and over extending themselves because of the laws I listed encouring banks to extend these kinds of loans.

And finally, what the fuck does it matter if the mortages were wrapped up in CDOs when they failed or not??? When they all fail, the same damn thing happens, Banks and investers get fucked. It doesn;t change the fact that federal laws on mortgages fucked the market.

Conservatives see these things as social engineering designed to make home ownership affordable to people who cannot afford homes. Progressives see these things as evil Republican deregulation, which as a conservative seems bizarre to me. The purpose of these bill in aggregate was not to maximize freedom for the mortgage industry, but was specifically for making home ownership more affordable.

Note also that none of these things, even the HUD mandate on the GSEs for "disadvantaged borrowers", have been fixed. Not even the Glass-Steagall firewall that would have limited the damage has been restored.

 

[Amused]

Conservatives see these things as social engineering designed to make home ownership affordable to people who cannot afford homes. Progressives see these things as evil Republican deregulation, which as a conservative seems bizarre to me. The purpose of these bill in aggregate was not to maximize freedom for the mortgage industry, but was specifically for making home ownership more affordable.

Note also that none of these things, even the HUD mandate on the GSEs for "disadvantaged borrowers", have been fixed. Not even the Glass-Steagall firewall that would have limited the damage has been restored.

That's a laugh. The bills that created the sub-prime market were DEMOCRAT backed bills.

And yeah, Barney Frank one day admits these laws screwed up the market, and the next day advocate keeping them. WTF???

 

[werepossum]

That's a laugh. The bills that created the sub-prime market were DEMOCRAT backed bills.

And yeah, Barney Frank one day admits these laws screwed up the market, and the next day advocate keeping them. WTF???

Yes, the Democrats passed the bills that started this train wreck, but Republicans had six years to overturn them. They could not get past Dodd and Franks, but still, they could have put much more effort into trying. And Republicans are more responsible for gutting Glass-Steagall. Neither party has anything like clean hands here.

Unfortunately anyone actually trying to clean up this mes will STILL have to get past Frank. Fortunately that isn't so hard in the House for the majority party, so if Dems and Pubs can find common ground in the Senate, and do so in such a way that Barrack Hussein Obama (mmm mmm mmm) doesn't veto it, it's possible that a repetition can be avoided. Doesn't look very likely though.

 

[Amused]

Yes, the Democrats passed the bills that started this train wreck, but Republicans had six years to overturn them. They could not get past Dodd and Franks, but still, they could have put much more effort into trying. And Republicans are more responsible for gutting Glass-Steagall. Neither party has anything like clean hands here.

Unfortunately anyone actually trying to clean up this mes will STILL have to get past Frank. Fortunately that isn't so hard in the House for the majority party, so if Dems and Pubs can find common ground in the Senate, and do so in such a way that Barrack Hussein Obama (mmm mmm mmm) doesn't veto it, it's possible that a repetition can be avoided. Doesn't look very likely though.

Agreed. My point all along was that this mess was started by democrat backed policy. I agree that the republicans did too little to stop it and may have even added to it. But the root cause is the democrat's alone.

 

[dmcowen674]

My point all along was that this mess was started by democrat backed policy.

Wow, only a true Messiah could have pulled this off.

All hail Obama

 

[Amused]

Wow, only a true Messiah could have pulled this off.

All hail Obama

You really are clueless, aren't you?

 

[First]

OMFG. The collapse of CDOs is listed as the "SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS" on wiki. I linked to it. It explained how the sub-primes CAUSED the collapse.

Any tard can link to wiki, it takes an actual man to admit he doesn't know what the fuck the wiki is actually saying. Explain it in your own words instead of bitching out.

The CDOs are loans grouped TOGETHER. You act as if they are the sole cause of the collapse independent of the loans? WTF???

Tell me where I said or insinuated any of that. Nope, another dodge coming.

The CDO collapse was CAUSED by Sub-Prime Mortgages Allowed by the laws I listed passed with the intent to get loans to low income folks. Period. You cannot keep pointing at CDOs and claim they are somehow independent of the loans when it is the defaulting of sub-primes that caused the collapse of CDOs.

I'll repeat my previous questions until it starts getting through to you at some point: Then why the hell do you keep harping on about risky loans when the problem wasn't the loans in isolation but the fact that they were bundled into pools of CDOs that exponentially increased their adverse impact on the global financial markets?

As for housing prices, the NOMINAL home prices have NOT dipped signifigantly when compared to the housing bubble and burst.

Thank you captain obvious, as if anyone here cares where nominal amounts go in a discussion about real values, lol.

Notice it's called the "Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Notice also that the collapse of CDOs was only one of MANY results of the "SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS"???

Also note that sub-primes are a major cause given for the housing bubble occuring.

I'm well aware sub-prime was part of the mess, so since you continue to dodge I'll repost my previous question here; you simply fail to acknowledge and/or realize that sub-prime defaults were manageable and under normal circumstances would have in all likelyhood led to a normal recession, so then why was this recession nearly a global financial collapse starting in the United States?

Now, what laws and what ideology behind those laws allowed sub-prime mortgages in the first place?

Oh, right...

Had the ideological laws allowing sub-primes never been passed, the bubble, burst and collapse never would have happened.

Wait wait wait, lemme get this straight, you don't think sub-prime mortgages should exist? Holy shit, this is even worse than I thought.

 

[Amused]

Any tard can link to wiki, it takes an actual man to admit he doesn't know what the fuck the wiki is actually saying. Explain it in your own words instead of bitching out.



Tell me where I said or insinuated any of that. Nope, another dodge coming.



I'll repeat my previous questions until it starts getting through to you at some point: Then why the hell do you keep harping on about risky loans when the problem wasn't the loans in isolation but the fact that they were bundled into pools of CDOs that exponentially increased their adverse impact on the global financial markets?



Thank you captain obvious, as if anyone here cares where nominal amounts go in a discussion about real values, lol.



I'm well aware sub-prime was part of the mess, so since you continue to dodge I'll repost my previous question here; you simply fail to acknowledge and/or realize that sub-prime defaults were manageable and under normal circumstances would have in all likelyhood led to a normal recession, so then why was this recession nearly a global financial collapse starting in the United States?



Wait wait wait, lemme get this straight, you don't think sub-prime mortgages should exist? Holy shit, this is even worse than I thought.

Wow. Just wow.

So the root cause is not the cause just so you can help your party dodge responsibility.

The subprime mortgage crisis, which is universally credited with causing the recession, was not the fault of subprime mortgages at all, but nasty bankers who bundled them together. It's just called the sub-prime mortgage crisis to sound sexy.

Gotchya!

 

[dmcowen674]

You really are clueless, aren't you?

History will clearly show you are the clueless one.

 

[Amused]

History will clearly show you are the clueless one.

Try to keep up, Dave. We're talking about history here... and you're clueless about it.

 

[IGBT]

For Republicans, the wave of support extended to state capitals. The party won control of 25 state legislatures -- powered by pickups of about 700 state legislative slots -- and 29 governor’s offices. Next year, states will use data from the 2010 Census to determine the boundaries for House seats, a redistricting process that now is likely to benefit Republicans for the next 10 years.