Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

tres borrachos said:

No clue. I've never had to think about it. I guess it depends on your definition of stupid, which is broad. In terms of what I'm talking about in this thread, the stupid people were the ones who got themselves in trouble. One example I gave earlier were the people who made $50,000 a year and wanted to live in a $750,000 house, and took very foolish mortgages so they could do so. They are stupid, as are the ones in another example I gave where someone with $100 in his checking account writes a check for $350. That's just fundamental math.

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

so, your response is that independent community bankers do NOT work for independent community banks?
let me know if i missed anything in the translation

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

They 'took' a mortgage that high? With a gun? Or did someone, who was supposed to look out for their financial institutions best interests, NOT looking out for the institutions best interests, instead looking at short term gains (bonus)?

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

Wait, what?

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Someone mentioned a gun? Why?

I'm responsible for my money. It's a good way to live. People who are foolish tend to end up in trouble. That's a bad way to live.

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

Yes, because the Bush subprime crisis ONLY efected the 'foolish' *shaking head*

You said took, My point is the CONservatives ALWAYS claim Gov't confiscates at the point of a gun....Just wondering if those other 'takers' used the same M/O...

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Why are you telling me about what conservatives say and mentioning guns and government confiscation? I think maybe you stumbled into the wrong thread.

So do you favor Warren or Clinton (that's the subject of the thread)?

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

Got it, you can't follow along with your own posits...

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Someone mentioned a gun? Why?

I'm responsible for my money. It's a good way to live. People who are foolish tend to end up in trouble. That's a bad way to live.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

I can follow my posts, but since I never mentioned conservatives, government confiscation, and guns, I can only assume you have me confused with someone else. I was talking about Elizabeth Warren & the CFPB.

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

Nope, go try again... Use the word TOOK in context with my question to you

You can do it, I have faith in you...

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

You think the words "take a mortgage" mean that someone holds a gun to your head? Okay now I get it. Happy Father's Day!

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

The ICBA staff works for the ICBA. No, the ICBA staff do not work for banks.

The ICBA is an advocacy group, a lobbying group, and an education group. You don't have to join it as a community bank.

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

You think the words "take a mortgage" mean that someone holds a gun to your head? Okay now I get it. Happy Father's Day!

Click to expand...

dad2three2001 said:

"I guess it depends on your definition of stupid, which is broad. In terms of what I'm talking about in this thread, the stupid people were the ones who got themselves in trouble. One example I gave earlier were the people who made $50,000 a year and wanted to live in a $750,000 house, and took very foolish mortgages so they could do so." tres borrachos

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

Tell you how many what? Banks went under in the 1940s? I showed you how many banks were around 30 years ago versus now. I'd like to do the research for you on banks that collapsed during the Depression, but I don't have any interest in that myself because it has nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB.

You said community banks were doing fine the last 50 years, MG. I showed you that your statement was not accurate.

Click to expand...

cpwill said:

Anywho, one interesting twist:


Elizabeth Warren's Quiet Support for Public School Vouchers

Click to expand...

"At the core of the problem is the time-honored rule that where you live dictates where you go to school. Any policy that loosens the ironclad relationship between location-location-location and school-school-school would eliminate the need for parents to pay an inflated price for a home...A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly."

Click to expand...

justabubba said:

in no instance did i ask about the ICBA staff
quit avoiding the question
for what organizations do independent community bankers work
you so pressed the issue earlier, now tell us

Click to expand...

Middleground said:

I did not say that. I asked, "how many banks went under after the Great Depression reforms and the early 80s." Those years were very tightly regulated.

Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:

Nice historical rewrite. Here's another version:

. . . .Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry sincethe savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. . . .

. . . .In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.
Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
RealClearMarkets - Don't Blame Bush for Subprime Mess​

Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:

You posted a link to the ICBA site, bubba. I didn't bring up the ICBA. You did. Not sure why, except you were trying to save Cardinal who used the words "independent bank" in his first post, then refused to explain what he meant. I'm guessing you googled "independent bank" and that's how you found the ICBA link.

Community bankers work for community banks. I have no idea what an "independent community banker is". Is that as opposed to a "dependent community banker"?

Click to expand...

Middleground said:

I did not say that. I asked, "how many banks went under after the Great Depression reforms and the early 80s." Those years were very tightly regulated.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

Being that the housing bubble was largely in the middle class to weather suburbs, and not in the inner city, it is the height of absurdity to assert that the Community Reinvestment Act had much of a role. Moreover, the housing bubble was not restricted to the United States, nor was it restricted to residential real-estate as there was a huge commercial real-estate bubble as well. It all traces back to the deregulation of credit default swaps in the late 90s / early 2000s. This created a situation where a lender did not have to concern themselves with whether a loan would be repaid or not, as they would then take mortgages, bundle them into securities, and then back them with unregulated default swaps. Blame lies with both parties and more than one administration.

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

Didn't Canada largely avoid the financial crisis due to their tightly regulated banking and financial sector?

Click to expand...