mnealtx 0 #101 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. I take it you didn't bother to read the Republican Party platform 2008. We know you made the lame "Youtube not available" excuse for not watching Palin's interview on the topic. I find myself particularly uncaring as to your opinion of the military's decision to block youtube. For that matter, I'm also pretty uncaring as to what the Rep's platform is. . Translation - mnealtx won't look at the sources because they prove him wrong. Please note the address in the attached - I'll wait for your acknowledgement that you were WRONG. Rumor, innuendo and party platforms don't constitute 'proof' - show the legislation.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #102 September 30, 2008 Quoteyou mforgot to read the top According to this analysis, while subprime lenders may not be blameless, they actually should be lauded for introducing the joys of homeownership to those who had not yet achieved that part of the American dream. Never mind that many lenders peddled the most abusive and costly loans to unsophisticated, first-time home buyers. Known as "affordability products," the mortgages generated big commissions up front and were designed to require refinancing later on - which included yet another round of luscious fees for lenders. With refinancing no longer an option, it is becoming obvious that these loans were designed to fail. True to their design, they are failing. And those who thought they might get a chance at owning a home are headed back to the rent rolls. Today in Business with Reuters U.S. House rejects plan for bailout Impact of global credit crunch expands in EuropeCrisis reaches European institutions Figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board show that the share of subprime mortgages in default is more than 14 percent. And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. A September report from Banc of America Securities said that 93 percent of completed foreclosures this year involved adjustable-rate loans that were made in 2006, pooled and sold to investors. just because NeighborWorks loans didn't fail doesn't mean that others didn't And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. 64% were subprime mortgages 64% now thats alot i guess reding the top half would counter you point wouldn't it? SUBPRIME LOAN is not the same as "LOAN TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD". Middle class and upper income people were getting subprime loans. THAT is where you are making your mistake. You have provided NO EVIDENCE that targeted loans in low income neighborhoods caused this crisis or even contributed in any substantive way. In fact, all the data you provided proved the exact opposite of what you claim.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #103 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhen you can PROVE that THOSE are the mortgages that caused THIS crisis, you will have a point. Until then, you're just throwing sand in the air. No problem - please make sure you provide the same proof you demand the next time you start crowing over rape kits or abortions. I take it you didn't bother to read the Republican Party platform 2008. We know you made the lame "Youtube not available" excuse for not watching Palin's interview on the topic. I find myself particularly uncaring as to your opinion of the military's decision to block youtube. For that matter, I'm also pretty uncaring as to what the Rep's platform is. . Translation - mnealtx won't look at the sources because they prove him wrong. Please note the address in the attached - I'll wait for your acknowledgement that you were WRONG. Rumor, innuendo and party platforms don't constitute 'proof' - show the legislation. How does your inability to look at that prevent you from looking at the GOP party platform? How does your refusal/inability to look at anything make me wrong about Palin? Someone even transcribed her words for you in another thread, I guess you refused to read them because they'd prove you wrong.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #104 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteyou mforgot to read the top According to this analysis, while subprime lenders may not be blameless, they actually should be lauded for introducing the joys of homeownership to those who had not yet achieved that part of the American dream. Never mind that many lenders peddled the most abusive and costly loans to unsophisticated, first-time home buyers. Known as "affordability products," the mortgages generated big commissions up front and were designed to require refinancing later on - which included yet another round of luscious fees for lenders. With refinancing no longer an option, it is becoming obvious that these loans were designed to fail. True to their design, they are failing. And those who thought they might get a chance at owning a home are headed back to the rent rolls. Today in Business with Reuters U.S. House rejects plan for bailout Impact of global credit crunch expands in EuropeCrisis reaches European institutions Figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board show that the share of subprime mortgages in default is more than 14 percent. And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. A September report from Banc of America Securities said that 93 percent of completed foreclosures this year involved adjustable-rate loans that were made in 2006, pooled and sold to investors. just because NeighborWorks loans didn't fail doesn't mean that others didn't And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. 64% were subprime mortgages 64% now thats alot i guess reding the top half would counter you point wouldn't it? SUBPRIME LOAN is not the same as "LOAN TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD". Middle class and upper income people were getting subprime loans. THAT is where you are making your mistake. You have provided NO EVIDENCE that targeted loans in low income neighborhoods caused this crisis or even contributed in any substantive way. In fact, all the data you provided proved the exact opposite of what you claim. the subprime loans did open the door and all groups used it to their advantage. remember it is discrimination to give it to only one group. so when it was opened to the low income it was also opened to the rest of the population. