How are we going to pay for all this shit?

Just because you say something, does not make it true.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-caus...crisis-3305696

Another myth is that the Community Reinvestment Act created the crisis. That's because it pushed banks to lend more to poor neighborhoods. That was its mandate when it was created in 1977.9

In 1989, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) strengthened the CRA by publicizing banks' lending records. It prohibited them from expanding if they didn't comply with CRA standards. In 1995, President Clinton called on regulators to strengthen the CRA even more.10

But, the law did not require banks to make subprime loans. It didn't ask them to lower their lending standards. They did that to create additional profitable derivatives Originally Posted by WTF

Good link WTF.

In post 634 I wrote about the investment houses and rating agencies hand in the crisis. Your link backs up what I wrote.

From your link.

The Bottom Line
The ultimate cause of the subprime mortgage crisis boils down to human greed and failed wisdom. The prime players were banks, hedge funds, investment houses, ratings agencies, homeowners, investors, and insurance companies.

Banks lent, even to those who couldn’t afford loans. People borrowed to buy houses even if they couldn’t really afford them. Investors created a demand for low premium MBS, which in turn increased demand for subprime mortgages. These were bundled in derivatives and sold as insured investments among financial traders and institutions.

Good link WTF.

In post 634 I wrote about the investment houses and rating agencies hand in the crisis. Your link backs up what I wrote. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Lustylad kept lying about Clinton making banks lower their lending standards.

Last three years of Obama economy just as good as Trumps first three.

https://money.com/trump-vs-obama-economy/ Originally Posted by adav8s28

hasn't lusty lectured you two enough about cherry picking stats? yeah he has and you still do it.


the fact is for every opinion piece you can find claiming Obama handled the economy well i can find 5 that say he didn't. Obama was not the "Economy Czar" you claim, not by a long shot and your disingenuous claim it was Bush's mess is a farce.


the facts are the facts .. forget repealing Glass-Steagall and other legislation .. under Slick Willie Blythe HUD mandated more minority lending to people who everyone from the Banks to even some Government officials knew couldn't really afford a house.


what could go wrong???


a lot as we know now. HUD allowed Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae (what idiot thought up these names??) to take Wall St. securities .. bundled subprime home loans .. which Wall St. knew were shit loans and only bundled this stuff up as a hedge for the eventual fall out. the Banks did get greedy and began pushing through bad paper to unqualified lenders. most of this was due to HUD "creating" demand for more lending.

Lustylad will try and go back further on Obama to try and skew the numbers in his Lord and Saviour,DJT's favor.

But yes....I've explained to Tiny and Lustylad that Trumps economy was nothing more than an extension of Obama's plus a tax cut that exploded the deficit before Covid really exploded it. Originally Posted by WTF

you've explained what you think you know. as for what you actually do know ..



BAHHAHHAAAA

OK, The COVID relief bill just passed will cost 1.9 trillion. Biden has just proposed another 2.2 trillion for Democratic priorities and infrastructure, and reportedly will propose another 2 trillion spending bill in April for more Democratic Party priorities. That adds up to about 6 trillion in round numbers.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Joe Manchin believe the $2.2 trillion just announced is too low. AOC wants it upped to $10 trillion and Manchin wants $4 trillion.

And then there's the Green New Deal, beloved by all the progressive Democratic Politicians. The American Action Forum estimates that would take $51 trillion to $93 trillion over the next ten years.

So most of this money is supposed to come from people who make more than $1 million a year, and all of it from those who make over $400,000 per year. President Biden has promised people making less than $400,000 per year will not have their tax rates increased.

Here's a link to the IRS tax statistics:

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-t...d-gross-income

The latest year available is 2018. In that year, the total taxable income of people making over $1 million per year was $1.6 trillion. If you add the amount of taxable income of people making from $500,000 to a million a year, that goes up to $2.3 trillion.

However, these people are already paying a large % of their income in federal and state income taxes to help pay for existing programs. Let's say 30% of their income to be conservative -- I'm pretty sure it's more than that. That means if you take every dime they make, that they're not already paying in taxes, you end up with $1.1 trillion ($1 million cutoff) or $1.6 trillion ($500,000 cutoff) to pay for all this shit the Democratic Party politicians are proposing.

There's a snowball's chance in hell these politicians can do what they want to do by just taxing the rich. Originally Posted by Tiny

Bernard can do it, right? LGB...

Lustylad kept lying about Clinton making banks lower their lending standards. Originally Posted by WTF

How many GLOBALISTS does it take to lower banking standards?

https://spectator.org/42211_true-ori...ancial-crisis/

"Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years–particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system– underlies the current crisis. The stakes in the competing narratives are high. The diagnosis determines the prescription. If the Times diagnosis prevails, the prescription is more regulation of the financial system; if instead government policy is to blame, the prescription is to terminate those government policies that distort mortgage lending.

There really isn’t any question of which approach is factually correct: right on the front page of the Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers–a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?"

Bernard can do it, right? LGB... Originally Posted by Redhot1960

Not sure if LGB is supposed to be some kind of a come on signal. I respect the right of all people to practice sex however they wish as long as they're not harming others, but I'm just not wired that way. McDingDong on the other hand has volunteered that he's gay in another thread.

Not sure if LGB is supposed to be some kind of a come on signal. Originally Posted by Tiny

LGB = Let's Go Brandon

It's only a flirty gay come-on signal when wtf uses it.

Lustylad kept lying about Clinton making banks lower their lending standards. Originally Posted by WTF

Trolling me again, quackboy? What nonsense are you making up now? If you're going to call me (or any eccie poster) a liar, you should be able to show us the goods. You can't. I've never said anything about "Clinton making banks lower their lending standards."

