88 wrote:
This shit makes me want to puke. When will it ever stop?
Hang enough bankers.*
It'll stop.
*Not rhetorical flourish. Seriously. Mass public hangings. They'll stop.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:02 am
by Diogenes
This shit makes me want to puke. When will it ever stop?
When people start voting for Democrats?
The FHA (like Freddie Mae/Fannie Mac before them, like all the banks in financial distress) is just playing by the rules Franks, Waters, Obama and co. forced on them.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:08 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Diogenes wrote:
The FHA is just playing by the rules Franks, Waters, Obama and co. forced on them.[/b]
Awwww...poor big business...always getting pushed around by the Democrats...
Won't someone step in and defend these poor, humble underdogs?
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:11 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
mvscal wrote:As if Republicans are any better or any different. They are all hogs at the trough. Our system of government is irreparably broken.
No, Dio is correct.
The Republicans will sprinkle magical pixie dust over all your problems.
Democrats force corporate America to rip people off. It's state coercion of hard working, decent capitalist enterprise.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:14 am
by JMak
It will stop when the idiots running the asylum realize that it's fucking moronic to lend to poor people and to encourage lending to people with no down payment in order to inflate home ownership.
And like mvscal said, the GOP aint any better on this score. Shit, one thing you libtarts could legitimately slam Bush on would be his bullshit about increasing home ownership.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:25 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
JMak wrote:It will stop when the idiots running the asylum realize that it's fucking moronic to lend to poor people...
Yeah. The banks are in a shit barrel because, out of the goodness of their philanthropic hearts, they gave all their money away to street people, panhandlers and hobos.
Yeah, that's it.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:30 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
88 wrote:
Why is it big business's fault that the government established a program to encourage big business to make loans to people that big business would not otherwise lend to?
Where did this money that you claim banks gave to poor people go?
I'm calling big-time bullshit on you. Be prepared.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:39 am
by Diogenes
JMak wrote:It will stop when the idiots running the asylum realize that it's fucking moronic to lend to poor people and to encourage lending to people with no down payment in order to inflate home ownership.
The idiots running the asylum are the leftists who wrote the rules coercing banks into making said loans.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:43 am
by Diogenes
Martyred wrote:
88 wrote:
Why is it big business's fault that the government established a program to encourage big business to make loans to people that big business would not otherwise lend to?
Where did this money that you claim banks gave to poor people go?
To the people unloading the overpriced housing.
Idiot.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:44 am
by KC Scott
On the plus side I just got a 4.375% - 15 yr. with no points and about 1,600 closing costs from Met life.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:46 am
by indyfrisco
I'm still riding the 3.25% prime rate on my HELOC. I have a feelin it will be under 4% for quite some time. Enough time to pay off what is left on my HELOC which should be a couple years.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:50 am
by KC Scott
IndyFrisco wrote:I'm still riding the 3.25% prime rate on my HELOC. I have a feelin it will be under 4% for quite some time.
Hi, Might you also be interested in this prime little piece of real estate?
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:52 am
by indyfrisco
Neh, I'm good with my current location.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:54 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
88 wrote:
Now, tell me again. If those loans were not backed by the government, would "big business" have made them?
I'm well versed with that cowardly libertarian argument in defence of state/private finance collusion.
The rap is this:
"Acme Widget Company attempts to defraud it's investors by filing false financial reports to a federal auditing board. Acme Widget mails the false reports using the U.S. Postal Service...ipso facto...the federal government is complicit in stock fraud."
Yeah. Bullshit.
Here's the question that's cuts through the crap.
Where is this alleged capital that the banks held and then used for mortgage financing?
Here's your answer. It never existed.
And that fact that the banks skated through a loophole that was left open by the federal government does not, in and of itself, pass the onus of guilt onto the government.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:55 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Diogenes wrote:
Martyred wrote:
88 wrote:
Why is it big business's fault that the government established a program to encourage big business to make loans to people that big business would not otherwise lend to?
Where did this money that you claim banks gave to poor people go?
To the people unloading the overpriced housing.
Idiot.
Name names, or shut the fuck up.
I dare you.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:58 am
by KC Scott
Martyred wrote:
Here's the question that's cuts through the crap.
Where is this alleged capital that the banks held and then used for mortgage financing?
Here's your answer. It never existed.
And that fact that the banks skated through a loophole that was left open by the federal government does not, in and of itself, pass the onus of guilt onto the government.
Not exactly.....
It was the money on the options (deriviitives) they wrote that they couldn't cover.
Please get your conspiracy theories correct.
And why the fuck are you celebrating Thanksgiving on Monday?