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #105 September 30, 2008 Quote Quote Quote you mforgot to read the top According to this analysis, while subprime lenders may not be blameless, they actually should be lauded for introducing the joys of homeownership to those who had not yet achieved that part of the American dream. Never mind that many lenders peddled the most abusive and costly loans to unsophisticated, first-time home buyers. Known as "affordability products," the mortgages generated big commissions up front and were designed to require refinancing later on - which included yet another round of luscious fees for lenders. With refinancing no longer an option, it is becoming obvious that these loans were designed to fail. True to their design, they are failing. And those who thought they might get a chance at owning a home are headed back to the rent rolls. Today in Business with Reuters U.S. House rejects plan for bailout Impact of global credit crunch expands in EuropeCrisis reaches European institutions Figures from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board show that the share of subprime mortgages in default is more than 14 percent. And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. A September report from Banc of America Securities said that 93 percent of completed foreclosures this year involved adjustable-rate loans that were made in 2006, pooled and sold to investors. just because NeighborWorks loans didn't fail doesn't mean that others didn't And researchers at the Center for Responsible Lending say that 64 percent of foreclosures filed during the 12 months ended June 30 involved subprime loans. 64% were subprime mortgages 64% now thats alot i guess reding the top half would counter you point wouldn't it? SUBPRIME LOAN is not the same as "LOAN TO LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD". Middle class and upper income people were getting subprime loans. THAT is where you are making your mistake. You have provided NO EVIDENCE that targeted loans in low income neighborhoods caused this crisis or even contributed in any substantive way. In fact, all the data you provided proved the exact opposite of what you claim. the subprime loans did open the door and all groups used it to their advantage. remember it is discrimination to give it to only one group. so when it was opened to the low income it was also opened to the rest of the population. Is that the best you've got? The default rate on CRA loans was within normal parameters for the industry and would have been perfectly manageable EXCEPT for the silly games the whiz kids in the brokerages and banks were playing because they thought they'd found an inexhaustible supply of profits for themselves. Nothing in the CRA forces any bank to indulge in CDSs, NINA loans, securitized debt instruments, etc. They did that all by themselves.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #106 September 30, 2008 no your right nobody had a gun to their heads, but the presure was pushed from carter, clinton and the pac groups and when it showed profitable they ran with it. but the presure was put on from the top. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #107 September 30, 2008 Quote no your right nobody had a gun to their heads, but the presure was pushed from carter, clinton and the pac groups and when it showed profitable they ran with it. but the presure was put on from the top. Arrant nonsense. The banks did themselves in on account of their greed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #108 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuote no your right nobody had a gun to their heads, but the presure was pushed from carter, clinton and the pac groups and when it showed profitable they ran with it. but the presure was put on from the top. Arrant nonsense. The banks did themselves in on account of their greed. you mean the people signing the paper work are not at fault? the comments from clinton are not at fault? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #109 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote no your right nobody had a gun to their heads, but the presure was pushed from carter, clinton and the pac groups and when it showed profitable they ran with it. but the presure was put on from the top. Arrant nonsense. The banks did themselves in on account of their greed. you mean the people signing the paper work are not at fault? the comments from clinton are not at fault? Since when did someone signing a mortgage force a bank to package it up in a "securitized" investment instrument, force a rating agency to give it a "AAA", and force an investment bank to buy it? Stop being silly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #110 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote no your right nobody had a gun to their heads, but the presure was pushed from carter, clinton and the pac groups and when it showed profitable they ran with it. but the presure was put on from the top. Arrant nonsense. The banks did themselves in on account of their greed. you mean the people signing the paper work are not at fault? the comments from clinton are not at fault? Since when did someone signing a mortgage force a bank to package it up in a "securitized" investment instrument, force a rating agency to give it a "AAA", and force an investment bank to buy it? Stop being silly. the problem goes from the top to the bottom. fannie and freddie wanted as many as they could they didn't care if it was AAA or not. they wanted to meet the quota (as said in the video about the exact $ amount for raines' bonus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #111 September 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote no your right nobody had a gun to their heads, but the presure was pushed from carter, clinton and the pac groups and when it showed profitable they ran with it. but the presure was put on from the top. Arrant nonsense. The banks did themselves in on account of their greed. you mean the people signing the paper work are not at fault? the comments from clinton are not at fault? Since when did someone signing a mortgage force a bank to package it up in a "securitized" investment instrument, force a rating agency to give it a "AAA", and force an investment bank to buy it? Stop being silly. the problem goes from the top to the bottom. fannie and freddie wanted as many as they could they didn't care if it was AAA or not. they wanted to meet the quota (as said in the video about the exact $ amount for raines' bonus. The CRA mortgages were NOT the cause of the problems. The behavior of greedy bankers caused the problems. The default rate on CRA mortgages was miniscule compared with the other problems in the system. Even the data YOU posted shows this.