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

[Amused]

FYI I'm a proponent of 20% down 30 yr fixed simple loans. Democrats fucked that up and left you no skin in the game with CRA, doomed to fail.

It's funny that you declare that I'm FOS yet mention right here the root cause of the whole crisis.

From the timeline I posted:

•Then in 1980, with the same players in power, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This act removed the state limits on interest rates banks could charge on mortgages. Amongst other things, this legislation was a continuation of the policy to get more low and moderate income home ownership, by giving banks more incentive to lend to riskier parties.


•In 1982, with Reagan in the White House, and Democratics still in control of both houses of congress, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act was passed. AMTPA specifically allowed alternative types of financing on home loans other than traditional fixed rate mortgages. Again, here as with before, the intention was to open up home ownership to low and moderate-income households by offering additional methods to finance a house.

•Starting in 1995, the GSE's (read: oxymoron), Government Sponsored Enterprises, began to receive government tax incentives to purchase mortgage backed securities. This is a critical turning point in the foreclosure crisis, because later it will be shown that after HUD set goals for the GSE's to buy more subprime paper, which are riskier than traditional mortgages and have a higher rate of failure, the GSE's turned around and sold to investment banks as low-risk investments.

 

[jackstar7]

Full of shit my ass.

I hope someone finds that sig worthy.

 

[EXman]

Poll Shmoll. Dems won the only poll that matters, Presidency, House, and Senate.

Granted this quote was from July.

How's that poll treating you now? There are over 500 and close to 650 elections won by Republicans all across America.

 

[First]

Go abck and READ my posts. The CRA and GSEs merely STARTED it. The rest snowballed with deregulation/social engineering of an entire industry intended to OPEN housing markets to low income people.

Just try READING the timeline.

You obviously are a little slow on this, so I'll speak slowly; what part of the reality that CRA defaults or total CRA loans contributing to the Septemper 2008 collapse being extremely small did you not understand? Or are you now saying the CRA contributed to the crash (true) but only in a relatively insignificant (in reality, very insignificant) way, and that it was the "snowball" effect of the deregulation and, uh, social engineering (whatever the hell that means)? Please explain in detail, I'd love to hear it. Oh, btw, cite law that you understand and that hasn't been dictated to you by wingnut hackjob blogs.

Um, it took DECADES for this to happen. This did not come about in just a few years. The snowball got rolling in 77. Housing prices were going up up up the whole time. The worst was only in the 90s and 00s

Like I said, read the timeline.

And like everyone has been telling you, your timeline is from bullshit wingnut hack jobs that don't get the intent, letter or spirit of any of the laws right, hell they can't bother getting the presidents or names right. That's why we're all laughing at you, your whole premise about extending low income housing to people starting this all doesn't make any sense since the crash would have been statistically just about as severe (as in 95%+) had CRA-directed or CRA-related loans never existed. It's why we continue to laugh, at you, to your face. It's why you bitch out of responding to eskimospy.

 

[Zebo]

Amused - you ignore that CRA was a minor position. Once banks figured out how they could commoditize fraud, i.e. sell the shit, they ratcheted up to a whole new level and depended on culpability of republicans and democrats to do so. Who were perfectly willing to mask the destruction of their off-shoring/outsourcing that occurred in the last few sessions with new debt to fake Americans into prosperity.

 

[nick1985]

Poll Shmoll. Dems won the only poll that matters, Presidency, House, and Senate.

LOL!!! Hahaha...

 

[nick1985]

We'll see if the GOP makes any real gains in the 2010 Congressional. The "ultimate" poll is always taken on election day, and I suspect that in 2010 the Democrats will comfortably hold onto their majorities in Congress (losing few seats).

More LULZ!!!

Oh man, rofl

 

[nick1985]

Yeah, I am sure the country is just clamoring for more Republican control and mismanagement.

So many gems in 1 thread...

 

[nick1985]

They will lose more moderates by not voting for health care reform. There are a lot of moderates who don't really care much about politics, but want the health care mess taken care of.