Did you give the Eskimos some syrup or something?
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:58 am
by Mikey
IndyFrisco wrote:Neh, I'm good with my current location.
Yeah, but that ditch is already dug.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:02 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
KC Scott wrote:
It was the money on the options (deriviitives) they wrote that they couldn't cover.
Derivatives aren't based on any hard assets. That's why they're called derivatives.
They're based on projections and "feelings".
That's the scam.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:06 am
by KC Scott
Martyred wrote:
KC Scott wrote:
It was the money on the options (deriviitives) they wrote that they couldn't cover.
Derivatives aren't based on any hard assets. That's why they're called derivatives.
They're based on projections and "feelings".
That's the scam.
Sorta, but just like calls and puts there is supposed to be the option of purchasing or selling the asset
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:06 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
KC Scott wrote:
And why the fuck are you celebrating Thanksgiving on Monday?
Our Thanksgiving is the real deal. Your's is just a cheap imitation on the Canadian one. We are flattered by your mimicry.
KC Scott wrote:
Did you give the Eskimos some syrup or something?
For your information, we refer to our frozen friends in the North as Inuit.
...and yes, we gave them maple syrup.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:06 am
by Mikey
Martyred wrote:
Derivatives aren't based on any hard assets. That's why they're called derivatives.
Then if we just integrate them, we should be right back where we started. Right?
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:11 am
by KC Scott
Mikey wrote:
Then if we just integrate them, we should be right back where we started. Right?
Puts and Calls riding together on the same bus?
You'd like that wouldn't you? You commie liberal Bastard........
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:18 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
88 wrote:
There is no loophole here, Charlie. The government stimulated the U.S. economy for the past two presidential administrations (Clinton and Bush II) by intentionally encouraging the lending of enormous amounts of money to people who could not afford to pay it. As long as the balloon they were inflating continued to inflate, no problem. The economy grows. Housing values increase. Everyone thinks they are a pig in shit. But the truth is that everyone is in deep shit. When that happens, housing values plummet. The economy contracts violently. Business must lay off employees. Everyone suffers.
Your economy is not swirling the drain because Uncle Sam backed a loan floated to Shaneequa. Please stop.
88 wrote:
This problem is not one of corporate greed. It is one of governmental policy.
Only during Republican administrations, right?
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:19 am
by KC Scott
88 wrote:
Look no further than the US government for the horse-shit that went on there. Again, for the reasons I explained above. The US government is the reason why we had a sub-prime meltdown, and why we will have more.
No.
It's that the Govt. didn't regulate wall street from selling them.
88 wrote:The US government is the reason why we had a sub-prime meltdown, and why we will have more.
This is a ridiculous conclusion that I won't argue any more.
I had mixed mutual funds that had stock tied directly to the sub-prime market. By your logic, I'm also complicit.
Funny how you "new-capitalists" managed to screw on your tri-corn hats and dump tea into the harbour after Obama's inauguration...
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:27 am
by KC Scott
88 wrote:
Read more. This started in earnest under Clinton and was continued under Bush II (most likely to keep the economy afloat to fund his wars).
The legislation to de-reg was signed by Clinton in the last day of office - But sponsored by that true american AND Texican- Phil Grahm
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:32 am
by KC Scott
88 wrote:
No one hates Wall Street more than I do. And no one hates derivatives more than I do. But more regulation doesn't make the underlying policy failure go away. You cannot grow an economy by backing loans to people who cannot pay them back. Your argument is like saying "I could prevent the house of cards from toppling over if I would just have Super-glued the first one that fell to its neighbor".
Well, now you're taking the argument in a whole different direction - If it's fiscal policy you want to address then you need to talk about the stupidity of keeping interest rates so low that it made money virtually free. Combine that with trying to turn all of America into an "ownership Society" (both the Repubs and Demos guilty as charged) - and you have the makings for unbriddled greed combined with zero risk management and the result of nearly bankrupting the world beacuse 10% of America defaulted on sub-prime loans they never should have gotten to begin with.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:35 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
88 wrote:
Sorry, you'll have to take your straw men home with you. I never suggested that you were complicit in the demise of the government Ponzi because you invested your money in mutual funds or other equities. The blame lies at the feet of Congress (and us, I guess, by electing those idiots).
Truth be told, I don't even care about winning an argument with you.
Just to know that I'm leaving this thread with you hating your government that much more, is a small victory for an anarchist such as myself.
Time to kick over this gas can.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:39 am
by Diogenes
Martyred wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Martyred wrote:
Where did this money that you claim banks gave to poor people go?