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #112 October 1, 2008 QuoteHow does your inability to look at that prevent you from looking at the GOP party platform? How does your refusal/inability to look at anything make me wrong about Palin? Someone even transcribed her words for you in another thread, I guess you refused to read them because they'd prove you wrong. I read them - unlike you, I don't confuse RHETORIC with LEGISLATION.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #113 October 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteHow does your inability to look at that prevent you from looking at the GOP party platform? How does your refusal/inability to look at anything make me wrong about Palin? Someone even transcribed her words for you in another thread, I guess you refused to read them because they'd prove you wrong. I read them - unlike you, I don't confuse RHETORIC with LEGISLATION. That has to be the stupid post of the month, and it's only the 1st.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 858 #114 October 1, 2008 Do you mean the 1st PA of the month? Interesting how you can attack people for having opinions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #115 October 1, 2008 QuoteDo you mean the 1st PA of the month? Interesting how you can attack people for having opinions. It is my OPINION that claiming Palin doesn't support banning abortions for rape and incest victims just because she hasn't legislated it yet is stupid, given that in her own words she wants to do it, and she's running on a published platform that explicitly states that is the GOP party policy. Following that logic, nothing any candidate or party ever said or wrote counts for anything unless it was signed legislation. And that IS stupid.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #116 October 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading. Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis. So you're saying that the NYT lied? No, that's not what was asserted. The NY Times article cited is not the 'slam dunk' causal factor as Gladnick's Op-Ed claims. It does suggest something worth investigating, however …what default rate has been observed in those loans? Are they higher than average? Are they lower than average? Are they more heavily regulated? Or less? How many have been made and what is the average value? $150,000 or $900,000? (The overall system can withstand more $150k defaults than $900k defaults.) Are they 0.5% of the overall market or 10%? The article is about implementation of a new program. It doesn’t, however, say anything about default payment rate or any of those other questions I posed above that would be required to show causality. It also doesn't mention anything about securitization of loans hiding the risk or what were the [changing ?] regulations on that program. It’s not demonstrating correlation or causality unless one wants to find it. Humans do have an amazing ability to find patterns. Similarly one could point to this NY Times article on increase in 'McMansion’s', this one on accounting mismanagement by executives at an insurance corporation, this one on deregulation and collapse of large energy corporations as indicative of corporate malfeasance, this one from 1995 on derivatives and lack of regulation, this one from 2005 on risks of derivatives still not being adequately addressed, or this one from 1988 on securitization of consumer loans, or this one from this month on why Japan has not been as affected by the current global financial downturn: “The Japanese became very cautious after the bitter experience of the cleanup [after their 1990s financial crisis that dragged on for a decade due to inaction]. One result was that they seem to have largely avoided the risky subprime loans that set off the current crisis.” Japan “accept[ed] near zero growth rates in the 1990s and [the lack of borrowing from global markets, high household savings, and presence of self-regulation on the type of risky securitization and economic schemes of the rest of the world] permits the survival of Japanese corporate practices like valuing employees and clients over shareholders.” The point is all, any, or none of those may be as relevant as or more relevant as causal factors than the 1999 article. Using a well-constructed search phrase and the archives of the NY Times, a skilled rhetoritician could construct a case that either global climate change (speculation on impact on natural resources and access) or missile defense (>$100B in last 10 years) is causal. Those are not likely to be accurate either … but if one appeals to what the reader wants to see, it’s likely to make its way around the blog-o-sphere. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #117 October 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow does your inability to look at that prevent you from looking at the GOP party platform? How does your refusal/inability to look at anything make me wrong about Palin? Someone even transcribed her words for you in another thread, I guess you refused to read them because they'd prove you wrong. I read them - unlike you, I don't confuse RHETORIC with LEGISLATION. That has to be the stupid post of the month, and it's only the 1st. Then show me the legislation - thomas.loc.gov is your friend. Conversely, you *could* admit you're doing your normal Chicken Little routine in regards to anything the Reps do.