Oh man, how wrong you were. Ouch!

 

[Amused]

You obviously are a little slow on this, so I'll speak slowly; what part of the reality that CRA defaults or total CRA loans contributing to the Septemper 2008 collapse being extremely small did you not understand? Or are you now saying the CRA contributed to the crash (true) but only in a relatively insignificant (in reality, very insignificant) way, and that it was the "snowball" effect of the deregulation and, uh, social engineering (whatever the hell that means)? Please explain in detail, I'd love to hear it. Oh, btw, cite law that you understand and that hasn't been dictated to you by wingnut hackjob blogs.



And like everyone has been telling you, your timeline is from bullshit wingnut hack jobs that don't get the intent, letter or spirit of any of the laws right, hell they can't bother getting the presidents or names right. That's why we're all laughing at you, your whole premise about extending low income housing to people starting this all doesn't make any sense since the crash would have been statistically just about as severe (as in 95%+) had CRA-directed or CRA-related loans never existed. It's why we continue to laugh, at you, to your face. It's why you bitch out of responding to eskimospy.

Okay, I'll say this really slow so YOU can understand. The CRA was only the start. If you READ the fucking timeline you'd see the other causes. Almost ALL were the same ideologicaly driven legislation intended to get low income people into home ownership.

The big three:

•Then in 1980, with the same players in power, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This act removed the state limits on interest rates banks could charge on mortgages. Amongst other things, this legislation was a continuation of the policy to get more low and moderate income home ownership, by giving banks more incentive to lend to riskier parties.

•In 1982, with Reagan in the White House, and Democratics still in control of both houses of congress, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act was passed. AMTPA specifically allowed alternative types of financing on home loans other than traditional fixed rate mortgages. Again, here as with before, the intention was to open up home ownership to low and moderate-income households by offering additional methods to finance a house.

•Starting in 1995, the GSE's (read: oxymoron), Government Sponsored Enterprises, began to receive government tax incentives to purchase mortgage backed securities. This is a critical turning point in the foreclosure crisis, because later it will be shown that after HUD set goals for the GSE's to buy more subprime paper, which are riskier than traditional mortgages and have a higher rate of failure, the GSE's turned around and sold to investment banks as low-risk investments.

Now, you can keep insulting me all you want. You can keep insulting the author of the timeline all you want. But I wonder why you haven't taken the time to address ANY of the laws here, or any of the points in the timeline? All you have are insults.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, I'll say this really slow so YOU can understand. The CRA was only the start. If you READ the fucking timeline you'd see the other causes. Almost ALL were the same ideologicaly driven legislation intended to get low income people into home ownership.

The big three:

•Then in 1980, with the same players in power, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This act removed the state limits on interest rates banks could charge on mortgages. Amongst other things, this legislation was a continuation of the policy to get more low and moderate income home ownership, by giving banks more incentive to lend to riskier parties.

•In 1982, with Reagan in the White House, and Democratics still in control of both houses of congress, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act was passed. AMTPA specifically allowed alternative types of financing on home loans other than traditional fixed rate mortgages. Again, here as with before, the intention was to open up home ownership to low and moderate-income households by offering additional methods to finance a house.

•Starting in 1995, the GSE's (read: oxymoron), Government Sponsored Enterprises, began to receive government tax incentives to purchase mortgage backed securities. This is a critical turning point in the foreclosure crisis, because later it will be shown that after HUD set goals for the GSE's to buy more subprime paper, which are riskier than traditional mortgages and have a higher rate of failure, the GSE's turned around and sold to investment banks as low-risk investments.

Checking for actual empirical evidence or facts to back up opinions.......

Nope. Swing and a miss.

Keep trying!

 

[Amused]

Checking for actual empirical evidence or facts to back up opinions.......

Nope. Swing and a miss.

Keep trying!

Are you saying these events never took place?