To the people unloading the overpriced housing.
Idiot.
Name names, or shut the fuck up.
I dare you.
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA)
Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act (1994)
ACORN
Community acrivist Barak Obama
Madeline Talbott
Democratic Senator Allan Dixon
House Democrat Henry Gonzales
James A. Johnson
Robert Rubin
Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisnersos
Clinton Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen
Congressman Barney Frank
Senator Barak Obama
Senator Chris Dodd
88 wrote:
Read more. This started in earnest under Clinton and was continued under Bush II (most likely to keep the economy afloat to fund his wars).
The legislation to de-reg was signed by Clinton in the last day of office - But sponsored by that true american AND Texican- Phil Grahm
Wrong legislation. It was the legislation forcing banks to loan money on racial/economic lines (so-called redlining) that was the problem.
On the other hand...
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion".[57]
In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. The new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's FDIC related provisions, along with the addition of sub-section § 2903(c) directly to Title 12, insured any bank holding institution wishing to be re-designated as a financial holding institution by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System would also have to follow Community Reinvestment Act compliance guidelines before any merger or expansion could take effect.[58]
At the same time the G-L-B Act's changes to the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" would now allow for bank expansions into new lines of business, non-affiliated groups entering into agreements with these bank or financial institutions would also have to be reported as outlined under the newly added section to Title 12, § 1831y. (CRA Sunshine Requirements), satisfying Sen. Gramm's concerns.[59][60]
In conjunction with the above "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" changes, smaller banks would be reviewed less frequently for CRA compliance by the addition of §2908. (Small Bank Regulatory Relief) directly to Chapter 30, (the existing CRA laws), itself. The 1999 Act also mandated two studies to be conducted in connection with the "Community Reinvestment Act":[61]
* the first report by the Federal Reserve, to be delivered to Congress by March 15, 2000, is a comprehensive study of CRA to focus on default and delinquency rates, and the profitability of loans made in connection with CRA;[62]
* the second report to be conducted by the Treasury Department over the next two years, is intended to determine the impact of the Act on the provision of services to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and people, as intended by CRA.[63]
On signing the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act", President Clinton said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".[64]
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:47 am
by Tom In VA
lol I'm not.
In an anarchy, I'm afraid Marty's lot would still remain the same.
l-r, Marty, U.S. President
You're not an anarchist Marty. The human animal is incapable of anarchy. Sure, they might be capable of tantrums and fits, but true anarchy - being the most caustic state there is - will always evolve into some system of -
The Strong and Powerful Making the Rules.
History book out front should have told you.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:55 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Tom In VA wrote:lol I'm not.
In an anarchy, I'm afraid Marty's lot would still remain the same.
l-r, Marty, U.S. President
You're not an anarchist Marty. The human animal is incapable of anarchy. Sure, they might be capable of tantrums and fits, but true anarchy - being the most caustic state there is - will always evolve into some system of -
The Strong and Powerful Making the Rules.
History book out front should have told you.
No Tom, THIS is a true anarchist utopia...
l-r, Marty, Tom (faithful companion)
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:55 am
by KC Scott
Diogenes wrote:
Wrong legislation. It was the legislation forcing banks to loan money on racial/economic lines (so-called redlining) that was the problem.
Why don't you go google that up for us then?
Or you could actually try and learn something by watching the 60 minutes clip I posted
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:59 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Diogenes wrote:
...loan money on racial/economic lines...
Leave AIPAC out of this.
Why do you hate freedom?
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:01 am
by KC Scott
Marty quit picking on Dio.
It's like the Giants playing the Alouttes
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:03 am
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
KC Scott wrote:Marty quit picking on Dio.
It's like the Giants playing the Alouttes
You're lucky you didn't say "Argos".
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:04 am
by Diogenes
KC Scott wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Wrong legislation. It was the legislation forcing banks to loan money on racial/economic lines (so-called redlining) that was the problem.
Why don't you go google that up for us then?
Start with the links at the bottom of page 1. I did the research for you, try and learn on your own.
KC Scott wrote:...watching the 60 minutes clip
Not going to happen. Some of us actually read. And few clips I know of come with sources and footnotes.
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:07 am
by Tom In VA
Martyred wrote:
l-r, Marty, Tom (faithful companion)
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:08 am
by Diogenes
Marty wrote: Why do you hate freedom?
What does coercing banks into making bad loans have to do with freedom?
Why do you hate common sense?
Re: U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:10 am
by KC Scott
You must be confused, Dio.
You assume yourself worthy to be read?
Run along now young tardling and find yourself some porn or a puzzle to do