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #118 October 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow does your inability to look at that prevent you from looking at the GOP party platform? How does your refusal/inability to look at anything make me wrong about Palin? Someone even transcribed her words for you in another thread, I guess you refused to read them because they'd prove you wrong. I read them - unlike you, I don't confuse RHETORIC with LEGISLATION. That has to be the stupid post of the month, and it's only the 1st. Then show me the legislation - thomas.loc.gov is your friend. Conversely, you *could* admit you're doing your normal Chicken Little routine in regards to anything the Reps do. It's in their party platform. It's what they WANT to do. You do understand the concept of a party platform, right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #119 October 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow does your inability to look at that prevent you from looking at the GOP party platform? How does your refusal/inability to look at anything make me wrong about Palin? Someone even transcribed her words for you in another thread, I guess you refused to read them because they'd prove you wrong. I read them - unlike you, I don't confuse RHETORIC with LEGISLATION. That has to be the stupid post of the month, and it's only the 1st. Then show me the legislation - thomas.loc.gov is your friend. Conversely, you *could* admit you're doing your normal Chicken Little routine in regards to anything the Reps do. It's in their party platform. It's what they WANT to do. You do understand the concept of a party platform, right? Yes - I also understand that personal opinions and party platforms != law - something you apparently can't grasp, unless it's in reference to a Democrat.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #120 October 1, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow does your inability to look at that prevent you from looking at the GOP party platform? How does your refusal/inability to look at anything make me wrong about Palin? Someone even transcribed her words for you in another thread, I guess you refused to read them because they'd prove you wrong. I read them - unlike you, I don't confuse RHETORIC with LEGISLATION. That has to be the stupid post of the month, and it's only the 1st. Then show me the legislation - thomas.loc.gov is your friend. Conversely, you *could* admit you're doing your normal Chicken Little routine in regards to anything the Reps do. It's in their party platform. It's what they WANT to do. You do understand the concept of a party platform, right? Yes - I also understand that personal opinions and party platforms != law - something you apparently can't grasp, unless it's in reference to a Democrat. LAME defense. You CAN do better than that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #121 October 1, 2008 >the subprime loans did open the door . . . No evidence for that. I mean, the numbers just don't work out. Subprime mortgages represent about $1.7 trillion worth of loans and only represent about 7% of mortgages. The big problem right now is in instruments like credit default swaps; CDSes account for a notional amount of over $50 trillion. (Needless to say, since some of those CDSes were protecting things like subprime mortgages, it is certainly _related_ to the problems in lending characterized by subprimes and their recent high rate of default.) So if you want to claim something "opened the door" it was deregulation of CDS'es. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #122 October 1, 2008 Quote>the subprime loans did open the door . . . No evidence for that. I mean, the numbers just don't work out. Subprime mortgages represent about $1.7 trillion worth of loans and only represent about 7% of mortgages. The big problem right now is in instruments like credit default swaps; CDSes account for a notional amount of over $50 trillion. (Needless to say, since some of those CDSes were protecting things like subprime mortgages, it is certainly _related_ to the problems in lending characterized by subprimes and their recent high rate of default.) So if you want to claim something "opened the door" it was deregulation of CDS'es. Article Mark and Marc might also want to Google "Commodity Futures Modernization Act" and see who its sponsors were.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #123 October 1, 2008 http://www.nysun.com/opinion/about-the-next-crisis/82810/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #124 October 1, 2008 Quote Quote >the subprime loans did open the door . . . No evidence for that. I mean, the numbers just don't work out. Subprime mortgages represent about $1.7 trillion worth of loans and only represent about 7% of mortgages. The big problem right now is in instruments like credit default swaps; CDSes account for a notional amount of over $50 trillion. (Needless to say, since some of those CDSes were protecting things like subprime mortgages, it is certainly _related_ to the problems in lending characterized by subprimes and their recent high rate of default.) So if you want to claim something "opened the door" it was deregulation of CDS'es. Article Mark and Marc might also want to Google "Commodity Futures Modernization Act" and see who its sponsors were. To your link What would make them want to do that? They did not want to lose money, correct? What put them into a position where they did not have the self determination to provide the loans they wanted to instead of those they normally would not? You got the info, YOU just dont want to put it together!!! Yes Wall Street was and is greedy but, your favorite party set the table."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #125 October 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote >the subprime loans did open the door . . . No evidence for that. I mean, the numbers just don't work out. Subprime mortgages represent about $1.7 trillion worth of loans and only represent about 7% of mortgages. The big problem right now is in instruments like credit default swaps; CDSes account for a notional amount of over $50 trillion. (Needless to say, since some of those CDSes were protecting things like subprime mortgages, it is certainly _related_ to the problems in lending characterized by subprimes and their recent high rate of default.) So if you want to claim something "opened the door" it was deregulation of CDS'es. Article Mark and Marc might also want to Google "Commodity Futures Modernization Act" and see who its sponsors were. To your link What would make them want to do that? They did not want to lose money, correct? What put them into a position where they did not have the self determination to provide the loans they wanted to instead of those they normally would not? You got the info, YOU just dont want to put it together!!! Yes Wall Street was and is greedy but, your favorite party set the table. I guess you didn't really read it (or you've gone into a parallel universe again).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