And if you are not denying the laws were passed, you're telling me that there is no blame for the very laws allowing all these subprime loans in the first place?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you saying these events never took place?

 

[Amused]

Well, let's start from the beginning, shall we?

I am not understanding why the laws that CREATED the subprime market in the first place are not to blame for the collapse. It seems to me that you and your buddy only want to cherry pick causes, and not look at the root issue.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, let's start from the beginning, shall we?

I am not understanding why the laws that CREATED the subprime market in the first place are not to blame for the collapse. It seems to me that you and your buddy only want to cherry pick causes, and not look at the root issue.

Let's not man, let's really not. Everything you need has already been said in this thread.

 

[Amused]

Let's not man, let's really not. Everything you need has already been said in this thread.

No, actually. It hasn't.

I'd like to know how a sub-prime market could collapse a housing market if the laws that enabled the sub-prime market to exist had never been passed with the intent of getting people who formally could not qualify for a loan into mortgages?

 

[Amused]

Wow. No answer, huh?

 

[First]

Okay, I'll say this really slow so YOU can understand. The CRA was only the start. If you READ the fucking timeline you'd see the other causes. Almost ALL were the same ideologicaly driven legislation intended to get low income people into home ownership.

Again, slowpoke, I'm not interested that you think they were ideologically driven because some right-wing writer/rag told you it was. I'm telling you straight up that you're wrong right off the bat, as shown with the following...

The big three:

•Then in 1980, with the same players in power, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This act removed the state limits on interest rates banks could charge on mortgages. Amongst other things, this legislation was a continuation of the policy to get more low and moderate income home ownership, by giving banks more incentive to lend to riskier parties.

Please tell me how this act is directed at low income housing when the actual contents of the act did the following:

1) Gave the Federal Reserve greater control over non-member banks.
2) Forced all banks to abide by the Fed's rules.
3) Allowed banks to merge.
4) Removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation Q to set the interest rates of savings accounts.
5) Raised the deposit insurance of US banks and credit unions from $40,000 to $100,000.
6) Allowed credit unions and savings and loans to offer checkable deposits.
7) Allowed institutions to charge any interest rates they choose.
8) Required banks be charged Fed Float for use of funds received before clearing between depository institutions.

And please explain what part about taking on more risk led to a collapse almost entirely caused by bundling and spreading risky assets in exponential fashion; as in, if you're a hedge fund and you bundled 10 risky sub-prime loans into a CDO and then sold them and hedged your bets and hid the risk of the actual loans knowing full well they were risky, tell me again how the risk loan is the problem in the first place when any bank was free to take on risky mortgages well before 1980, and that this act did nothing to change it.

•In 1982, with Reagan in the White House, and Democratics still in control of both houses of congress, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act was passed. AMTPA specifically allowed alternative types of financing on home loans other than traditional fixed rate mortgages. Again, here as with before, the intention was to open up home ownership to low and moderate-income households by offering additional methods to finance a house.

Via Wikipedia:

"Preempts state laws that restrict banks from making any mortgage except conventional fixed rate amortizing mortgages. Such mortgages included:

1) Adjustable-rate mortgages, in which the interest rate becomes floating after a number of years.
2) Balloon payment mortgages have a large payment remaining when the loan comes due.
3) Interest-only mortgages only require the borrower to pay the interest on the principal balance for the first years of the loan."

How did this open up opportunities to low income mortgages that, again, accounted for a minority of the mortgages that defaulted since 2008? Please, I'd love to hear this.

•Starting in 1995, the GSE's (read: oxymoron), Government Sponsored Enterprises, began to receive government tax incentives to purchase mortgage backed securities. This is a critical turning point in the foreclosure crisis, because later it will be shown that after HUD set goals for the GSE's to buy more subprime paper, which are riskier than traditional mortgages and have a higher rate of failure, the GSE's turned around and sold to investment banks as low-risk investments.