So what are you up to? Are you so starved for my attention that you have to bait me with your silly desperate lies? Not the first time either. No wonder you get banned more than any other poster in this forum.

LGB = Let's Go Brandon

It's only a flirty gay come-on signal when wtf uses it. Originally Posted by lustylad

Ohhh! I was thinking Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual. I was curious why Redhot left out T, but figured he probably wasn’t into hotties like ts Winn Dixie.

I'm not accusing you of being an economist nor am I but I will tell you something I learnt long ago...from Art Laffer...

Lastly lustylad knows nothing but how to parrot talking points from 1980.... Originally Posted by WTF

What a hoot! Wtf confesses he is an Art Laffer acolyte. He "learnt" everything he knows from a lightweight conservative economist lol.

Some dickhead is indeed stuck in the 1980s, but it ain't me.

How many GLOBALISTS does it take to lower banking standards?

https://spectator.org/42211_true-ori...ancial-crisis/

"Two narratives seem to be forming to describe the underlying causes of the financial crisis. One, as outlined in a New York Times front-page story on Sunday, December 21, is that President Bush excessively promoted growth in home ownership without sufficiently regulating the banks and other mortgage lenders that made the bad loans. The result was a banking system suffused with junk mortgages, the continuing losses on which are dragging down the banks and the economy. The other narrative is that government policy over many years–particularly the use of the Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to distort the housing credit system– Times edition of December 21 is a chart that shows the growth of home ownership in the United States since 1990. In 1993 it was 63 percent; by the end of the Clinton administration it was 68 percent. The growth in the Bush administration was about 1 percent. The Times itself reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were under pressure from the Clinton administration to increase lending to minorities and low-income home buyers–a policy that necessarily entailed higher risks. Can there really be a question, other than in the fevered imagination of the Times, where the push to reduce lending standards and boost home ownership came from?" Originally Posted by Redhot1960

The author is relying on the ignorance of his readers to promote his fallacy.


Can the be any questions when ARM and in Texas when you could borrow against your home equity?

Does anyone with half a brain not understand the lending differences between 1992-2000 and 2000-2008?

Anyone? Besides Redhot who bought into this horseshit.


Do you really not know the difference between putting a 10-20% down payment in 1995 and having paid your mortgage for 13 years and someone who in 2006 AFTER BANKS LOOSENED THEIR OWN LENDING STANDARDS...got a no money down ARM that fucked them over when the market flipped.

Jesus

I've never said anything about "Clinton making banks lower their lending standards."
Originally Posted by lustylad

What you tried to imply(which is another way to say you lied) was that Clinton was the cause of the housing bubble.

The housing bubble is a mix of actions....all born out of greed.

What a hoot! Wtf confesses he is an Art Laffer acolyte. He "learnt" everything he knows from a lightweight conservative economist lol.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Another lie.

I merely pointed out BOTH sides of Laffer's point about tax rates that many, including you, never mention.

How low and high tax rates both negatively effect optimum tax revenue.

Now carry on with your insults...it is a huge tell on the validity or lack there of of your knowledge of the subject matter(s).

you've explained what you think you know. as for what you actually do know ..



BAHHAHHAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I know a hypocrite when I see one....care to brag about your market gains under Brandon?

Last week, Fox News asked Bush if he was worried about being the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century. "No," Bush replied. "I will be known as somebody who saw a problem and put the chips on the table to prevent the economy from collapsing."

Darrin West could not believe it. The president of the United States was standing in his living room. It was June 17, 2002, a day West recalls as "the highlight of my life." Bush, in Atlanta to introduce a plan to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million, was touring Park Place South, a development of starter homes in a neighborhood once marked by blight and crime.

West had patrolled there as a police officer, and now he was the proud owner of a $130,000 town house, bought with an adjustable-rate mortgage and a $20,000 government loan as his down payment - just the sort of creative public-private financing Bush was promoting.

"Part of economic security," Bush declared that day, "is owning your own home."

A lot has changed since then. West, beset by personal problems, has left Atlanta. Unable to sell his home for what he owed, he said, he gave it back to the bank last year. Like other communities across the United States, Park Place South has been hit with a foreclosure crisis affecting at least 10 percent of its 232 homes, according to Masharn Wilson, a developer who led Bush's tour. "I just don't think what he envisioned was actually carried out," she said.

Park Place South is, in microcosm, the story of a well-intentioned policy gone awry. Advocating home ownership is hardly novel; Bill Clinton's administration did it, too. For Bush, it was part of his vision of an "ownership society," in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Bush's tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put home ownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like West.

So Bush had to, in his words, "use the mighty muscle of the federal government" to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down. Republican congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.

The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. "Corporate America," he said, "has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place."

And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment. But Bush populated the financial system's alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

The president's first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission promised a "kinder, gentler" agency. The second was pushed out amid industry complaints that he was too aggressive. Under its current leader, the agency failed to police the catastrophic decisions that toppled the investment bank Bear Stearns and contributed to the current crisis, according to a recent inspector general's report.

As for Bush's banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.

The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina's attorney general, said, "They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West."

The president did push rules aimed at requiring lenders to explain loan terms more clearly. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.

In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not complete the new rules until last month.

Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Bush's ownership push backfired. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, "over-incented housing."

Hennessey put it this way: "I would not say too much emphasis on expanding home ownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices."

Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.

Rich Addicks/The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

we are not gonna to pay ""work camps" except the elite masters