-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/how_the_democrats_created_the_financial_crisis -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Conservative control of the Senate,
the House, The Presidency and
the Supreme Court.
Conservatives put in charge of
all the levers of gov't.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
[quote]Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.[/quote]
Empirical evidence of the cost of Dem social engineering affirmative action mandates.
All the lies you tell cannot cover up the truth.
Conservative control of the Senate,
the House, The Presidency and
the Supreme Court.
Conservatives put in charge of
all the levers of gov't.[/quote]
WOOF,
Only a devout leftist, a statist, and a battle-hardened class-warfare veteran, would write something so idiotic. President George Bush is hardly a hard-core conservative, and neither was the 2001 House, or Senate. The Supreme Court, meanwhile is split even down the middle with 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and a tottering (and doddering) Anthony Kennedy in the middle. Your assessment is crap!
No it is not. Not being able to make loan payments is the problem, and it is not only blacks who are missing loan payments.
Further, these loans did not demand that insurance be taken out on the loans and then claim the insurance on a loans that are paid off early to be counted as capital.
You are just blaming darkie again. That is all you have. Pure skin color racism.
the really interesting thing is how foxnews and others are adopting leftie-speak. the GOP is in the process of a total breakdown. leftie speak, class war, regulation, social parenting. bipolar disorder to the max.
Again, you are the only one playing the race card here. It was Dem social engineering home loan mandates that forced lenders to make large, long-term loans to people with bad credit. That's why they couldn't make the loan payments. If they couldn't make the payments, why did they sign the loan papers? Isn't that dishonest, at the least?
How many ways can you be dead wrong in one paragraph, Sparkie? Fannie and Freddie were created to deal with the consequences of the social engineering affirmative action loan mandates; they were there to cover up the true cost of that social engineering. Marxist concentrate on sociopolitical factors at the cost of economic factors, so you are wrong there, also. President Bush has not "destabilized the whole world"; it's you lefties who are desperately trying to do that to get into absolute power over the American people.
You're really sounding crazy, Sparkie. You have everything backwards.
SB 190 never made it out of the Senate committee controlled by the Republican Senate.
CRA only applied only to banks and thrifts.
CRA Institutions didn't make no income verification loans.
[quote] Dem social engineering home loan mandates that forced lenders to make large, long-term loans to people with bad credit[/quote]
Show me the numbers?
[quote]University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves.[/quote][url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/memo-to-republicans-cra-h_b_127599.html?view=print]Will the real conservatives please stand up[/url]
I stand by my original comment.
I see you have nothing to offer besides you usual boilerplate garbage.
This is really strange but there isn't a single mention of affirmative action lending mandates anywhere in that article...nor even a peep about social engineering for that matter. It's hard to identify the empirical evidence when the article is apparently written in code interpretable only by certain conservative dynamic analysts.
On a more serious note, anyone who has followed this story knows that the Democrats' hands aren't clean either. A little more attention and oversight may have made a big difference...lots of responsibility to go around IMO.
[quote]Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened. [/quote]
Again: Where did all the bad paper come from in the first place? The foreclosure rate became unmanageable after the affirmative action loan program was instituted, and grew under both Carter and Clinton. Again: without the bad loans, mandated by the Dem social engineers, the "house of cards" would not have existed. You don't sell off good paper.
You're more dense than usual on this one, Mike.
Says you...the article you reference certainly doesn't.
[quote]You don't sell off good paper.
You're more dense than usual on this one, Mike. [/quote]
A good example of how out of touch you seem to be with modern finance. Good paper has been sold for years and years, a fact which partly explains why smart fund managers would buy crappy mortgages...they expected more of the usual fare and were shocked when they discovered what sludge they had purchased.
The root of the problem, as I have said over and over and over and over and over......
Again: look to the source of the crappy mortgages. Unless forced to do so by govt mandates, financial institutions don't write crappy mortgages; they tend to go out of business if they do. Once the crappy mortgages start piling up, the govt steps in to guarantee them, through Fannie and Freddie. That's what happened, no matter how much denial and insult you try to sell, Mike.
I'm truly sorry your ego won't allow you to admit the obvious truth here.
The bad business practices mandated by the affirmative action loan mandates spawned more bad business practices, which required more regulations, which spawned more bad business practices, and on and on.... It is the story of socialism, writ large.
I'm typing this very slowly in the hope that you can follow. When you remove the risk of loss by selling your mortgages to be bundled into investment vehicles then there is little incentive to worry about the credit worthiness of the mortgagee. I've suggested this to you a dozen times or more and I'm not sure if the problem is that you've ignored it or you don't believe it but, as you're fond of saying, it's basic economics.
[quote]
I'm truly sorry your ego won't allow you to admit the obvious truth here.[/quote]
It's honestly not my ego. Until you decide to become familiar with modern mortgage practices then you will continue to blame social engineering. Until you understand what's happened in the mortgage business there is little likelihood that you can understand what has happened in the derivatives and other esoteric financial instruments markets which is the cause of the current credit crisis.
Read man.
You have it backwards; the mandated bad loans spawned the need for removal of consequences, thus Fannie and Freddie. I have explained this over and over again. Social engineering mandates produce distortion, which require legislation, which produce more distortion, which require more regulation, etc, etc.
It's the story of socialism.
When you mistakenly assert that the increased foreclosure rate due to the mandated social engineering loans, you need to demonstrate why increased foreclosures don't initiate the problem, not just say that. Give us the numbers, Mike. Please explain how the industry can absorb the increased foreclosure rate without any ill effects. In fact, it's just like I have been saying, over and over again: the false demand signal sent by the mandated bad loans caused an inflation of equity in the housing market, which led to the other bad loans, etc etc.
The real story doesn't change.
I've been waiting patiently for days for your evidence robert. I've already linked [url=http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis]this[/url] but I'll give you a couple of germane excerpts.
[quote]Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.[/quote]
[quote]
Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."[/quote]
As a bonus, I'll give you an interesting [url=http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf]study[/url] which suggests that the CRA may have deterred irresponsible lending.
So that we're clear, I'm rejecting your assumption that there is a causal link between minority lending programs and the blow up in the mortgage industry. If you have evidence that raises your assumption to verifiable fact status then I'll happily reconsider your argument. Your reliance on classical economic theory with no empirical validation is just theory IMO.
Your denial of the obvious reality is noted. Where did all the bad loans come from, Mike? Why did an industry with an historically low foreclosure rate suddenly start making bad loans? What was the incentive that started it all?
You keep missing the obvious here, in your lust to blame anyone other than those at fault.
Groan. Given that I've already answered those questions, you're either ignoring what I'm saying or you don't believe what I'm saying...either way, there's not much point in my answering them again. Please read up on what's been happening in the financial world for the past few years and perhaps you'll find your answers in a more palatable form than I can apparently provide.
Since I know the truth, and that you have yet to recognize it, I don't believe the untruth you have said. I don't remember you actually stating the [i]origin[/i] of the bad loans, which somehow started after the affirmative action lending mandates were instituted. I guess you regard that as a coincidence.