Except the defaults of Lehman, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, AIG, Countrywide, and many smaller banks that didn't invest in anywhere near a significant amount of Fannie/Freddie paper absolutely dwarfs the GSE's defaults. Since math apparently isn't your strong suit, well, I can't really blame you for not understanding I guess.

Now, you can keep insulting me all you want. You can keep insulting the author of the timeline all you want. But I wonder why you haven't taken the time to address ANY of the laws here, or any of the points in the timeline? All you have are insults.

It's because your timeline is factually bullshit, and you're boring.

 

[nobodyknows]

People have short memories, unfortunately.

It's all part of the cycle. I've noticed that there are smaller cycles within the bigger cycle and this is just one of them.... I think.

 

[Amused]

Again, slowpoke, I'm not interested that you think they were ideologically driven because some right-wing writer/rag told you it was. I'm telling you straight up that you're wrong right off the bat, as shown with the following...



Please tell me how this act is directed at low income housing when the actual contents of the act did the following:

1) Gave the Federal Reserve greater control over non-member banks.
2) Forced all banks to abide by the Fed's rules.
3) Allowed banks to merge.
4) Removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation Q to set the interest rates of savings accounts.
5) Raised the deposit insurance of US banks and credit unions from $40,000 to $100,000.
6) Allowed credit unions and savings and loans to offer checkable deposits.
7) Allowed institutions to charge any interest rates they choose.
8) Required banks be charged Fed Float for use of funds received before clearing between depository institutions.

And please explain what part about taking on more risk led to a collapse almost entirely caused by bundling and spreading risky assets in exponential fashion; as in, if you're a hedge fund and you bundled 10 risky sub-prime loans into a CDO and then sold them and hedged your bets and hid the risk of the actual loans knowing full well they were risky, tell me again how the risk loan is the problem in the first place when any bank was free to take on risky mortgages well before 1980, and that this act did nothing to change it.



Via Wikipedia:

"Preempts state laws that restrict banks from making any mortgage except conventional fixed rate amortizing mortgages. Such mortgages included:

1) Adjustable-rate mortgages, in which the interest rate becomes floating after a number of years.
2) Balloon payment mortgages have a large payment remaining when the loan comes due.
3) Interest-only mortgages only require the borrower to pay the interest on the principal balance for the first years of the loan."

How did this open up opportunities to low income mortgages that, again, accounted for a minority of the mortgages that defaulted since 2008? Please, I'd love to hear this.



Except the defaults of Lehman, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, AIG, Countrywide, and many smaller banks that didn't invest in anywhere near a significant amount of Fannie/Freddie paper absolutely dwarfs the GSE's defaults. Since math apparently isn't your strong suit, well, I can't really blame you for not understanding I guess.



It's because your timeline is factually bullshit, and you're boring.

Um, no. It is the subprime loans imploding that caused the entire collapse. It was the trading and selling of HIGH RISK loans that merely added to the fire.

The loans did not HAVE to be owned or loaned by the GSEs to have been encouraged and allowed by these laws I have listed.

And what does it matter if the DEFAULTED RISKY LOANS allowed and encouraged by these democrat ideology laws were bundled and spread, or kept at the respective lenders??? The result is the same god damn thing. These people who had no business getting loans were going to default. Hell, they defaulted REGULARLY, but as long as home prices kept rising, there wasn't a problem. The banks could always get their money back. But when the bubble popped, ALL these subprime defaulters collapsed the banks.

Encouraging a run on real estate by introducing millions of buyers who previously would not qualify drove up prices and created a bubble. The bubble was exacerbated by speculators and investors (hey, why not get in on the fun?). And the collapse was assured by ALL of this activity, but STARTED by the subprime market allowed by THESE LAWS.

What part of that can you not understand? Or is it just that you cannot accept reality? The deregulations that brought on this whole thing were designed for ONE purpose. To deny that is to deny reality. Why else would the government encourage such risky and dangerous behavior??? And Democrat majorities to boot???

Nope, sorry. But this has a root cause, and it's easy to see. The laws passed that not only allowed, but encouraged this risky behavior were the root cause of all of this.

 

[First]

Before owning you yet again, I'd like to point out you're still wimping out of showing the difference in impact and magnitude of sub-prime loans to low income housing supposedly perpetuated by leftist social engineering with any numbers w h a t s o e v e r. Particularly evidenced by your now complete lack of reference to CRA, as that has now been thoroughly debunked.

Um, no. It is the subprime loans imploding that caused the entire collapse. It was the trading and selling of HIGH RISK loans that merely added to the fire.

Sub-prime loans by themselves only accounted for several hundred billion dollars of paper (fact), it was the the multi-trillion dollar bundling of them that caused an exponentially worse collapse. I'm sorry you're a little slow on the uptake but those are just facts, as illustrated below.

And what does it matter if the DEFAULTED RISKY LOANS allowed and encouraged by these democrat ideology laws were bundled and spread, or kept at the respective lenders??? The result is the same god damn thing. These people who had no business getting loans were going to default. Hell, they defaulted REGULARLY, but as long as home prices kept rising, there wasn't a problem. The banks could always get their money back. But when the bubble popped, ALL these subprime defaulters collapsed the banks.

The fact that banks were allowed to bundle risky assets and have them rated as low risk AAA investments, in other words a complete lack of regulation of some OTC derivatives, CDOs and CDS' that insured those bets, made the very manageable sub-prime loans made every year (measuring in the tens of billions every year) into an exponentially worse problem considering trillions of MBS were bundled into CDOs to that point. In other words, by 2007, there were only $1.2T of total sub-prime loans on the market accumulated over the entire history of the U.S., while $1.6T in CDOs were originated in just a 4 year period between 2003 and 2007. Knowing this reality, your contention that the result would be "the same god damn thing" tells us what we already knew; you're not terribly good at math, since the proportion of impact is quite obviously statistically different when you add up the entire 2007 sub-prime market with the trillions in CDOs and many other financial instruments I didn't both looking up. Again, from Wikipedia:

Subprime mortgages remained below 10% of all mortgage originations until 2004, when they spiked to nearly 20% and remained there through the 2005-2006 peak of the United States housing bubble. A proximate event to this increase was the April 2004 decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to relax the net capital rule, which encouraged the largest five investment banks to dramatically increase their financial leverage and aggressively expand their issuance of mortgage-backed securities. Subprime mortgage payment delinquency rates remained in the 10-15% range from 1998 to 2006, then began to increase rapidly, rising to 25% by early 2008.

In addition to considering higher-risk borrowers, lenders offered increasingly risky loan options and borrowing incentives. Mortgage underwriting standards declined gradually during the boom period. The use of automated loan approvals allowed loans to be made without appropriate review and documentation.In 2007, 40% of all subprime loans resulted from automated underwriting. The chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association claimed that mortgage brokers, while profiting from the home loan boom, did not do enough to examine whether borrowers could repay. Mortgage fraud by lenders and borrowers increased enormously.

For a variety of reasons, market participants did not accurately measure the risk inherent with this innovation or understand its impact on the overall stability of the financial system. For example, the pricing model for CDOs clearly did not reflect the level of risk they introduced into the system. The average recovery rate for "high quality" CDOs has been approximately 32 cents on the dollar, while the recovery rate for mezzanine CDO's has been approximately five cents for every dollar. These massive, practically unthinkable, losses have dramatically impacted the balance sheets of banks across the globe, leaving them with very little capital to continue operations.

Others have pointed out that there were not enough of these loans made to cause a crisis of this magnitude. In an article in Portfolio Magazine, Michael Lewis spoke with one trader who noted that "There weren’t enough Americans with [bad] credit taking out [bad loans] to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product." Essentially, investment banks and hedge funds used financial innovation to synthesize more loans using derivatives. "They were creating [loans] out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans.[/b]

Encouraging a run on real estate by introducing millions of buyers who previously would not qualify drove up prices and created a bubble. The bubble was exacerbated by speculators and investors (hey, why not get in on the fun?). And the collapse was assured by ALL of this activity, but STARTED by the subprime market allowed by THESE LAWS.

Sub-prime has existed for decades you dolt. Why was this recession worse than all the others? Think long and hard before answering. Really, try thinking about why this recession, over all others, was substantially worse. Then try to connect the dots with the multi-trillion dollar MBS' that were peddled by investment banks and hedge funds (to a lesser degree) in the form of CDO's weren't a far more overwhelmingly destructive factor than the existence of sub-prime defaults in of themselves, in isolation. What would have been a recession was turned into a near worldwide financial collapse. Sub-prime loans to low income housing being the root of the problem is just so laughably out of touch with reality that, not surprisingly, you've yet to show what numbers back up this claim that they contributed to the majority of the causes of the crash. I await your next wimp-out, but before that, a little taste of reality in terms of those who are actually foreclosing:

"The L.A. Times reported the results of a study that found homeowners with high credit scores at the time of entering the mortgage are 50% more likely to "strategically default" -- abruptly and intentionally pull the plug and abandon the mortgage—compared with lower-scoring borrowers. Such strategic defaults were heavily concentrated in markets with the highest price declines. An estimated 588,000 strategic defaults occurred nationwide during 2008, more than double the total in 2007. They represented 18% of all serious delinquencies that extended for more than 60 days in the fourth quarter of 2008."

Tell us again that low income defaults pushed by the social engineering of the left was the cause of the 2008 financial crisis again, lol.

What part of that can you not understand? Or is it just that you cannot accept reality? The deregulations that brought on this whole thing were designed for ONE purpose. To deny that is to deny reality. Why else would the government encourage such risky and dangerous behavior??? And Democrat majorities to boot???

Nope, sorry. But this has a root cause, and it's easy to see. The laws passed that not only allowed, but encouraged this risky behavior were the root cause of all of this.

Jesus you suck at this arguing stuff.

 

[Amused]

Sub-prime loans by themselves only accounted for several hundred billion dollars of paper (fact), it was the the multi-trillion dollar bundling of them that caused an exponentially worse collapse. I'm sorry you're a little slow on the uptake but those are just facts.



The loans by themselves wouldn't have causaed



The fact that banks were allowed to bundle risky assets and have them rated as low risk AAA investments, in other words a complete lack of regulation of some OTC derivatives, CDOs and CDS' that insured those bets, made the very manageable sub-prime loans made every year (measuring in the tens of billions every year) into an exponentially worse problem considering trillions of MBS were bundled into CDOs to that point. In other words, by 2007, there were only $1.2T of total sub-prime loans on the market accumulated over the entire history of the U.S., while $1.6T in CDOs were originated in just a 4 year period between 2003 and 2007. Knowing this reality, your contention that the result would be "the same god damn thing" tells us what we already knew; you're not terribly good at math, since the proportion of impact is quite obviously statistically different when you add up the entire 2007 sub-prime market with the trillions in CDOs and many other financial instruments I didn't both looking up. Again, from Wikipedia:





Sub-prime has existed for decades you dolt. Why was this recession worse than all the others? Think long and hard before answering. Really, try thinking about why this recession, over all others, was substantially worse. Then try to connect the dots with the multi-trillion dollar MBS' that were peddled by investment banks and hedge funds (to a lesser degree) in the form of CDO's weren't a far more overwhelmingly destructive factor than the existence of sub-prime defaults in of themselves, in isolation. What would have been a recession was turned into a near worldwide financial collapse. Sub-prime loans to low income housing being the root of the problem is just so laughably out of touch with reality that, not surprisingly, you've yet to show what numbers back up this claim that they contributed to the majority of the causes of the crash. I await your next wimp-out, but before that, a little taste of reality in terms of those who are actually foreclosing:

"The L.A. Times reported the results of a study that found homeowners with high credit scores at the time of entering the mortgage are 50% more likely to "strategically default" -- abruptly and intentionally pull the plug and abandon the mortgage—compared with lower-scoring borrowers. Such strategic defaults were heavily concentrated in markets with the highest price declines. An estimated 588,000 strategic defaults occurred nationwide during 2008, more than double the total in 2007. They represented 18% of all serious delinquencies that extended for more than 60 days in the fourth quarter of 2008."

Tell us again that low income defaults pushed by the social engineering of the left was the cause of the 2008 financial crisis again, lol.



Jesus you suck at this arguing stuff.

:::sigh:::

Try to pay attention, okay?

The laws passed allowed sub-prime loans. Not not only were these loans (0% down/variable interest rate/balloon/interest only) offered to those with low credit scores, but people with good credit OVER EXTENDED themselves with these kind of loans as well. These laws allowed mortages OTHER than the standard 20% down, fixed rate. They allowed finacial disasters waiting to happen with variable rates, interest only and balloons.

And yes, the subprime market has existed for 30 some years. And during this time, home prices have only INCREASED. Fueled by a buying spree brought about by these very laws. Yet there has been only ONE real estate bubble pop that meant banks could NOT recoup the money from defaulters.

People have been defaulting ALL ALONG on the subprime/alternative loans allowed by the laws in question. But once the bubble popped and home prices dropped, the banks were busted. They could not recoup the money. And a wave of people upside down on their loans after the bubble popped (good credit AND bad) simply chose to walk away from their loans rather than lose money. Thus making matters even worse.

It's really not that hard to understand. I don't know why you're in denial about it all. These very laws I listed are the root cause of the collapse. Even Barney Fucking Frank admitted it.

 

[First]

:::sigh:::

Try to pay attention, okay?

The laws passed allowed sub-prime loans. Not not only were these loans (0% down/variable interest rate/balloon/interest only) offered to those with low credit scores, but people with good credit OVER EXTENDED themselves with these kind of loans as well. These laws allowed mortages OTHER than the standard 20% down, fixed rate. They allowed finacial disasters waiting to happen with variable rates, interest only and balloons.

Which laws specifically allowed for loans to be 0 down or 2% down based on questionable credit? Please specify instead of bitching out of specifics.

And yes, the subprime market has existed for 30 some years. And during this time, home prices have only INCREASED. Fueled by a buying spree brought about by these very laws. Yet there has been only ONE real estate bubble pop that meant banks could NOT recoup the money from defaulters.

WTF are you talking about? There have been multiple dips in home prices in the last 30 years besides the most recent one, including early 90's and early 00's.

People have been defaulting ALL ALONG on the subprime/alternative loans allowed by the laws in question. But once the bubble popped and home prices dropped, the banks were busted. They could not recoup the money. And a wave of people upside down on their loans after the bubble popped (good credit AND bad) simply chose to walk away from their loans rather than lose money. Thus making matters even worse.

It's really not that hard to understand. I don't know why you're in denial about it all. These very laws I listed are the root cause of the collapse. Even Barney Fucking Frank admitted it.

Please address the difference in magnitude between CDO and subprime loans and stop bitching out of answering, wimp. Nah, nevermind, I know you'll slither away.

 

[Amused]

Which laws specifically allowed for loans to be 0 down or 2% down based on questionable credit? Please specify instead of bitching out of specifics.



WTF are you talking about? There have been multiple dips in home prices in the last 30 years besides the most recent one, including early 90's and early 00's.



Please address the difference in magnitude between CDO and subprime loans and stop bitching out of answering, wimp. Nah, nevermind, I know you'll slither away.

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.

 

[theeedude]

The gloating is strong in this thread, but it's going to end in disappointment for conservatives all over again.
You already had House, Senate, White House and USSC at once, and see what you got. You are fighting for 2000-2006 all over again. That's your problem. You are more interested in Republicans getting elected than your conservative agenda moving forward. I am perfectly fine sacrificing Democrat House control to pass health care reform.